Think of Jihadis' WRONGS not their civil rights

[Rolyo85]

Not quite what she said -- her point is that once they'd dissed individual rights, we have no obligation any longer to respect theirs. It's legitimate contract theory, really -- they violated the contract, thus setting new rules, so we are quite right if we decide to use the rules they established. By their rules, we would be quite within our rights to take a bunch of airliners ready for retirement, load them with explosives, and slam them into various buildings in Muslim countries. Given that, being a little creative with questioning is nothing.

The rules are there for every occasion. Breaking them is wrong, and breaking them again in response doesn't make it right. That pesky thing about "two wrongs don't make a right". The rules should be followed at all times if we want to have ANY claim of being the better men. Otherwise we're just the guys with the bigger guns.

 

[Jack Springer]

Well, if you are ever arrested for a crime and awaiting trial, make sure to tell your jailers that. I mean, if you are arrested for the crime you will naturally be guilty, right?

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a tenet as old as our country itself and the backbone of our justice system. Why do you hate the Constitution Jack? Why do you hate America?

You care for the criminal more than the poor innocent people confined to a small room usually with someone they don't know or may not like.

That's very telling.

BTW .. I Love America.

 

[Mariatenebre]

To translate - you "know" for a fact your beliefs are "universal" and therefore the only possible correct ones.

So do the people responsible for 9/11

Furthermore, you believe that anyone who doesn't share them, does not deserve the benefit of those "universal" rights (aren't you contradicting yourself right now? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question).

So do the people responsible for 9/11

You think that because someone disrespected your beliefs and attacked you, you are justified to ignore all your supposedly "universal" beliefs and lash out in retaliation in the harshest way possible.

So do... no, wait, the people responsible for 9/11 are actually not hypocrites...

Except my beliefs are based on logic and facts and are the best ideas to create a productive society. Our beliefs on invidividual rights and human right have been proven to be logical, true and give dignity to all people regardless of belief systems. These people do not give any rights to those who reject their belief system and this view has proven to lead to some other website and the disregarding of human rights.

The basic rule to have individual rights is to respect the rights of others. It is not contradictory, people only have entry to any store or house if they respect said places rules. When they disrespect the rules their right to stay in said areas are revoked. So too when someone violates anothers individual rights they have no more rights.

When they do not respect our right to disagree with their religion and attack us then for violating our individual rights they do not have any individual rights any more. Also by universal I don't mean that individual rights applies for everyone including those that violate individual rights rather that our views on individual rights are based on logic and reason where as theirs are not. Rights are a privledge just like any other and that privledge can be revoked like any other. You again make a baseless comparison the difference is that our views grant individual rights to all people regardless of their views on anything unless a person violates the rights of another. The terrorist only grant rights and not much rights at that to those that share their belief system. Everyone else must be brutalized. So again your comparison with my views and theirs fails abysmally yet again. The fundamental difference between us is that I give individual rights to all people so long as they respect individual rights and do not violate anothers. They only give individual rights to those that follow their religion. So again we are nothing alike.

The rules are there for every occasion. Breaking them is wrong, and breaking them again in response doesn't make it right. That pesky thing about "two wrongs don't make a right". The rules should be followed at all times if we want to have ANY claim of being the better men. Otherwise we're just the guys with the bigger guns.

The problem with your statement is that when someone commits a wrong, by definition their rights are revoked and they are penialized for it. Rights are a privledge and revoking that privledge and retaliating on those who violate the rule are not the committing of two wrongs but rather just retribution. It is wrong to violate a persons rights, it is justice to take the rights away from those who violate these peoples rights. By your argument a person killing someone who is about to murder them is wrong because everyone's rights must be respected including the murderor. Once you break the rules and violate someones rights the right thing to do is have your rights taken away. The person keeping their rights is the wrong thing to do.

