...tried in new york?! wtf man

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

I don't care what you think. It's not my problem if you are unable to logically connect the dots. And on that note, since the personal attacks have begun, I'm done with this thread.

probably for the best

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

initially i wanted to but the laughing emoticon here but on reflection, i am actually more embarrassed for you than anything else

^ lol @ this guy.

so of all the things he could have posted, he instead: cries more -- about other's thoughts.

















----------
















so now we have to appease the public by relinquishing our guard against an act of war, and settle instead for something less than a military tribunal? i'm not talking about patriotic lunacy, or nationalistic thraldom, but rather... balls in fukcing battle; grow some.

ffs dude, true law states that good fails when it makes a deal with evil. FYI both those terms are relative.

[toasty]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

Pop quiz, folks -- can someone explain the difference between a criminal court and a military tribunal? I've never seen so many people in this country with such a hard-on for a "military tribunal," and I'd bet dollars to donuts that 95% of people clamoring for a military tribunal have no fucking idea what it is and why it makes a difference.

Here's the thing, though -- why exactly are we afraid of the rule of law? Isn't that the cornerstone of our system of justice? Shouldn't we want to convict these guys using the normal justice system, to provide it with some legitimacy? It's not that I think that these guys are entitled to the Constitutional protections we give to our citizens, but those protections do not mean that these guys get off free and clear. Is it that we tortured these folks, and you're afraid that they'll get off because of it? Well, perhaps we should have thought about that before torturing them to begin with, but in specific response to those concerns, yes, we did torture them, and no, they aren't going to get off.

Folks seriously need to calm the fuck down about this and think about it in real world terms. Does there exist a judge or jury in this country, let alone in Manhattan, that is going to let these guys off? People spend so much time adhering themselves to their sides' respective talking point du jour lately, no one seems to bother to think about the realities of the situation. It just doesn't matter.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

i agree that our judicial system reflects our keynote as a nation, and that we should use it by all means as an arbiter.

the reality is this though:

since our legal system has become so corrupted and tainted in our overall population's observation -- it would be more fitting, and rectifying to have this act of war tried on the corresponding level.

it's not a matter of whether they get let off or not, but a matter of impression. come on, obama didn't win because he had the soundest policies; he won because of the commanding impression he laid on the individual in need of some change and hope; and our nation desperately needs it, but not this asphyxiating paralysis of indecision.

politics does not govern our nation, nor the world; it is merely a vain control by those in power. what governs it's direction is right choices, and whether we rise or fall as a race; this we do together.

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

i'm not crying at others thoughts. I am just surprised at how ignorant people can be. Clearly all the things i could have posted would be a waste of time if you think evidence obtained during torture should be admitted in trial.

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

Pop quiz, folks -- can someone explain the difference between a criminal court and a military tribunal? I've never seen so many people in this country with such a hard-on for a "military tribunal," and I'd bet dollars to donuts that 95% of people clamoring for a military tribunal have no fucking idea what it is and why it makes a difference.

Here's the thing, though -- why exactly are we afraid of the rule of law? Isn't that the cornerstone of our system of justice? Shouldn't we want to convict these guys using the normal justice system, to provide it with some legitimacy? It's not that I think that these guys are entitled to the Constitutional protections we give to our citizens, but those protections do not mean that these guys get off free and clear. Is it that we tortured these folks, and you're afraid that they'll get off because of it? Well, perhaps we should have thought about that before torturing them to begin with, but in specific response to those concerns, yes, we did torture them, and no, they aren't going to get off.

Folks seriously need to calm the fuck down about this and think about it in real world terms. Does there exist a judge or jury in this country, let alone in Manhattan, that is going to let these guys off? People spend so much time adhering themselves to their sides' respective talking point du jour lately, no one seems to bother to think about the realities of the situation. It just doesn't matter.

it matters because it can't be right to make people admit to stuff under torture and then execute them on the basis of that admission behind closed doors. Surely anyone can see that this is plain wrong? These guys will get the justice they deserve if it is proved that they did what it is accused they did in a court of law.

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

^ lol @ this guy.

so of all the things he could have posted, he instead: cries more -- about other's thoughts.

















----------
















so now we have to appease the public by relinquishing our guard against an act of war, and settle instead for something less than a military tribunal? i'm not talking about patriotic lunacy, or nationalistic thraldom, but rather... balls in fukcing battle; grow some.

ffs dude, true law states that good fails when it makes a deal with evil. FYI both those terms are relative.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

uhm, yes you verily are. you did it once without validating more that u did the first time.

wow, so you are using the torture is illegitimate when ruling bullocks? i blame our sense of normalcy and lack of urgency as a conglomerate on that.

the viet cong used to slip bamboo slivers up fingernails, stick a electrical charge up the urethra of our troops cocks, and peel the eyelids off our troops in vietnam. torture is grim, but at least we only used water boarding and such (as cruel as that was). obviously, the glamor, illusion and idleness has obscured our urgent perception with regards to this critical moment.

either way, shit isn't a stroll in the park, always. sometimes we need to be firm with austere ruth, and armed with the scimitar of reason.

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

i cannot read what you have posted at all

"more that you did the first time"

what is a ruling bull?

what has the vietcong got to do with a civilized country like America?

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

i edit as i go dude; i dont worry what others may think in the process. go cry more, and read again.

---

so you think that because we tortured them, and ascertained vital intel in the process, that it's not valid? it simply has nothing to do with the vietcong -- because we are america, and not the north viet cong -- when it comes to dealing with POW.

aside from what might have really happened on 9/11, the issue of radical islam still stands; and these radicals wanna go down as martyrs -- regardless of their dished out punishment -- at the hands of an attacked nation, by them.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

i cannot read what you have posted at all

"more that you did the first time"

what is a ruling bull?

what has the vietcong got to do with a civilized country like America?

sorry to say motherlover, but you do lack reading in context. i'm just saying.

[unrecogniseduser]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

you dont worry what others might think in the process? That is a bit contradictory to posting on a message board. Maybe you should just write on a bit of paper in front of you and chuckle at how humorous you are.

.....

clearly these dots are supposed to mark the transition from well, nonsense into reasonable discussion, so i will try again. I think that the intel obtained from prisoners is certainly valid when trying stop further crimes. However, this is not the same thing as using someones words, obtained while under torture, to kill them.

I suspect the guys will fully admit to everything in court and say they are glad they did it. In that event they will be punished like the scum they are in full view of everyone who suffered from what they did.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

^ what i mean is that i post spontaneously, and then edit right after my initial mistakes -- of which are are omitted (spelling, grammar, sentence structure etc. etc.). will you crymore -- just cause i'm the way i am? or will you cry even more?


so you think that bringing a scabbard to a sword fight is legitimate?

anyone who accepts things at first appearence is sure to be self-deceived.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

you dont worry what others might think in the process? That is a bit contradictory to posting on a message board. Maybe you should just write on a bit of paper in front of you and chuckle at how humorous you are.

.....

clearly these dots are supposed to mark the transition from well, nonsense into reasonable discussion, so i will try again. I think that the intel obtained from prisoners is certainly valid when trying stop further crimes. However, this is not the same thing as using someones words, obtained while under torture, to kill them.

I suspect the guys will fully admit to everything in court and say they are glad they did it. In that event they will be punished like the scum they are in full view of everyone who suffered from what they did.

lol, okay, so you think that because we might put them to death (or what ever they rule), that it's proper punishment? really, we aren't ever the ones to judge a man's life or death in a court spectacle.

in all humble honesty, i would not even seek the death penalty with this guy, cos i know that "nature" or whatever you want to call IT -- will exact proper judgment, whenev. it's not for some self exalted prosecution, or whomever to decide. i just think it would serve much better to do it in a military fashion.

[i!!ustrious]

Re: ...tried in new york?! wtf man

go on man, i'm happily unfortunate enough to be posting shitfaced. you wanna kid yourself some more? do it.