Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't indict the enemy. You defeat them. Sometimes by killing them.

Aren't you goin Commando on us? Rambo Ravi -- has a nice ring to it..

Too bad you only joined in 2009, because I'd love to go back and read your thoughts about "enemy combatants" and "due process" when Bush was in office...

I'll tell you what my thoughts were.

Due process applies to people when they are taken into custody. The people in Gitmo are entitled to due process. It was always my belief that it would have better to kill them on the battlefield since that isn't unconstitutional but detaining them forever and torturing them violates due process.

If this idiot Al Awaki had been doing what he's done during the Bush administration I would have had no problem with a drone being launched up his ass.

Now tell me why you believe we should indict the enemy.

Really is that what you said?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

 

[Ravi]

Look Ravi: You are probably not gonna believe this. But what I'm posting here is NOT personal.

It's just to make the point that POLITICALLY -- this country is incapable and undeserving of surviving.. The Hypocrisy of the party animals is just TOO DAM HIGH.. So take this not as an attack on you -- but reflective of the fact that I consider this issue to be TOO IMPORTANT to leave to ANY political hacks..

Here's how you felt about this BEFORE "your guys" were in charge...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/702632-post114.html

Okay, I actually understand where you guys are coming from now.

I agree, terrorists don't care about laws.

And I agree the military shouldn't be put in a position of holding to criminal law.

At the same time I'm not sure how to treat these people, since it seems obvious that some, if not many, of them aren't guilty of anything.

Which just convinces me that fighting terrorism is better left to law enforcement, and not the military.

Folks -- we can't survive if our core values change depending on which party is in power...

Yep...and if you keep reading the thread you'll see I said the CIA to do the detective work with the military as a back up.

Which as far as I can tell is exactly what happened in this case. The intelligence led to having the military eliminate Al-Awaki.

 

[Valerie]

Aren't you goin Commando on us? Rambo Ravi -- has a nice ring to it..

Too bad you only joined in 2009, because I'd love to go back and read your thoughts about "enemy combatants" and "due process" when Bush was in office...

I'll tell you what my thoughts were.

Due process applies to people when they are taken into custody. The people in Gitmo are entitled to due process. It was always my belief that it would have better to kill them on the battlefield since that isn't unconstitutional but detaining them forever and torturing them violates due process.

If this idiot Al Awaki had been doing what he's done during the Bush administration I would have had no problem with a drone being launched up his ass.

Now tell me why you believe we should indict the enemy.

Really is that what you said?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

So, it's just further proof of your false claim (LIE) that she doesn't care about due process...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll tell you what my thoughts were.

Due process applies to people when they are taken into custody. The people in Gitmo are entitled to due process. It was always my belief that it would have better to kill them on the battlefield since that isn't unconstitutional but detaining them forever and torturing them violates due process.

If this idiot Al Awaki had been doing what he's done during the Bush administration I would have had no problem with a drone being launched up his ass.

Now tell me why you believe we should indict the enemy.

Really is that what you said?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

So, it's just further proof of your false claim (LIE) that she doesn't care about due process...

WHEN ALL HOPE OF WINNING IS LOST CLAIM THEY LIED OTHERS MIGHT NOT SEE THAT PART. GOT IT.

 

[Valerie]

Really is that what you said?

So, it's just further proof of your false claim (LIE) that she doesn't care about due process...

WHEN ALL HOPE OF WINNING IS LOST CLAIM THEY LIED OTHERS MIGHT NOT SEE THAT PART. GOT IT.

Get a grip, I'm not trying to win anything.



We have already established over and over again in this and other threads, there is a clear legal difference regarding enemy combatants once they are DETAINED...

 

[flacaltenn]

Look Ravi: You are probably not gonna believe this. But what I'm posting here is NOT personal.

It's just to make the point that POLITICALLY -- this country is incapable and undeserving of surviving.. The Hypocrisy of the party animals is just TOO DAM HIGH.. So take this not as an attack on you -- but reflective of the fact that I consider this issue to be TOO IMPORTANT to leave to ANY political hacks..