 

[Rolyo85]

Except my beliefs are based on logic and facts and are the best ideas to create a productive society. Our beliefs on invidividual rights and human right have been proven to be logical, true and give dignity to all people regardless of belief systems. These people do not give any rights to those who reject their belief system and this view has proven to lead to some other website and the disregarding of human rights.

The basic rule to have individual rights is to respect the rights of others. It is not contradictory, people only have entry to any store or house if they respect said places rules. When they disrespect the rules their right to stay in said areas are revoked. So too when someone violates anothers individual rights they have no more rights.

When they do not respect our right to disagree with their religion and attack us then for violating our individual rights they do not have any individual rights any more. Also by universal I don't mean that individual rights applies for everyone including those that violate individual rights rather that our views on individual rights are based on logic and reason where as theirs are not. Rights are a privledge just like any other and that privledge can be revoked like any other. You again make a baseless comparison the difference is that our views grant individual rights to all people regardless of their views on anything unless a person violates the rights of another. The terrorist only grant rights and not much rights at that to those that share their belief system. Everyone else must be brutalized. So again your comparison with my views and theirs fails abysmally yet again. The fundamental difference between us is that I give individual rights to all people so long as they respect individual rights and do not violate anothers. They only give individual rights to those that follow their religion. So again we are nothing alike.

I seriously don't get how you can contradict yourself so profoundly in the same post and not see it. You can NOT make a claim to respecting individual rights equally, and then add that you are allowed to stop respecting individual rights equally when they don't behave the way you want them to.

Whether your system is better or not is irrelevant. Of course it's better. I mean, DUH! that's not the point. The point is that it's only better as long as you stick by it even when it doesn't suit you. Once your system becomes selective, it is no system at all, but a vain pretense.

 

[Jack Springer]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he was arrested .....

KSM today ....

Looks clean, well fed to me.

Today at his trial the defense demanded that all women dress in islamic garb so that they would not offend the KSM. I wanted to go down there myself and chop his head off with the bacon greased sword.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

How does a reasonable person possibly get this:

You care for the criminal more than the poor innocent people confined to a small room usually with someone they don't know or may not like.

From this?

Well, if you are ever arrested for a crime and awaiting trial, make sure to tell your jailers that. I mean, if you are arrested for the crime you will naturally be guilty, right?

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a tenet as old as our country itself and the backbone of our justice system.

I guess you've given up even PRETENDING to accurately represent what other posters are saying when you answer?

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Today at his trial the defense demanded that all women dress in islamic garb so that they would not offend the KSM. I wanted to go down there myself and chop his head off with the bacon greased sword.

While I won't go QUITE as far as you on this one Jack, you may be surprised that I am in total agreement with you on the Islamic garb. If his defense attorney wants to honor that request that is her business (he is, after all, her client) but the defense is overstepping by a huge degree to request the same of the other women in the room. See Jack, even WE can agree sometimes!

 

[Mariatenebre]

I seriously don't get how you can contradict yourself so profoundly in the same post and not see it. You can NOT make a claim to respecting individual rights equally, and then add that you are allowed to stop respecting individual rights equally when they don't behave the way you want them to.

Whether your system is better or not is irrelevant. Of course it's better. I mean, DUH! that's not the point. The point is that it's only better as long as you stick by it even when it doesn't suit you. Once your system becomes selective, it is no system at all, but a vain pretense.

I am not contradicting myself, you however are so warped by pacifism that you can not see reason. Individual rights do not apply equally to everyone including those who do not respect it. I believe I have made that clear. It applies to those who respect the rights of others regardless of what they think. However once you violate the rights of another like any privledge it is revokable.

