http://www.msnbc.com/news/764658.asp?0na=x22135N1- http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/10/dirty.bomb.suspect/index.html Good Save guys! I wonder how many attempts they have stopped so far? Thank You!
Look where the info may have come from: "U.S. officials said the primary information about Al Mujahir came from Abu Zubaydah, the most senior al Qaeda figure captured by U.S. authorities." Looks like he is giving up some helpful info after all and not just lying his tail off while in custody. That is good work. They must have been tracking his name in the airline flight system database or something. I would love to have seen the look on his face when he stepped off the plane and was surrounded by agents. That would have been priceless.
This guy is a U.S. citizen that is now being held in custody in a Navy brig as a POW. This could be the topic of a very interesting debate, because his constitutional rights have been withdrawn. Do you trust government enough to allow it to arbitrarily decide who should be protected by the constitution? Will citizens who "get in the way" mysteriously become connected to Al Queda and disappear? As a conservative, this situation makes me VERY nervous.
I see your point, but that sounds a little too "X-fileish" to me. They arrested him because he is a terrorist, we are at war with terrorism. So he is a "enemy combatant" aka POW. He revoked his US citizenship when he decided to attack the US, so he revokes his constitutional privileges. I trust them to decide to arrest someone who wants to blow up a radioactive bomb and kill thousands of innocent people. I am for preemptive actions that STOP terrorism.
I agree, I am being paranoid, and you offer good points. I just want to see a process that protects the average citizen. If we give government unrestricted power in these situation, that power WILL be abused. To sum up the current situation- we have stripped a citizen of his rights because of the testimony of a known terrorist who has every motive to disinform his captors. This is a mighty slippery slope!
We are also (and have been for many many years) at war on drugs. Does this mean that alleged drug dealers/users can have their US citizenship revoked and their constitutional rights stripped? What about ordinary alleged murderers? Serial killers? This is a very slippery slope and I do not like it at all.
Well I guess we could try this clown just like any other US citizen just so he can benefit from the very rights he tried to destroy.
Using your logic, a murderer who steal the "right to life" when he kills a person does not deserve a trial?
The story is still unfolding, but a known terrorist was able to <i>pluck</i> the name of an innocent US citizen out of <i>thin air</i> and detail enough particulars to warrant the arrest? Dylan, The <i>war on drugs</i> is a figure of speech that you are probably aware of. Mango
No, the drugs would lose their rights, since we are engaging a war on drugs, not drug dealers. I think it's funny that we thwarted this attack, that could potentially save many many lives and much suffering, and we complain about how he is tried, even though this person is apparently loyal and a member of a terrorist organization. But I digress......
Well I guess we could try this clown just like any other US citizen just so he can benefit from the very rights he tried to destroy. So I guess you don't believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" concept?
I think it's funny that we thwarted this attack, that could potentially save many many lives and much suffering, and we complain about how he is tried, even though this person is apparently loyal and a member of a terrorist organization. I find it funny that many of us have completely lost any regard for due process when it becomes a tad bit inconvenient. It's great that we caught him. Why not try him like any other US citizen? If we have the proof, there shouldn't be a problem.....
It has nothing to do with inconvenience to me. I also have not lost any regard for due process. However, these military tribunals are in place for a reason. If the story is true, the guy is a terrorist. I am all for playing by the rules. But if the rules ALLOW for him to be tried in a military tribunal, then so be it.
So you are 100% sure about this? You feel completely confident that a beleaguered Justice Department attempting to publicly rehabilitate itself and a terrorist in custody plea bargining are telling you the whole truth? If you are wrong, does it matter that a man was deprived of his rights, or is he just a victim of the times?
Two problems here: 1. I don't think there is any law that states if you "attack" the US, you are automatically no longer a US citizen. This certainly wasn't the case with Timothy McVeigh, so why would we change it now? Plus, what exactly constitutes an "attack"? Bombing a federal building? Bombing a US flag factory? Burning an American flag in public? Writing something bad about America in a newspaper? Slippery slope as always. 2. How can we revoke his citizenship, before we've tried him and find him guilty of the crime? And, so, if we can't yet revoke his citizenship, then how can we not try him in a normal court of law as opposed to a military tribunal?
100% sure about what? Do I feel completely confident the Justice Dept. is telling us everything? No. I am only responding on what I read in the article. I can play "what if" all day long and never get anywhere.
