Infinite Detention Without Trial - what does it mean?

BenBurch said:
What a stupid question to ask. Why do you ask it?
Click to expand...
Because I Ratant claimed that is what happened. He provided no evidence whatsoever for his claim.

Maybe you think it's "stupid" to ask for evidence of claims, but I don't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Again, you give the Taliban credibility that they never had. We have no reason to conclude that the Taliban would even think that what he did was a crime under Sharia law.



Keep that tin-foil had on nice and snug.



Once again, your own source refutes you.



I never called the Taliban "insurgents". The military certainly never did during the initial invasion either. But it's rather telling that you want to call them "patriots". At least you've made it quite clear which side you've chosen. Yet despite giving them your praise, I suspect you would never actually want to live in the kind of world they would choose to create. I guess the ability to side with your enemies and against your own interests must mark you as some sort of "intellectual".
Click to expand...
.
You "labelers" who need pigeonholes for everything really aren't amusing.
Try thinking on it from their side.
Should be a new experience.
An Afghani fighting the US invasion is not an insurgent or an enemy, he is a patriot defending his turf from the enemy.. the US and NATO.
Considering Afghanistan is hardly a real country, but only a collection of tribes whose loyalty is to the tribe, and not the country, that fighting is almost unusual in the coherence the invasion brought about.
As to a Taliban trial of OBL under Sharia, the lack of eyewitnesses would scotch that almost immediately, even if the DOJ could find an Islamic lawyer with a fist-length beard... who could go to Goodwill to get the towels and rags to dress the part... but with no eyewitnesses, no guilty verdict.
The use of economic and political sanctions instead of all-out (undeclared) war was not an option for the "Bush is the war president" attitude of his cabinet.
 
gnome said:
Can you elaborate on this? Why would the US have prosecutors in Afghanistan, and why would we expect that a court in Afghanistan at that time would provide an honest judgment of OBL?

I'm a critic of US war policy and how willing we are to jump into situations, but even this would stretch my credibility that it was a serious offer and we could expect satisfaction if we accepted it.
Click to expand...
.
I would think the Taliban would state the requirements for the US prosecutor.
He would be Islamic.
And probably have to conform to Taliban dress codes. (as mentioned above)
And the evidence would need to be eye-witnesses, not documentation.
Their court, their rules.
As to a conviction, not a chance.
The alternatives include political and economic sanctions... maybe a mass extinction of the poppy fields with something like Paraquat... but invasion???
Nope... that was a war crime.
 
Virus said:
Terrorist supporter.
Click to expand...
.
No, they were fighting the invasion of their turf by the US.
The reasons for the invasion may not have been known to them, and, I bet they wouldn't care what Al Quaeda did to the US.
 
BenBurch said:
I argued at the time to let them. This would have put OBL in a known place at a known time. Once you have that, you can name the crater after him.
Click to expand...
.
That'd be a good idea!
Woulda saved a bunch of lives on all sides.
 
WildCat said:
Were the German saboteurs dropped off on Long Island during WWII (2 of which were German-born US citizens who went back to Germany to fight for the Nazis) engaged in combat during their capture? Was there a "Battle of Long Island" I never heard about?


http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

If you don't think that meets Constitutional requirements do explain how. And "war" is a term that doesn't appear in the Geneva Conventions, "armed conflict" does. Do you think that there is no armed conflict against al Qaida and the Taliban et al?
Click to expand...
'
AUMF is a unilateral "declaration of war", if that, against unknown adversaries. A blanket one-size-fits-all excuse for invasions.
.
Wow, I never have seen that argument outside the 9/11 conspiracy theories section. You really think the Taliban were going to turn over OBL? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, it's the Brooklyn model and it's CHEAP! Interested?
Click to expand...
.
Of course the Taliban wouldn't turn over OBL.
But they had the opportunity, did they?
The US made no effort to even try it their way.
 
I Ratant said:
'
AUMF is a unilateral "declaration of war", if that, against unknown adversaries. A blanket one-size-fits-all excuse for invasions.
.
Click to expand...
By "one size fits all" you mean against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"?

I Ratant said:
Of course the Taliban wouldn't turn over OBL.
But they had the opportunity, did they?
The US made no effort to even try it their way.
Click to expand...
They had the opportunity, they chose to stick with their al Qaida allies instead.

What you suggest is just preposterous.
 
I Ratant said:
.
You "labelers" who need pigeonholes for everything really aren't amusing.
Try thinking on it from their side.
Should be a new experience.
Click to expand...

I'm a "labeler" (sp) because I recognize the Taliban as being evil? I'm a "labeler" because I think it's wrong to stone people to death for being homosexual, or to deny girls any education, or to beat women for showing their face in public?

I HAVE thought about it from their side. That doesn't incapacitate my ability to think rationally and draw moral conclusions. Apparently it does for you. Hell, apparently it incapacitates you from distinguishing fact from fiction, since you keep getting your facts wrong.

As to a Taliban trial of OBL under Sharia, the lack of eyewitnesses would scotch that almost immediately, even if the DOJ could find an Islamic lawyer with a fist-length beard... who could go to Goodwill to get the towels and rags to dress the part... but with no eyewitnesses, no guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

So remind me why we should have accepted the Taliban's offer, because you now seem to be making the case for me as to why it was a farce from the start.

The use of economic and political sanctions instead of all-out (undeclared) war was not an option for the "Bush is the war president" attitude of his cabinet.
Click to expand...

Well, duh! The Taliban were already facing pretty much maximum sanctions. The threat of invasion didn't make a difference. Actual invasion didn't make a difference. Why the hell would they care about economic and political sanctions? This argument is as hollow as your now self-refuted claim about putting bin Laden on trial.
 
I Ratant said:
An Afghani fighting the US invasion is not an insurgent or an enemy, he is a patriot defending his turf from the enemy.. the US and NATO.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the Taliban are targeting Afghan civilians as well as NATO forces...

They don't care to protect Afghans from an invasion, they care to keep control of the country. The Taliban are a parasitic entity.
 
WildCat said:
Were the German saboteurs dropped off on Long Island during WWII (2 of which were German-born US citizens who went back to Germany to fight for the Nazis) engaged in combat during their capture? Was there a "Battle of Long Island" I never heard about?
Click to expand...

The prosecution, as there was an almost immediate trial, had a confession, a massive sum of money, explosives, German uniforms, papers, etc, etc. That's radically different from many cases where people are picked up and held for years without trial.
 
I actually see above that I Ratant described some possibilities involving sanctions, etc. Missed that in my last post.

I can only say that I was comfortable using military force against an organization that had attacked us, and overturning a regime actively protecting them. Ask me about Iraq and you'll get a different answer.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm a "labeler" (sp)
Click to expand...

Uh...I'm pretty sure that labeler is an accepted spelling, even if it's a weird word to use, since it's typically talking about machines. Here's some links as evidence, I guess.

http://www.amazon.com/Brother-PT-70-Personal-Handheld-function/dp/B000L513ZU

http://www.officedepot.com/a/browse/electronic-and-automatic-label-makers/N=5+509761/ (this one has like 30 things on it called "labelers")

http://www.epilabelers.com/

It's kind of a nitpick, but then again you're pulling out the "heh you misspelled something let me just throw a [sic] in there" non-argument, so I guess I should defend the integrity of labeling machines everywhere, because why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom