POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

Nothing is a death penalty offense. And "high treason" could perhaps happen if the USA would be able to be in a situation when a much more mighty aggressor than the USA would attack the USA. Mexico for example or Canada? If I think about the very privileged situation of the USA then I ask myself what "you" are doing at all. The concentration camp Guantanamo is still not closed for example. Why? Why needs the USA different laws for different people? Is the USA not a traitor of the natural value "human right" - for example if we take a look at abortions? ... Who speaks about death penalty should perhaps first try to save innocent human beings - not born but killed in the USA. ¿75% black people? A wall against immigration from inside?



1. Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates!
Behold, the King of Glory waits;
The King of kings is drawing near,
The Savior of the world is here.
Life and salvation He doth bring,
Wherefore rejoice and gladly sing:
We praise Thee, Father, now,
Creator, wise art Thou!

5. Redeemer, come! I open wide
My heart to Thee; here, Lord, abide!
Let me Thy inner presence feel,
Thy grace and love in me reveal;
Thy Holy Spirit guide us on
Until our glorious goal is won.
Eternal praise and fame
We offer to Thy name.

1. Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates!
Behold, the King of Glory waits;
The King of kings is drawing near,
The Savior of the world is here.
Life and salvation He doth bring,
Wherefore rejoice and gladly sing:
We praise Thee, Father, now,
Creator, wise art Thou!

Source of the translation: http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Macht_hoch_die_Tür

 

"You" did what? The Nurnberg processes against some leading Nazis tried to bring justice, law and order into a very chaotic situation of world history, which was indeed very dangerous for the USA too. Nevertheless the USA made exactly the opposite. Sure in this days death penalty was normal and crimes of US-soldiers had happened too, but the USA tried not to be a despot. It tried to be a civilized nation.
I remember in this context Peter Scholl-Latour, who said he had executed on his own much more Nazis after world war 2 - but not everyone who was not a member of the Nazi-party was a good guy and not every member of the Nazi-party was an evil man. That's why automatisms made not a big sense. And also today every terrorist cries "I kill only terrorists" while murdering innocent men, women and children. So someone who thinks "Let's kill all terrorist" is in a big danger to become on the own the worst terrorist the world ever had seen. And this is for sure not the plan of god for anyone's life.

 

You're certainly generous with American tax dollars. Why not let the Russians and Iranians supply them like they usually do?

 

Wow. That was....interesting.

 

They didn't and that's not the subject of the article I posted so your loaded question has nothing to do with this discussion. What would satisfy me is if those holding the man who was never tried and convicted of being an "ISIS terrorist" or any other kind of terrorist or committing any crime granted him ALL his protected due process rights as mandated by the Constitution and their Oath. I think that would satisfy the ACLU as well but I can't speak for the ACLU. Furthermore, if you actually read the article it specifically states:

"The U.S. government accuses the man of fighting for the Islamic State, but so far has refused to release his name or charge him with any crime."

and

"Instead, Wyer, citing a 2008 Supreme Court decision, argued the military can hold a prisoner captured in a warzone without charge as an 'initial, temporary situation' until figuring out what to do with him."

What the article doesn't say and you made up (as a fact yet) is "The terrorist was in fact captured in battle".

Furthermore, the entire US has been declared a war zone. As such according to the above ANYONE can be captured and held without charge as an "initial, temporary situation".

https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/entire-united-states-is-now-war-zone.html

 

The Germans had the Werewolves a terror group after they lost the war. When they were caught they were shot.

 

Saving Nature and our planet? Didn't Obama do that?

 

War is a tragic failure of diplomacy but not a crime unless you lose. Fight to win and do what that takes.

 

Believe it or not Military Justice and Civil justice are two different things.

Hell barry sent a drone strike on an American without due process, killing him and his son, no trial, no lawyer. I will say I didn't care.

 

No trial, no lawyers ,no reading Miranda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-mostly-by-accident/?utm_term=.ba93667d32f1

 

So if a foreign government invades a sovereign nation without any provocation and murders, rapes, pillages and otherwise destroys that nation and its people, it's a "failure of diplomacy but not a crime"? And by extension there's no such thing as war crimes?

Yep, that's what Nazi Germany did.

 

It's what the allies did too but we won.

 

The key word here is "justice". Justice doesn't exist without due process no matter what the source of the alleged "justice" is. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the military is bound by the Constitution via the Oath that mandates that they protect and defend the Constitution first and foremost. And the Constitution mandates that all government servants protect the right to due process.

Whether you care or not means squat. It was murder and a crime against the Constitution sanctioned by a President plain and simple.

 

I'm well aware of what war crimes are. Thanks.

 

A war crime is a war crime is a war crime no matter who does it or who wins or who loses.

The Nuremberg Principles.

Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

 

I can say the same to you, whether you care or not an American terrorist is being held without due process means squat. He was caught fighting for ISIS, preferably I'd rather see him rot in GITMO for the rest of his days or I'd release him back into the wild with a secret GPS device and when he got back to his nest of snakes I'd drone the crap out of him. JMO.As other posters have said he's a traitor and traitors of this magnitude deserve the death penalty.

 

And the list of American, British, French and Russians prosecuted at Nuremberg is shocking.

 

Again it doesn't matter what you believe, he wasn't tried and convicted of anything. Therefore he's innocent unless and until proven guilty by a valid court of law and all his rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, which includes his right to due process.

 

Drones , google it.

 

Not that it's relevant to the Nuremburg Principles but who would those be? There were 24 Germans accused as far as I know and none from any other nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

 

You said:

And I asked you where you got this from (that I don't know)? You know nothing about me so how can you know what I know or don't know?

 

They lost.

 

So you made that up. Why?

 

To make the point that victors were not held accountable. But then, you knew that already.