-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why terrorist and their associates should not be tried by civil law
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Are you saying it is wrong that his conviction was over-turned?
esmith
Veteran Member
that's what I am saying. you don't think so?
I think you just gave a very good illustration of why *suspected* terrorists absolutely should get trials: because there are people out there (such as yourself) who are willing to throw out due process when it doesn't give the result they want.
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Good. The Court of Appeal is clearly impartial and uncowed by Fox News.
tytlyf
Not Religious
You keep shooting first and aiming later.
esmith
Veteran Member
naw a 62gr FMJBT is due process for a terrorist or associate of a terrorist.
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Terrorism is murder, torture, unaccountability and mahem.
The rule of law is the complete opposite. Seems bizarre to me that anyone would claim to be against terror and yet for it at the same time.
esmith
Veteran Member
War is hell, some lose some win. I would rather be on the winning side. As John Wayne said in the move "Green Berets", "out here, due process is a bullet".
no-body
Well-Known Member
At least you're honest about it.
It's more refreshing to hear this than that we are committing atrocities against humanity to keep America safe.
I'd prefer a 168gr HPBT, but what was the guy convicted of?
esmith
Veteran Member
"material support of a terrorist. which the prosecution said was a violated the law of war referenced" in U.S. law"
court said " providing material support for terrorism wasn't made a crime under U.S. law until well after he was detained by the U.S. in 2001."
in other words he was providing material support for terrorism, but because it wasn't against the law at the time he can't be convicted.
Alceste
Vagabond
"material support of a terrorist. which the prosecution said was a violated the law of war referenced" in U.S. law"
court said " providing material support for terrorism wasn't made a crime under U.S. law until well after he was detained by the U.S. in 2001."
in other words he was providing material support for terrorism, but because it wasn't against the law at the time he can't be convicted.
Yes, that is how the law works. You can't arrest people you don't like, then write new laws that make something they've done a criminal offense.
What's the problem?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Its funny to see how Americans don't want to follow the constitution, you cannot trial someone that didn't break the law.
I am not an American but i know that the constitution says that a person is judged on the law that existed in that time so that's why he is released.
Remember that in Guantanamo bay there are several 100 innocent people who have never been tried, even a 15 year old Pakistan boy there you go America with your human rights.
I am not an American but i know that the constitution says that a person is judged on the law that existed in that time so that's why he is released.
Remember that in Guantanamo bay there are several 100 innocent people who have never been tried, even a 15 year old Pakistan boy there you go America with your human rights.
Last edited:
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
Well you can but then you are Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.
Alceste
Vagabond
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
And that sums up why I am so keenly interested in US politics.
No show trials, no purges, no kangaroo courts, boring. We could have street justice you know where we lynch people for crimes we suspect them of...oh wait.
"material support of a terrorist. which the prosecution said was a violated the law of war referenced" in U.S. law"
court said " providing material support for terrorism wasn't made a crime under U.S. law until well after he was detained by the U.S. in 2001."
in other words he was providing material support for terrorism, but because it wasn't against the law at the time he can't be convicted.
Why do you hate the American constitution?