Saddam went after the citizenry of Kuwait, didn't he? We went after Saddam and his military forces. Was Saddam pretending to liberate anyone or just pilfering for his own coffers?
Like Jose Padilla? By my reading, the guy seems guilty. So you're OK with scrapping that whole due-process, fair-trial concept if someone seems guilty to you?
Do you think he was over here as a tourist? No, he lives here. He's American citizen, you know. Are you here as a tourist?
Major: I'm definitely in favor of scrapping due-process for shop lifters. Padilla is accused of "shopping" for dirty bomb sites, right? He has an Arab name and he had not been living in the US when he was caught back here allegedly site-shopping, correct? Further isn't he a known Al-Qaeda associate or at least a very firm suspect. You make it sound like he was whisked away from one of the National Lampoon Vacation capers...
1st. How many times has W said that this war is not against muslims, and then how many times does the casualties contradict the message that he is spreading. North Korea has proved to have Nukes, but George pulls his panties up and seems to turn his head the other way around. They have said that they HAVE a nuke, but I don't see any troops there. 2. Many don't join the fight but are forced upon. Many had been serving the government through right and wrong. There were many Nazi soldiers that were doing what they were told. It was either their life or the life of a Jew. Its a similar theme in this war. Many innocent people are killed. Many didn't ask for the fight. They just want foreigners out of their country.
I'm definitely in favor of scrapping due-process for shop lifters. Padilla is <B>accused of</B> "shopping" for dirty bomb sites, right? He has an Arab name and he had not been living in the US when he was caught back here <B>allegedly</B> site-shopping, correct? Further isn't he a known Al-Qaeda associate or at least a very firm <B>suspect</B>. The whole point of due process is to convert those "accused of" and "suspected of"s to "guilty of". If there's evidence of it, that's not a problem. If there's not, then what are we judging him on? In the America I like to live in, we don't jail people based on accusations, but on proof. The country you're thinking of is a fascism. Damn that concept of presumed innocence!
I used that language to appease you; don't think I fell into some trap. You don't think they have evidence? Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Doyou think they just plucked Padilla off the street for no good reason? Due process is part of our civilian court system not military justice-- at least for the enemy. In the America I would like to live in, we don't have terrorists come to our shores and destroy our monuments... but wishing doesn't make it so.
Originally posted by adeelsiddiqui 1st. How many times has W said that this war is not against muslims, and then how many times does the casualties contradict the message that he is spreading. North Korea has proved to have Nukes, but George pulls his panties up and seems to turn his head the other way around. They have said that they HAVE a nuke, but I don't see any troops there. <b>Show me how, when or where we are killing people just because they are Muslim and I will concede the point. We can't help it if most or all of the enemy are Muslim. I wonder if any American Muslims have been slain in this war on terror? I know they were on 9/11.</b> 2. Many don't join the fight but are forced upon. Many had been serving the government through right and wrong. There were many Nazi soldiers that were doing what they were told. It was either their life or the life of a Jew. Its a similar theme in this war. Many innocent people are killed. Many didn't ask for the fight. They just want foreigners out of their country. <b>Many have surrendered; some perhaps didn't have the chance. It's a war. Things get ugly. Unfair things happen. I don't know how to change that. Do you?</b>
Giddyup. I never really was into the whole the war is against us Muslims ala hitler and his crimes. But what I wanted to prove was if he was truly fair, wouldnt N. Korea have been taken action against. I mean I still haven't seen one Korean casualty since the Axis of Evil has been invented
You don't think they have evidence? Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Doyou think they just plucked Padilla off the street for no good reason? Due process is part of our civilian court system not military justice-- at least for the enemy. The Bush admin has been terribly inconsistant thus far.. Okay.. We have the 20th Hijacker Zacarious Mousaui (or however you spell his name) a NON US citizen being granted full due proccess (I realize that has since changed) But.. It was happening.. So around the same time they pick up John Walker Lindh fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.. He ends up pleaing out in Fed court.. Even Tim Mcveigh was tried in Fed Court.. Its inconsistant... If you're an American citizen, you should be afforded the protections of the Constitution, period.. We have checks and balances... They have a place and reason, and we've been able to survive for 200 plus years in this great nation with them.. There's no reason to change that now.. That said, I am fully in favor of Military tribunal for non citizen..
