General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupermanwOOt View Post
Its pretty simple. This guy, American citizen or not, made contact with some really bad dudes while overseas and was questioned about it. If i made contact with a terrorist (whether I knew it or not) I would expect to be questioned about it and would only ask for a lawyer and/or "rights" if I knew I did something wrong.

The FBI doesn't interrogate everyone named Mohammed who steps off a plane. This guy clearly knows things/whereabouts/etc that the FBI wanted to know and clearly can't say to the news or it possibly blows everything.

They didn't kill the guy, I don't see why this is such a big deal. We already know that terrorists are not treated as citizens and I would prefer they not be personally. Otherwise they will all get US citizenship and expect their court hearings to be dragged out for 5 years.

You have a pretty deranged view of our rights as Americans. He is actually an American citizen, so your (fucking retarded) strawman about terrorists getting citizenship doesn't apply. He has all the same rights that you, or anyone else in this country, has. He is not a "terrorist" until convicted, same as any other crime. The FBI isn't infallible and doesn't (shouldn't) be above the Constitution.
Old 01-26-2011, 06:08 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

topcat989
 
topcat989's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommiePunk View Post
if you see an extremely skinny white guy at a drugstore who has open sores and is tweaking, buying 5 boxes of sudafed, is it acceptable for you to say "hmm, i bet he does meth"? or is that not okay to think?

RuHo just trolls me with the race card cause that's all he knows how to do. In other words, don't take him seriously, I don't. He's just occasional entertainment down here, they way a retard keeps smashing his head into a wall is entertaining to watch in a twisted sort of way
Old 01-26-2011, 08:27 PM topcat989 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommiePunk View Post
if you see an extremely skinny white guy at a drugstore who has open sores and is tweaking, buying 5 boxes of sudafed, is it acceptable for you to say "hmm, i bet he does meth"? or is that not okay to think?
"White" doesn't seem to be a significant qualifier here, does it? Try again, cryptoracist redneck.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 01-27-2011, 03:02 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by topcat989 View Post
RuHo just trolls me with the race card cause that's all he knows how to do. In other words, don't take him seriously, I don't. He's just occasional entertainment down here, they way a retard keeps smashing his head into a wall is entertaining to watch in a twisted sort of way

I'm not trolling you, you are a huge racist and your thousand posts displaying your virulent racism are testimony to that.

"I sure hate black people. And messicans. Not racist though, because racism means something bad and I don't like it"
-topcat989, a notch away from Samfarber
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 01-27-2011, 03:03 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

tanner9072
 
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Old 01-27-2011, 05:24 AM tanner9072 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupermanwOOt View Post
Its pretty simple. This guy, American citizen or not, made contact with some really bad dudes while overseas and was questioned about it. If i made contact with a terrorist (whether I knew it or not) I would expect to be questioned about it and would only ask for a lawyer and/or "rights" if I knew I did something wrong.

The FBI doesn't interrogate everyone named Mohammed who steps off a plane. This guy clearly knows things/whereabouts/etc that the FBI wanted to know and clearly can't say to the news or it possibly blows everything.

They didn't kill the guy, I don't see why this is such a big deal. We already know that terrorists are not treated as citizens and I would prefer they not be personally. Otherwise they will all get US citizenship and expect their court hearings to be dragged out for 5 years.

Do you know what they call people who dont get a lawyer because they are innocent and did nothing wrong?

Convicts.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 01-27-2011, 03:01 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Rapier
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
You have a pretty deranged view of our rights as Americans. He is actually an American citizen, so your (fucking retarded) strawman about terrorists getting citizenship doesn't apply. He has all the same rights that you, or anyone else in this country, has. He is not a "terrorist" until convicted, same as any other crime. The FBI isn't infallible and doesn't (shouldn't) be above the Constitution.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen and has demonstrated a proven ability to brainwash Muslims in the US to treasonous acts. There is a standing kill order on Mr. Awlaki, who is currently hiding in Yemen, despite the fact he has never been tried in a US court.

We can't pretend that prejudices don't exist and that rights and freedoms aren't subject to arbitrary suspension. It happens everyday and the people in charge get away with it for the most part.

