Boston Marathon Bombing

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

We didn't get to that definition.

Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

But then in 2009 Eric Holder declared the term obsolete, so it technically no longer has a definition as far as the admin is concerned. That leaves us all free to decide the definition for ourselves.
Personally, I use the term literally. Anyone who intentionally injures or kills innocents in this country is our enemy as far as I'm concerned. Combatant is anyone fighting in a war. These two took guidance from Al Qaeda info sources and claim they did the deed for the same motivations as Al Qaeda, and that's good enough for my definition.

You have to be carful here Was.

It was designed to strip people of due process so we can do all types of ugly things to them and these persons were suposed to be foreigners not citizens.

The argument was later made that even if you are a citizen but was caught outside our territory messing up we could do these ugly things to you.

Now they want to extend this enemy combatant business to citizen on our soil.

God forbid someone sets you up or law enforcers err. What chance do you have of clearing yourself if enemy combatant policy becomes the norm?

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, anyone who is accused of committing murder in the United States is an "enemy combatant", so long as they visited a website, run by a sworn enemy?

They didn't just visit the website, they took guidance from it, and were motivated by the same goals.
I did say it's my definition, so YMMV.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

How about if they got their "inspiration" after reading a newpaper or seeing a news segment on t.v.?

If the theoretical newspaper/T.V. segment was produced by Al Qaeda, yes, that would fit my definition.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Why is it so important to you this guy be tried as an "enemy combatant"? He's not getting away with it anyways, so.....Who cares? Or, is this just another political game? I tend to think so.

Dave

I think we get more info from him that way.
Why is it so important to you that he not be tried as an enemy combatant? He's not getting away with it anyway, so who cares?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

They didn't just visit the website, they took guidance from it, and were motivated by the same goals.
I did say it's my definition, so YMMV.


If the theoretical newspaper/T.V. segment was produced by Al Qaeda, yes, that would fit my definition.


I think we get more info from him that way.
Why is it so important to you that he not be tried as an enemy combatant? He's not getting away with it anyway, so who cares?

Because it sets a precedent, Was.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

You have to be carful here Was.

It was designed to strip people of due process so we can do all types of ugly things to them and these persons were suposed to be foreigners not citizens.

The argument was later made that even if you are a citizen but was caught outside our territorit messing up we could do these ugly things to you.

Now they want to extend this enemy combatant business to citizen on our soil.

God forbid someone sets you up or law enforcers err. What chance do you have of clearing yourself if enemy combatant policy becomes the norm?

What are these ugly things you speak of?
It's not as if we're immune to being set up or law enforcement errors in civilian court.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

What are these ugly things you speak of?
It's not as if we're immune to being set up or law enforcement errors in civilian court.

Why is it you guys have such an easy proclivity towards ignoring or scrapping the Constitution for ephemeral and pointless reasons? Then if anyone dares to mention a re thinking towards the lowly second amendment, you howl in righteous indignation?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Why is it you guys have such an easy proclivity towards ignoring or scrapping the Constitution for ephemeral and pointless reasons? Then if anyone dares to mention a re thinking towards the lowly second amendment, you howl in righteous indignation?

Somehow, that's considered the patriotic POV.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

What are these ugly things you speak of?
It's not as if we're immune to being set up or law enforcement errors in civilian court.

Ugly things: torture...if we not comfortable with it......there is rendition.

What will protect you if you get rid of all of your protection?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

You have to be carful here Was.

It was designed to strip people of due process so we can do all types of ugly things to them and these persons were suposed to be foreigners not citizens.

The argument was later made that even if you are a citizen but was caught outside our territory messing up we could do these ugly things to you.

Now they want to extend this enemy combatant business to citizen on our soil.

God forbid someone sets you up or law enforcers err. What chance do you have of clearing yourself if enemy combatant policy becomes the norm?

Exactly. I guess the constitution doesn't mean squat when an emotional conservative is all wrapped up in an angry hissy fit?

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Exactly. I guess the constitution doesn't mean squat when an emotional conservative is all wrapped up in an angry hissy fit?

Dave

Somehow they think it shows toughness. A chickenhawk trait, methinks.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Why is it so important to you that he not be tried as an enemy combatant? He's not getting away with it anyway, so who cares?

Because he is not an enemy combatant. To date, there is no proof of sworn allegiance to any specific enemy of the United States as there was with al-Awlaki. Visting a website, even one produced by Al-Queada, does not constitute allegience IMHO. Would it have made any difference to the dead and wounded if he had learned bomb making techniques from an American militia website? Should it carry any less of a sentence if he had?

What he is, like it or not, is an American citizen. And, as much as I despise the guy, an attack on his 5th and 6th amendment rights is an attack on mine and yours.

Dave