Next of course we should be selective about individual rights. We should be selective in all things. Do you think that someone has the right to be on another person's property if they disrespect your rules? Of course they should not like wise does individual rights only apply to those who respect it. Saying that it should apply to all even if they don't respect the rules makes the rules utterly meaningless as everyone has the same right to human rights even if they do not respect it and violate it then the rules really have no value because if people still retain their rights and privledge when they break the rules then the rules mean nothing because that basically gives you the freedom to reject invididual rights and violate the rights of another and still retain your privledge making individual rights have no meaning because no one has to follow this rule to have them if they do not want. Thus everyone has rights but it dosen't matter anyways as you have the freedom to reject them and still retain your rights. Again your ideas lead to Chaos and the eradication of individual rights. Individual rights like every right is a privledge that can and will be revoked if you do not follow them and only this leads to a cohesive society. If everyone has individual rights including those that reject it, then it is the same as saying that no one has individual rights because both fundamentally lead to the same thing.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Rights are a privledge just like any other

ummmmmmm.......no, this is blatantly and completely wrong. Rights are rights and privileges are privileges.

Certain rights (liberty and the right to vote for example) can be revoked after a CONVICTION, but that is only after a fair trial, which is precisely the due process we are discussing here. Rights cannot be revoked for any other reason.

 

[Rolyo85]

Rights does not mean lack of punishment. It means that regardless of your crimes, you follow the same punitive procedures as anyone else. This is all I'm saying and this is what you're arguing against. When you commit a crime, you forfeit your freedom and you are subject of a sanction. However, we can NOT in good conscience say "if you kill one person you will stand trial, but if you kill thousands we'll stone you to death without trial". This is all I'm saying, it has NOTHING to do with pacifism (I am insanely bloodthirsty, which is why I should never be allowed to be part of a jury), and everything to do with equal rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Today at his trial the defense demanded that all women dress in islamic garb so that they would not offend the KSM. I wanted to go down there myself and chop his head off with the bacon greased sword.

Had I been the judge I would have asked if he thought he was in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the response, I would have made clear that the United States of America is not a religious nation -- not a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation, not a Jewish nation, not a Buddhist nation, not a Zoroastrian nation -- and thus no preferences or prejudices of any religious nature would be bowed to in the courtroom, so any form of dress deemed respectable by the judge would be permitted, but nothing would be required. I wouldn't even have let the other side comment on the idiocy.

 

[Kulindahr]

While I won't go QUITE as far as you on this one Jack, you may be surprised that I am in total agreement with you on the Islamic garb. If his defense attorney wants to honor that request that is her business (he is, after all, her client) but the defense is overstepping by a huge degree to request the same of the other women in the room. See Jack, even WE can agree sometimes!

Someone should organize a contingent of (good-looking) women to show up as scantily dressed as possible and still be respectful to the court. If they protest, the judge should say that if the defendant is not mature enough to be able to control basic impilses or even his own body (i.e. eyes), perhaps he should go back to confinement, but somewhere that he can be taught to be a man.

 

[JB3]

Had I been the judge I would have asked if he thought he was in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the response, I would have made clear that the United States of America is not a religious nation -- not a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation, not a Jewish nation, not a Buddhist nation, not a Zoroastrian nation -- and thus no preferences or prejudices of any religious nature would be bowed to in the courtroom, so any form of dress deemed respectable by the judge would be permitted, but nothing would be required. I wouldn't even have let the other side comment on the idiocy.

The military lawyers on the prosecution commented something to the effect of "This isn't even worth responding to".

One of his lawyers, a female, has only ever appeared in a hijab with her clients, and said she thinks its disrespectful for women not to. Their argument for forcing the females in the court to dress modestly is that its somehow offensive to their clients, and that seeing the women dressed in non-Islamic clothes would distract them from the case.

The 'distracting' and 'sin inducing' clothing? Knee length skirts on three female members of the prosecution team.

Somehow I don't see this request ending well for the defense...

 

[Ninja108]

He is entitled to a fair trial. To do otherwise would simply accomplish another goal the terrorists set out to do that day. To get the U.S. to go down to their level.
And no chance1,it doesn't mean we're terrorist lovers or have forgotten the victims. At some point,KSM will be found guilty and when he is,he should get the chance to meet his maker like he wants.