To be quite frank, the guy was suspicious as hell and nobody is going to lose sleep over this guy. You're chasing a story that doesn't exist.
__________________
http://settingtheline.wordpress.com - Intellectually honest commentary on the issues of the day
Old 01-27-2011, 05:36 PM Rapier is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen and has demonstrated a proven ability to brainwash Muslims in the US to treasonous acts. There is a standing kill order on Mr. Awlaki, who is currently hiding in Yemen, despite the fact he has never been tried in a US court.
I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I think we can admit there's a difference between an open militant hiding out in a foreign country and someone captured in a civilian capacity. If somehow we managed to apprehend Awlaki in an airport, I doubt he'd be summarily executed.
Quote:
We can't pretend that prejudices don't exist and that rights and freedoms aren't subject to arbitrary suspension. It happens everyday and the people in charge get away with it for the most part.
Are we supposed to be comfortable with this? I accept that our rights are limited in certain situations (we can be searched in airports etc), but I have a very hard time extending that to more fundamental rights.
Quote:
To be quite frank, the guy was suspicious as hell and nobody is going to lose sleep over this guy. You're chasing a story that doesn't exist.
For me it's not so much about this kid. He seems like a scumbag. But there's a really worrying trend for people in the US to not give a shit about the rights of "the other." We're ok with discriminating against potentially illegal Hispanics, we're ok with violating all sorts of Constitutional rights for accused terrorists. It's just a bad trend.

At times it seems like the only right people want to fight for is guns, apparently forgetting that part of the reason we have a Second Amendment is so we could fight the government if they start violating our other (more fundamentally important) rights.
Old 01-27-2011, 05:49 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

Rapier
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I think we can admit there's a difference between an open militant hiding out in a foreign country and someone captured in a civilian capacity. If somehow we managed to apprehend Awlaki in an airport, I doubt he'd be summarily executed.
Right. But the point is we're obviously depriving him of due process. This is simply another exceptional circumstance. The FBI probably thought it'd be easier to get information out of this guy without letting him consult with a lawyer.

Quote:
Are we supposed to be comfortable with this? I accept that our rights are limited in certain situations (we can be searched in airports etc), but I have a very hard time extending that to more fundamental rights.
A fundamental right like freedom of speech can be curtailed in certain situations. All rights can be suspended at any time by the government if they feel it's necessary. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus for imprisoned Copperheads and FDR interned the Japanese.

Quote:
For me it's not so much about this kid. He seems like a scumbag. But there's a really worrying trend for people in the US to not give a shit about the rights of "the other." We're ok with discriminating against potentially illegal Hispanics, we're ok with violating all sorts of Constitutional rights for accused terrorists. It's just a bad trend.

At times it seems like the only right people want to fight for is guns, apparently forgetting that part of the reason we have a Second Amendment is so we could fight the government if they start violating our other (more fundamentally important) rights.
I don't think it's a bad trend at all. The prima facie case against this guy is fucking huge, and the window of opportunity is very brief. There are circumstances when the police don't need to wait for a judge to sign off on a warrant to conduct a search of private property and there are circumstances when the FBI doesn't need to immediately extend due process to a suspected terrorist.

P.S: There are very few rights more important than your second amendment right and they happen to reside in the first amendment.
__________________
http://settingtheline.wordpress.com - Intellectually honest commentary on the issues of the day
Old 01-27-2011, 07:37 PM Rapier is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

RedEyes
Boner Provider
 
RedEyes's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuHo View Post
on a side note, I guess if you go that path you have two choices:

a)by accepting interrogation and withdrawal of rights for a US citizen, you must not like the concept of rights, and would personally be the subject of a government interrogation (without your lawyer, infact with no knowledge of what's going to happen to you) through mere suspicion

b) you can accept interrogation of people named Mohammed simply because they're suspects named "Mohammed", and afterwards you can call it "racial profiling" or something like that, because it sounds better than "virulent racism"


Topcat chose b by the way, what do you pick?
this could be picking nits, but.... the name Mohammed doesn't have to mean race is involved. Just because someone's Top boyfriend is named Lucius, doesn't mean the boyfriend is black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Only if they're caught on a battlefield fighting against US or coalition troops. Otherwise they're a civilian and are fully deserving to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a jury trial, fully deserve of their right to counsel, their right to not incriminate themselves, their right to habeas corpus, etc.

The fact that this is even up for debate is absurd. The Constitution applies to ALL US citizens, and being suspected (or even caught in the act) of terrorism shouldn't invalidate that.

edit: I'm assuming you're talking about the kind of interrogation in the article, where the guy didn't get a lawyer and couldn't decline. We interrogate suspected criminals all the time, but their rights are still protected.

questions of civilian or not seem to be outmoded, don't they? and what defines a battlefield in the current paradigm? stone age versus the information age...

the basic cultural assumptions of fair play don't obtain anymore because they aren't shared.

