Treatment of terror suspects as enemy combatants...

we are not at war, period. i suggest you stop living in irrational fear. you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident

 

Yes, we are in a war. Sanctioned, and funded, by the Congress of the United States of America, and the Commander in Chief since October 7, 2001- the war on terrorism began. It has not yet been ended, defunded, or PLA reviewed.
The drawback in 2014 did create confusion

 

You made some good points earlier, rob, but we are at war with the Islamic State and al Qaeda and its affiliates. If we weren't we wouldn't be literally invading other countries (ex., Afghanistan) and conducting military operations in others (ex., Syria and Iraq) to combat these groups.

 

us citizens, have every right to, innocent until proven guilty, and representation. the war on terrorism mantra, is not in the us, we are not under martial law.

stop being afraid

 

so who and what are we? are we a nation of victims, searching only to punish our neighbors for their perceived transgressions, or are we a nation at war, striving to protect our citizens and their way of life? we can't be both.

despite your protestations and the short-sighted insistence of bleeding-heart drones, we are at war. war was declared on us by organizations and an ideology completely at odds with our way of life. you can ignore this and keep playing the victim or you can join us in reality.

 

Read post number 8. I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

ok thank you

 

Right. We cannot expect a 240 year old document, written by slave owning men of "privilege", to protect Americans when we have a large segment of our population speaking another language, worshiping differently, basically having other customs and values. We can't keep affording terrorists "Constitutional rights," when they turn around and don't afford us the same. It's a losing game.

That's why Trump resonates with so many. We already know this fact, as does Trump. He's basically saying, "I don't give a f*** about your "rights," if you harm Americans, your @ss is getting physically removed."

 

There is no doubt about that, but a Muslim need not be a member of ISIS in order to carry out a beheading. http://nypost.com/2016/09/20/man-pleads-guilty-in-isis-plot-to-behead-conservative-blogger/

 

Car accidents are, as the term suggests, "accidents", are not deliberately targeted killings. The difference should be apparent.
What makes you think that "we are not at war, period"? Who told you that?

And because you feel we are not at war against anyone does not mean that others are not at war against you. Have you read what the Islamists have to say about this?

 

Under the same rationale, should everyone busted for possession of a joint be denied due process because we've declared "war on drugs"?

 

If you're someone like Anwar al-Awlaki who has declared allegiance to a jihadist group that is at war with the U.S. and are actively participating in its war effort, I think you should be treated as such. Since al-Awlaki was dispatched to Allah's celestial whore house, it is evident that we are already treating Americans waging jihad against the U.S. as enemy combatants.

However, in the case of lone wolf American jihadists operating on our own soil things aren't so clear. I need to do more research on this, but maybe it's time we took a harder look at how France and its terrorism courts deal with this problem. Perhaps, there's a way we can treat these cases in a fashion somewhere between the law enforcement and war paradigms (?).

 

congress certainly did not declare war.

 

If that joint is planning to fly a 747 into a skyscraper maybe it needs to get waterboarded.

 

Why would that be a necessary condition if there is a war on drugs?

 

Then we should stop handing it out to people who jump a fence.

- - - Updated - - -

They're declaring the US their enemy.

Sounds like a good reason to me. Besides, stripping a naturalized citizen is not so hard when they fail in their sworn oath.

 

My point is that joints (drugs) are incapable of waging war against our country, or anything else for that matter.

On the other hand, Americans such as Anwar al-Awlaki can, and they have been treated accordingly. As you may recall, he ate a Hellfire missile in Yemen five years ago.

 

So because Congress didn't declare war, war does not exist? How about if others declare war on you? Does it exist then?

Because war has not been declared for over seven decades does not mean there have been no wars.

 

Rahimi was yet another nutjob. But I have noticed an rather ironic trend from some in the community.


Seems in their world violent dissent is NOT appropriate unless its promoted and perpetrated by citizens like themselves. You know the "Tree of liberty", "don't tread on me", anti-government types.
Else wise its terrorism and the terrorists should be stripped of their rights of citizenship.

I believe that violent dissent is a criminal act and should be treated as such. (that is unless you win).

 

And how do we identity terrorists before they are terrorists?

 

If you put them in regular prisons they make converts. It's part of their methodology.

 

And it's time we cleaned up our act and only fought in declared wars again. Congress needs to take some responsibility. Otherwise we have the current stinking situation, in which we are allegedly supporting ISIS.

The President should only be able to authorize brief defensive reactions until Congress has time to act.

 

That's why we don't put them in general population

least 25 convicted terrorists are held in two federal prisons in Indiana and Illinois that have special Communications Management Units, designed to isolate certain prisoners from other inmates and limit contact with the outside world.

 

Different types of wars. The enemy has declared a war against the human race. Whereas I feel we can decriminalize some or a good majority of soft drugs, putting the cartels under ground and thus being able to manage the serious drugs.

Like Bolton said, one is a criminal issue and the other is a fight for our existence. Either terrorism can exist or human rights can exist, one or the other.

 

That's a different argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Gitmo should remain open and any terrorist, or those who commit treason, should go there immediately and be tried in a military court.