10 ms·

"bring the responsible to justice" Probably the most difficult parts of this will be to define who is responsible and what exactly constitutes as justice.

venomsnake 14y ago
Tried in a federal court with the full rights and protections defined by the US constitution etc etc. Killing them like osama, blasting them with a drone or detaining them in gitmo means the terrorist have won, because they have dragged the system down to their own level. Also it still may be not an act of terror. Just some wackos that decide it is fun to blow stuff up. They don't have a need for a political agenda or ideology to do stuff like that.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  "Killing them like osama[...] means the terrorist have won," I don't understand the trouble you have with the Osama situation. The US attempted to apprehend Osama so they could bring him to justice but he resisted and was shot to death. How would you have handled that situation?
  - venomsnake 14y ago
    I would have tortured him then executed him by slow pig blood transfusion. But I am not a good man. I like revenge. And yet I think that the most powerful and expensive military in the world should have found a way to properly extract him. I am not convinced that the way it was handled brought the needed closure to the 9/11 events. It just proved that US was better at targeted killing than Al Caida or whatever that ragtag bunch was called.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Bullshit, have you read the first hand accounts? They weren't there to apprehend anyone. And of course you "resist" if a bunch of people with guns storm into your home.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      It's not the resisting justice when people with guns storm in. It's the trying to escape justice for decades before that. It's really hard to claim you weren't given "due process" when you made every effort to avoid that process.
      - flyinRyan 14y ago
        So after some years of trying to avoid being arrested the cops no longer need to worry about due process or law or anything, they can just murder me? Would you care to put an exact date on when the police get to switch from "must follow the laws" to "can kill on sight with no regard for laws"?
- rayiner 14y ago
  If he's not caught on US soil and is not a citizen, like Osama, then he has no protections under the constitution and its duck hunting season. The Constitution does not create any protections for international fugitives engaged in acts of war. Terrorists are the modern day Barbary Pirates. Nobody in the founding generation suggested they should get full Constitutional protections and a trial.
  - venomsnake 14y ago
    Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the Israelis went to such pains to bring Adolf Eichmann to trial instead of just shooting him in Argentina. Also murder is crime in Pakistan ... so if there was Pakistani rule of law the navy seals are murderers.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That's why I used the Barbary Pirate situation. The Barbary privateers were loosely affiliated with and supported by the government in Tripoli (which is the legal entity against which we declared war), but were not really an organized army acting on behalf of the state as we think of such things today. In any case, what Osama did would clearly be an act of war if he had been a general acting on the orders of a government. So what makes it not an act of war just because he's acting on behalf of an entity that isn't a sovereign state? Surely, it is most logical to measure the justifiable response to an action in terms of the nature of the action itself, not the political affiliation of the actor. Finally, as you note, it's hard to say that there is any rule of law in Pakistan. Laws only have meaning to the extent courts have jurisdiction to enforce them. "Murder" isn't a universal constant--it's a law defined in the context of some sovereign entity's legislative jurisdiction. Killing a terrorist on the battlefield is not murder if there is no court that has jurisdiction over the actor that would call it murder. Indeed, it seems utterly non-sensical to me to argue that someone like Osama, that has rejected the criminal jurisdiction of any state, can turn around and claim the protection of the laws of that state.
    - tptacek 14y ago
- theorique 14y ago
  Killing them like osama, blasting them with a drone or detaining them in gitmo means the terrorist have won, because they have dragged the system down to their own level. Those were acts of war, and prosecuted under those rules (international law, Geneva Convention, etc), rather than domestic criminal law.

venomsnake 14y ago

Tried in a federal court with the full rights and protections defined by the US constitution etc etc. Killing them like osama, blasting them with a drone or detaining them in gitmo means the terrorist have won, because they have dragged the system down to their own level. Also it still may be not an act of terror. Just some wackos that decide it is fun to blow stuff up. They don't have a need for a political agenda or ideology to do stuff like that.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
"Killing them like osama[...] means the terrorist have won," I don't understand the trouble you have with the Osama situation. The US attempted to apprehend Osama so they could bring him to justice but he resisted and was shot to death. How would you have handled that situation?
- venomsnake 14y ago
  I would have tortured him then executed him by slow pig blood transfusion. But I am not a good man. I like revenge. And yet I think that the most powerful and expensive military in the world should have found a way to properly extract him. I am not convinced that the way it was handled brought the needed closure to the 9/11 events. It just proved that US was better at targeted killing than Al Caida or whatever that ragtag bunch was called.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Bullshit, have you read the first hand accounts? They weren't there to apprehend anyone. And of course you "resist" if a bunch of people with guns storm into your home.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's not the resisting justice when people with guns storm in. It's the trying to escape justice for decades before that. It's really hard to claim you weren't given "due process" when you made every effort to avoid that process.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      So after some years of trying to avoid being arrested the cops no longer need to worry about due process or law or anything, they can just murder me? Would you care to put an exact date on when the police get to switch from "must follow the laws" to "can kill on sight with no regard for laws"?
rayiner 14y ago
If he's not caught on US soil and is not a citizen, like Osama, then he has no protections under the constitution and its duck hunting season. The Constitution does not create any protections for international fugitives engaged in acts of war. Terrorists are the modern day Barbary Pirates. Nobody in the founding generation suggested they should get full Constitutional protections and a trial.
- venomsnake 14y ago
  Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the Israelis went to such pains to bring Adolf Eichmann to trial instead of just shooting him in Argentina. Also murder is crime in Pakistan ... so if there was Pakistani rule of law the navy seals are murderers.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's why I used the Barbary Pirate situation. The Barbary privateers were loosely affiliated with and supported by the government in Tripoli (which is the legal entity against which we declared war), but were not really an organized army acting on behalf of the state as we think of such things today. In any case, what Osama did would clearly be an act of war if he had been a general acting on the orders of a government. So what makes it not an act of war just because he's acting on behalf of an entity that isn't a sovereign state? Surely, it is most logical to measure the justifiable response to an action in terms of the nature of the action itself, not the political affiliation of the actor. Finally, as you note, it's hard to say that there is any rule of law in Pakistan. Laws only have meaning to the extent courts have jurisdiction to enforce them. "Murder" isn't a universal constant--it's a law defined in the context of some sovereign entity's legislative jurisdiction. Killing a terrorist on the battlefield is not murder if there is no court that has jurisdiction over the actor that would call it murder. Indeed, it seems utterly non-sensical to me to argue that someone like Osama, that has rejected the criminal jurisdiction of any state, can turn around and claim the protection of the laws of that state.
  - tptacek 14y ago
theorique 14y ago
Killing them like osama, blasting them with a drone or detaining them in gitmo means the terrorist have won, because they have dragged the system down to their own level. Those were acts of war, and prosecuted under those rules (international law, Geneva Convention, etc), rather than domestic criminal law.