"civilians are fair targets because they support the military complex and because we have no other ways to strike back so 'terrorism' is a legitimate tool"

"ok if we aren't playing by those rules than we can label people as XYZ and now they aren't afforded the same rights as ABC"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
The FBI probably thought it'd be easier to get information out of this guy without letting him consult with a lawyer.
enh. you'd think so, but they had the same kind of arguments against miranda warnings as well, but despite them, people still talk.
__________________
RIP BS Pegasus
10/20/06 NEVAR FORGET


We will make contact with this frequency every twelve hours. Prepare sitrep for command authority. Have hope. We're coming for you.
Old 01-29-2011, 04:15 AM RedEyes is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
Right. But the point is we're obviously depriving him of due process. This is simply another exceptional circumstance. The FBI probably thought it'd be easier to get information out of this guy without letting him consult with a lawyer.
It's an exceptional circumstance because....he might have maybe had contact with somebody who might have been a threat to the US, someday? I don't really care if the FBI thought it would be easier to get information out of him. There's no ticking time bomb here, he should still be given his rights.
Quote:
A fundamental right like freedom of speech can be curtailed in certain situations. All rights can be suspended at any time by the government if they feel it's necessary. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus for imprisoned Copperheads and FDR interned the Japanese.
Given that we haven't declared war, there's no basis for suspending rights. If they want that power, they need to follow the forms. The whole purpose of having these Constitutional rights is that they cannot be suspended at any time by the government. They're pretty much useless if they can be suspended whenever the government deems appropriate.
Quote:
I don't think it's a bad trend at all. The prima facie case against this guy is fucking huge, and the window of opportunity is very brief. There are circumstances when the police don't need to wait for a judge to sign off on a warrant to conduct a search of private property and there are circumstances when the FBI doesn't need to immediately extend due process to a suspected terrorist.
The window of opportunity was so brief that the guy could be allowed to leave Kuwait, fly commercial to the US, and then get interrogated? Yeah, I don't buy it. If he was a real threat or had real actionable intelligence potential, they'd have picked him up directly in Kuwait from the authorities there.
Old 01-29-2011, 12:32 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

Rapier
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
It's an exceptional circumstance because....he might have maybe had contact with somebody who might have been a threat to the US, someday? I don't really care if the FBI thought it would be easier to get information out of him. There's no ticking time bomb here, he should still be given his rights.
This is my actual view on the matter. The kid's obviously no real danger, but the FBI doesn't get that luxury. For them, it's better to err on the side of caution. The legal system is going to exonerate them anyways. So the logic is "who gives a shit about the right's of a Muslim teenager?" The answer is "nobody important".

Quote:
Given that we haven't declared war, there's no basis for suspending rights. If they want that power, they need to follow the forms. The whole purpose of having these Constitutional rights is that they cannot be suspended at any time by the government. They're pretty much useless if they can be suspended whenever the government deems appropriate.
You're arguing the pre-Obama era jurisprudence of the political left. This was President Obama's own view before he took office. But the fact is that we haven't declared war on anybody since WWII. Right now, there are two prevailing thoughts on jurisprudence. The first view is the "no war no game" that you're advocating. The second, and this was the argument of Justice under President Bush (also the implicit argument of Justice under Obama) that the current state of affairs justifies wartime measures because we are engaged in a form of limited warfare even if Congress hasn't explicitly declared it.

Quote:
The window of opportunity was so brief that the guy could be allowed to leave Kuwait, fly commercial to the US, and then get interrogated? Yeah, I don't buy it. If he was a real threat or had real actionable intelligence potential, they'd have picked him up directly in Kuwait from the authorities there.
It is for the FBI. They don't have foreign jurisdiction and it probably isn't worth greasing the palms of Yemeni officials to nab him there. Besides, interagency cooperation is probably not much better even after PATRIOT. The issue is to detain him and get as much information out of him once he comes into the FBI's jurisdiction and before lawyers start rushing to the scene screaming "ILLEGAL DETENTION!"
__________________
http://settingtheline.wordpress.com - Intellectually honest commentary on the issues of the day
Old 01-31-2011, 12:00 PM Rapier is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
You're arguing the pre-Obama era jurisprudence of the political left. This was President Obama's own view before he took office. But the fact is that we haven't declared war on anybody since WWII. Right now, there are two prevailing thoughts on jurisprudence. The first view is the "no war no game" that you're advocating. The second, and this was the argument of Justice under President Bush (also the implicit argument of Justice under Obama) that the current state of affairs justifies wartime measures because we are engaged in a form of limited warfare even if Congress hasn't explicitly declared it.
I think the liberals were pissed about us treating foreign detainees as POWs. I'm pretty willing to accept that foreigners don't get the same rights as Americans, especially foreigners apprehended in combat. We need some way of dealing with prisoners taken in conflict.