Here's how you felt about this BEFORE "your guys" were in charge...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/702632-post114.html

Okay, I actually understand where you guys are coming from now.

I agree, terrorists don't care about laws.

And I agree the military shouldn't be put in a position of holding to criminal law.

At the same time I'm not sure how to treat these people, since it seems obvious that some, if not many, of them aren't guilty of anything.

Which just convinces me that fighting terrorism is better left to law enforcement, and not the military.

Folks -- we can't survive if our core values change depending on which party is in power...

Yep...and if you keep reading the thread you'll see I said the CIA to do the detective work with the military as a back up.

Which as far as I can tell is exactly what happened in this case. The intelligence led to having the military eliminate Al-Awaki.

Here's the prob Ravi.. As the Obama admin found out -- removing those detainees from Gitmo and pretending they were getting a public civil trial doesn't work. You will never get the CIA and the DOD to disclose methods and sources in an open court. So what we chose to do MORE THAN ONCE -- is to follow your perverted logic. We set DOZENS of them free - back to Yemen or Libya or Iraq, waited for them to attend a family wedding or funeral, and THEN instructed the CIA to "put a missile up their ass".. So much for the distinction between combatants, detainees and suspects. In fact -- estimates are that more than 70% of the released detainees were latter targeted as "enemy combatants" again..

Seems like you never solved the actual "process" for detainees. Especially not the OBAMA demand that Gitmo be closed, that military tribunals were not GOOD ENOUGH for them or exactly how TOP Secret evidence (or evidence obtained under battlefield conditions) could be handled in open PUBLIC trials..

 

[Ravi]

Look Ravi: You are probably not gonna believe this. But what I'm posting here is NOT personal.

It's just to make the point that POLITICALLY -- this country is incapable and undeserving of surviving.. The Hypocrisy of the party animals is just TOO DAM HIGH.. So take this not as an attack on you -- but reflective of the fact that I consider this issue to be TOO IMPORTANT to leave to ANY political hacks..

Here's how you felt about this BEFORE "your guys" were in charge...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/702632-post114.html



Folks -- we can't survive if our core values change depending on which party is in power...

Yep...and if you keep reading the thread you'll see I said the CIA to do the detective work with the military as a back up.

Which as far as I can tell is exactly what happened in this case. The intelligence led to having the military eliminate Al-Awaki.

Here's the prob Ravi.. As the Obama admin found out -- removing those detainees from Gitmo and pretending they were getting a public civil trial doesn't work. You will never get the CIA and the DOD to disclose methods and sources in an open court. So what we chose to do MORE THAN ONCE -- is to follow your perverted logic. We set DOZENS of them free - back to Yemen or Libya or Iraq, waited for them to attend a family wedding or funeral, and THEN instructed the CIA to "put a missile up their ass".. So much for the distinction between combatants, detainees and suspects. In fact -- estimates are that more than 70% of the released detainees were latter targeted as "enemy combatants" again..

Seems like you never solved the actual "process" for detainees. Especially not the OBAMA demand that Gitmo be closed, that military tribunals were not GOOD ENOUGH for them or exactly how TOP Secret evidence could be handled in open PUBLIC trials..

That's another conversation all together. Bush handled things badly. That the problems have still not been solved with the detainees is proof of that.

If we had not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and instead did surgical strikes on enemies or arrested them in the US we'd be well ahead of the game.

But none of that has much to do with the fact that Al-Awaki was a legitimate military target.

Nor did you explain why you feel we should indict the enemy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll tell you what my thoughts were.

Due process applies to people when they are taken into custody. The people in Gitmo are entitled to due process. It was always my belief that it would have better to kill them on the battlefield since that isn't unconstitutional but detaining them forever and torturing them violates due process.

If this idiot Al Awaki had been doing what he's done during the Bush administration I would have had no problem with a drone being launched up his ass.

Now tell me why you believe we should indict the enemy.