 

[archive]

You can't make this shit up. I needed a laugh.

 

[EastMed]

Apparently these defendants are being accommodated at a holiday resort in Cuba (with gorgeous beaches nearby), and at American expense.
And they are complaining?
The ungrateful wretches!

Guantánamo's 9/11 show trials | Anthony Romero | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Benvolio]

There is no excuse for taking ten years to bring a criminal case to trial. How is that consistent with the presumption of innocence?

 

[Rolyo85]

So, Chance, are you going to respond to my idiotically simple question about how old you were on 9/11? Seeing as how we obviously need to show credentials to be eligible for this discussion.

 

[palemale]

Chance, no one is disregarding the magnitude of the horror the defendants are accused of perpetrating or the pain and destruction it caused to the victims.

However, when it comes time for a trial of the accused in this, or any crime, it is about seeing that justice is done and that the guilty are punished. For better or worse, we have set up a process in this country, guaranteed by the US Constitution, that provides every accused with due process of the law. It's an adversarial system, with rules of procedure and evidence that seek to eliminate emotion. For example, there is a rule of evidence that permits the judge to exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . .." A judge is not permitted to make rulings based on his perception that the defendants are horrible people accused of a heinous crime. Justice cannot be done if the weight of the evidence is tainted by efforts of prosecutors or defense attorneys to introduce evidence that inflames the jury against the accused or a witness against the accused. Keep in mind, sometimes the prosecution relies on some pretty unsavory characters to prove a case. Evidence of a witness' sliminess may be minimally relevant, but it may not proper to admit it at trial in order to prejudice a jury weighing his testimony.

The protections in our system guarantee that every person accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. This isn't something 20th Century liberals thought up. It's origins go back to the Roman Empire, is something virtually every democracy has incorporated into their law, and which is understood to be enshrined in our own constitution through the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

So, the first responder whose article you cited is justifiably angry about what he and his fellow victims suffered on 9/11. Witnessing any trial can be an unpleasant, and at times enraging, experience. But anger and emotion is no basis to operate a system of justice. I'm no different than anyone else. If I read about a horrible crime in the newspaper or see it reported on the news, my initial impulse is that I'd like to take a baseball bat to the people who committed the crime. I myself have been the victim of a violent crime. It was the first time in my life I thought I might die and the first time I realized that I had the capacity to kill someone, so visceral was my rage at the people who perpetrated the crime against me. Despite my personal experience with being a crime victim, and having friends who had also been victims of violent crime, I still strongly support the protections of our system that are supposed to guarantee the due process of law.

 

[palemale]

and you're not from here and honestly know nothing about 911

That's not a fair criticism. I'm from here. I could see the buildings burning from my neighborhood. I live below 14th Street, where the National Guard set up a cordon to prevent people from coming into lower Manhattan. We were like a ghost town for days, isolated from the rest of the city. We couldn't even call out, the Verizon switching station servicing our neighborhood was destroyed. There was no cell phone service. I went with a friend to his apartment near the WTC to retrieve some of his belongings. I stood at the base of the "pile" only days after the attack. My apartment was filled with the smell of the burning building for over a week, the neighborhood was filled with the smell for months.

I live close enough to St. Vincent's hospital that every day I left my apartment, the neighborhood was plastered with leaflets put up by the families of the people missing, with their pictures and stories, begging for information on their loved ones. I felt like crying every day I walked outside and read those leaflets and looked at the pictures, saw the names of the people, mostly young, who I knew were dead. Thousands of these leaflets were put up all over the neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I want justice to be done with these trials. I want the perpetrators to be given every protection the system affords them, and I want the guilty parties convicted and punished. I know that there is little we as a society to minimize the pain to the families of the victims. It would have been better if these trials could have been completed years ago, enabling the families to get on with their lives. The worst thing about the delay is that, yet again, the families have to relive the tragedy. Let's hope for a speedy and just trial, and all move on.,