I do not advocate basing important decisions on ass'umptions and benefit greatly from the broad base of knowledge and opinions of members here.
But FWIW, I doubt this arrangement would have been made without prior certainty that these five individuals would plead guilty.
There are a lot of islamic extremists who would love to go down in history as those who planned the execution of the September 11th attacks (or "National Service Day" as Obama has purposed we call it).
I don't think the idea of being killed by the Country of which they want to fall is much of a deterrent, rather the opposite.
(Paragraph deleted b/c my New York
Federal Court info was wrong about the death penalty. )
Part of me hopes they get a #2 buckshot to the gut at 10 yards (that about right QP's?). More importantly though, I wonder if keeping them in a flat walled cell for the rest of their lives (w/o light, bedding or human contact), would strike a bigger blow to their extremist cause of insiting a "holy war". We could even put up some brail on the west side of the cell wall and give them a mat to kneel on, in keeping with the 1st Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmap
I cannot help wondering how far the rule of law can and should go.
|
This is exactly what the Federal / Military Officials were faced with in the wake 9/11 and there has certainly been a major impact. I wonder if this trial will somehow have a similar affect on the state level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindy
As I understand it, the definitions of asymmetric warfare and terrorism differ merely by the respective points of view.
I believe AQ declared war on the U.S. via UBL's 1996 fatwa titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
....
KSM & Co are soldiers without uniforms and they should be treated as such. This is a military issue and not a civilian one.
|
Thank you for your service Lindy. The legal differences between Domestic Terrorism vs Foreign Terrorism are based on laws not points of view though. By the Legal definition 9/11 was an act of Domestic Terrorism.
AQ is a supra-national dissident group - not soldiers of a sovereign nation. This is an extremely important distinction because it is at the crux of determining authority of civilian law and Military law on the homeland. It obviously raises many difficult questions on targeting the countries who fund their activity.
I'm a bad global citizen b/c I care a great deal more on the measures that are taken on home soil than when deployed abroad. I think until you live it you should STFU before passing judgement on the conduct a soldier who served abroad - it should be handled internally. I don't feel the same way on deployment in the home land (aside from physical invasion of a foreign government) such as what is now happening in Italy. I think privatizing "martial law" with corps like XE (Blackwater) could be a great deal worse.
IMH and inexperienced opinion what makes being a member of the Armed Forces such a difficult task; is not only the mental and physical training, combat, pay imbalances due to war profiteering -but being obligated take orders - while also having sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is what I perceive as a lack of discussion and transparency which reminds me of Abe Lincoln's POV:
"I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made..." --February 21, 1861
Just my .000002