Really is that what you said?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

So, it's just further proof of your false claim (LIE) that she doesn't care about due process...

Not if they aren't U.S. Citizens They don't get due process, they get a military tribunal

 

[Oddball]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

It also wouldn't hurt to have said warrant be issued by an AMERICAN COURT, ferchrissakes!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

It also wouldn't hurt to have said warrant be issued by an AMERICAN COURT, ferchrissakes!

My goodness how ones opinion and political views change with a president.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

It also wouldn't hurt to have said warrant be issued by an AMERICAN COURT, ferchrissakes!

American courts don't indict the enemy.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have ever read the constitution.

 

[Valerie]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision.




They are which is precisely why the Supreme court has consistently held that the Judicial branch defers to the Executive branch in these matters, which means a warrant is not required...


Interesting you find it preferable to torture detainees in order to gain tactical info on AQ enemy combatants, but you would then require a warrant to kill said AQ enemy combatants on the battle field...?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

Why the change ravi back in 2008 you were questioning who the enemy was but now their is no question aboiut they are all the enemy.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

Why the change ravi back in 2008 you were questioning who the enemy was but now their is no question aboiut they are all the enemy.

The detainees I question the guilt of are the ones simply rounded up with no intelligence that they were terrorists.

That is not the case with Al-Awaki.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision.




They are which is precisely why the Supreme court has consistently held that the Judicial branch defers to the Executive branch in these matters, which means a warrant is not required...


Interesting you find it preferable to torture detainees in order to gain tactical info on AQ enemy combatants, but you would then require a warrant to kill said AQ enemy combatants on the battle field...?

I guess he only cares about due process when it fits his agenda.

At least he hasn't cheered on gassing convicts in prison like BuggerReb.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh I can explain why we "need to indict the enemy".. The enemy in this case isn't a foreign military. They aren't even really state-identified. So the minimum would be to indict their organization (which we apparently did with a stupid blank check Congressional Resolution with no details or restraints back in 2001). But when the "enemy" becomes AN INDIVIDUAL, especially an AMERICAN CITIZEN, before YOU get to "put a missile up his ass" --- I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision. And I DO want a PUBLIC warrant on that individual with adequate proof that he is INDEED a functional MEMBER of Al Queada. Can we do that? Too much to ask?

And "Bush handled things badly" is exactly the crap that burns me.. I see that BUSH anticipated the detainee problem, placed them under military control, and used them to extract valuable info. At least SOMEONE was making decisions. Perhaps not optimum decisions -- but that is FAR preferable to "winging it" and reversing yourself each month of the Obama admin.

I want Politicians and Bureaucrats that I can hold responsible for that decision.




They are which is precisely why the Supreme court has consistently held that the Judicial branch defers to the Executive branch in these matters, which means a warrant is not required...


Interesting you find it preferable to torture detainees in order to gain tactical info on AQ enemy combatants, but you would then require a warrant to kill said AQ enemy combatants on the battle field...?

I guess he only cares about due process when it fits his agenda.

At least he hasn't cheered on gassing convicts in prison like BuggerReb.

They got their day in court, but you seem to forget that samson made the comment that I quoted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you don't indict members of AQ. Even if they are Americans. Enemies are enemies.

Why the change ravi back in 2008 you were questioning who the enemy was but now their is no question aboiut they are all the enemy.

The detainees I question the guilt of are the ones simply rounded up with no intelligence that they were terrorists.

That is not the case with Al-Awaki.

They were picked up on the battlefield or helping our enemy, so why the change?

 

[Ravi]

Why the change ravi back in 2008 you were questioning who the enemy was but now their is no question aboiut they are all the enemy.

The detainees I question the guilt of are the ones simply rounded up with no intelligence that they were terrorists.

That is not the case with Al-Awaki.

They were picked up on the battlefield or helping our enemy, so why the change?

They weren't all picked up on the battlefield. Some of them were just bystanders.

There is no change in my opinion.