Don't need to fight them all at once. Maybe one good vanquishing will help put the others in line (Libya?). Wasn't the Axis of Evil actually invented by Bill Clinton? There has been no linkage nor is there a likely linkage between North Korea and the kind of terrorism that has come to us in the past 15 years-- highlighted by the events of 9/11.
Originally posted by Murdock The Bush admin has been terribly inconsistant thus far.. Okay.. We have the 20th Hijacker Zacarious Mousaui (or however you spell his name) a NON US citizen being granted full due proccess (I realize that has since changed) But.. It was happening.. <b>I don't see how or why you are laying this one on the Bush Administration. Didn't they fight that? That was the doing of someone in a Federal Court somewhere-- which has little to do with the Bush Administration.</b> So around the same time they pick up John Walker Lindh fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.. He ends up pleaing out in Fed court.. <b>Lindh was lucky. I think the scale of his crime is the only thing that saved his ass. They couldn't prove that he did very much... if anything. Padilla was apparently part of pre-planning for a decimation by dirty bomb.</b> Even Tim Mcveigh was tried in Fed Court.. <b>Tim McVeigh was not view as a combatant. There was no war involved. His was an isolated act of terrorism and he is dead already.</b> Its inconsistant... If you're an American citizen, you should be afforded the protections of the Constitution, period.. We have checks and balances... They have a place and reason, and we've been able to survive for 200 plus years in this great nation with them.. There's no reason to change that now.. <b>I think on closer inspection, these three situations are each unique and seem to me anyway to have landed in their proper jurisdiction. The hardest to tell is Padilla because we know so little, but apparently they know enough to have taken the course of action that they did. I hardly think it is in the US government's interest to harass people casually. </b> That said, I am fully in favor of Military tribunal for non citizen.. <b>What crime would you charge these US citizens with who raise their arms against the US?</b>
http://intersiderale.collectifs.net/article.php3?id_article=377 The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes "The purposes of the United Nations are . . . To maintain international peace and sovereignty, and to that end : to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removals of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace . . ." Article 2 states that all member states "shall act in accordance with the following Principles" ". . . All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations . . ." Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush’s threatened attack, are to be suppressed and force is used only as a last and unavoidable resort. The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath of the devastation and suffering of World War II. The Charter was enacted to bring an end to acts of aggression, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are required to be resolved *by peaceful means.* Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes," requires countries to "first of all, seek a resolution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
Just because Saddam was also Muslim you are relating him to Al Qaeda. If not than what was the link between them both. NONE. To this day there is no link, So if you are saying that Iraq was a bigger threat (coz of possibly having Nukes), than North Korea(claims it has Nukes). Then you are just using an analogy that Iraq is a bigger threat because it is run by muslims, and that goes back to the whole argument about is this war against Islam or terrorism
I don't see how or why you are laying this one on the Bush Administration. Didn't they fight that? That was the doing of someone in a Federal Court somewhere-- which has little to do with the Bush Administration. It is completely up to the Administration as to if a person is declared an "Enemy combatant" and has to face a military tribunal.. Although I could be mistaken, but that is my understanding I think on closer inspection, these three situations are each unique and seem to me anyway to have landed in their proper jurisdiction. The hardest to tell is Padilla because we know so little, but apparently they know enough to have taken the course of action that they did. I hardly think it is in the US government's interest to harass people casually. Perhaps they did, but I still have a hard time understanding how a non citizen is worthy of representation (Mousaui) and a Citizen isn't (Padilla) ... Its a slippery slope... The checks and balances are there for a reason, and the transparancy is the strength of the US Judicial system.. What crime would you charge these US citizens with who raise their arms against the US? Terrorism, and whatever else they can charge them with.. The key here is to remain as transparent as possible (as long as national security is not jepordized) and consitutional protection are upheld...
This is not a "war against Islam", it is a war that was declared ON US by militant muslim extremists who want to kill us.
Ok, thats great. War against Al Qaeda. They started it, They got it right back up their ass right, Well how does Iraq fit into this. Please explain to me how Iraq and AlQaeda are even remotely related. And if the war to Iraq is at all justified heres another question. Wasn't N. Korea a more imminent threat than Iraq?
Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism. Kim Jong Il did not (to the best of my knowledge). Therefor, Hussein is part of the war on terror and Kim is not.