Even in that case, we have Constitutional mechanisms for dealing with Americans. Charge them with treason.
Quote:
It is for the FBI. They don't have foreign jurisdiction and it probably isn't worth greasing the palms of Yemeni officials to nab him there. Besides, interagency cooperation is probably not much better even after PATRIOT. The issue is to detain him and get as much information out of him once he comes into the FBI's jurisdiction and before lawyers start rushing to the scene screaming "ILLEGAL DETENTION!"
I certainly understand why they want to do what they did. I'm sure lots of law enforcement officials would want to be able to violate the rights of suspected domestic criminals too. I'm not in favor of either of those things, and I don't especially care about the rational presented by those agencies who want to violate Constitutional rights.

And if the FBI needs to violate his rights in the US because they can't communicate effectively with the CIA, I guess we need to work on that too.
Old 01-31-2011, 08:13 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

Rapier
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I think the liberals were pissed about us treating foreign detainees as POWs. I'm pretty willing to accept that foreigners don't get the same rights as Americans, especially foreigners apprehended in combat. We need some way of dealing with prisoners taken in conflict.
Right, but I'm not talking just about that. Mr. Awlaki is a US citizen who has not been tried in any Federal court of law and yet we still have a standing kill order on him.

Quote:
Even in that case, we have Constitutional mechanisms for dealing with Americans. Charge them with treason.
Treason is the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution and also the hardest to convict upon because you need at least two live witnesses to bear testimony. Plus there is also the fact that due process must be served and that means the defendant must be personally notified that he/she must appear in court. It's hard to serve processes when the guy's in Yemen.

Quote:
I certainly understand why they want to do what they did. I'm sure lots of law enforcement officials would want to be able to violate the rights of suspected domestic criminals too. I'm not in favor of either of those things, and I don't especially care about the rational presented by those agencies who want to violate Constitutional rights.

And if the FBI needs to violate his rights in the US because they can't communicate effectively with the CIA, I guess we need to work on that too.
Well, according to both the Bush and Obama administrations, they aren't violating Constitutional rights because we are currently engaged in conflict that merits suspending Constitutional rights for certain people. This isn't just coming from those agencies. This is coming from the Justice Department. Otherwise, those agencies wouldn't breach those rights.
__________________
http://settingtheline.wordpress.com - Intellectually honest commentary on the issues of the day
Old 02-01-2011, 03:41 AM Rapier is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
Treason is the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution and also the hardest to convict upon because you need at least two live witnesses to bear testimony. Plus there is also the fact that due process must be served and that means the defendant must be personally notified that he/she must appear in court. It's hard to serve processes when the guy's in Yemen.
I'd imagine most cases where we would apprehend a US civilian on a battlefield, we'd be able to rustle up two witness, probably soldiers, to say "Yeah we saw homeboy fighting against us." If the guy is fighting back and is a threat, then you just kill him and the trial/holding issue is irrelevant.

The Awlaki case is a pretty grey area. But again, I think it falls under normal warfare engagement rules. If you kill him "in the field" (and we could argue Yemen counts as the field), then fine. But if you capture him, you can't summarily execute him and he has to be charged with something and accorded his rights.

Quote:
Well, according to both the Bush and Obama administrations, they aren't violating Constitutional rights because we are currently engaged in conflict that merits suspending Constitutional rights for certain people. This isn't just coming from those agencies. This is coming from the Justice Department. Otherwise, those agencies wouldn't breach those rights.
This is where separation of powers should come into play. The Court should be preventing the executive branch from doing these things. We shouldn't be terribly surprised that the executive wants to ignore or dodge the Constitution, but that doesn't mean they have the right to do that. The executive doesn't get to decide what is and is not Constitutional.
Old 02-01-2011, 08:50 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.