The Glade 4.0

I'm kind of surprised that you would have a problem with asking other people to sacrifice for your principles, Berylin.

Either way, these are the principles that our entire system of government is based on. We do not just pick and chose who does and does not have access to due process of law. It is a core tenant of our entire way of life. It's the reason we pushed so hard to give fair trials even to the people that operated concentration camps for the Nazis.

It shows, in the end, that our way of life is not vulnerable to this kind of extremism. That not only will we defeat our enemies on the field, but that our way of life is *better*.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You also reap the rewards of the protection of a trial by jury, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, fifth amendment, and being provided a lawyer. So does your family. If we remove the protections for one or some why do you think you or yours would ever be on the side to receive them?

Liberty and JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL ALL

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except, of course, for those who have died and the families who must go on, knowing that the government failed miserably to protect them

The government cannot protect you, it can take actions to make you statistically more safe.

That is all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

How are they Monte's Pricinciples? They are yours as well, your families, they are America's. Basically, you don't want the principles to be upheld if something dear to you may be in danger.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the clear message here.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The problem though, comes with the fact that most likely these people won't get a non biased jury anywhere in the us. Where do you hold the trial then? I don't think it's likely that they'll receive a fair trial in this country.

You never know though.

I'll be more than happy to weigh in my 2 pounds of judgment, and deliver a 138 grain verdict.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

And, of course, if it's your wife and children lying dead, those principles will be a great source of comfort to you, right? Knowing that the government had those men in custody but let them go, allowing them to kill your wife and kids. You'll find solace in those principles?

*edit* So no, it's not just my family I'm considering, but rather, all the families, including those who have already suffered loss because of 9-11.

"Believe what I do or bad things will happen to you."

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Funny

Yes it is, laughable in fact.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's what principles mean. You can't threaten me to that which I already have committed. Life is a gift and a blessing.

Secondly, your argument contains a fallacy, a plurium interrogationum. You are presuming that the court system will incorrectly find these men not-guilty and additionally, that they will commit murder again. We trust the courts because we have faith they find the guilty party guilty and discharge innocent suspects as not-guilty. There is a risk we get it wrong. That risk is part of living with the justice system we have.

Don't you dare **** threaten me again with the life of myself or my family. As man living under a ticking clock, a clock that may well have me see a grave before you, you threatening me with my life is a stupid. I'm sticking by the principles that give us the justices and freedoms we want. I'm completely committed that a life without freedom is not life at all.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

reading through this thread.. I took Bery's argument to be more idicative of the fact that a defense attorney would be able to push for charges of jury bias and motion for dismissal.

I see that as a large problem with this, but I do want to see these people tried in a court of law.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I didn't threaten you, or anyone. I asked a question in a way that made it personal.

And don't tell me what to do or not to do, you're wasting your time. Report the post if you want to.

*edit* Too many people seem to have this mindset that principles somehow exist in a vacuum, or somesuch thing. Sometimes people have to be reminded that real, living people are impacted. The families of the 9-11 dead understand this all too well, and I have no problem with helping others understand it too, even if it seems jarring.

If I understand him correctly, I think he's more afraid that the federal court will throw out inculpatory evidence on "technicalities" that a military tribunal wouldn't, such as evidence or confessions obtained under duress.

So has the president:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/11 ... anscr.html


He's predetermined that the man must be penalized.

Reminds me of old courts under the kings in Europe: you have been accused, you will stand trial, and then you will be hanged.

He's basically saying the same thing.





Look, only one potentially good thing can come from having these guys tried in civilian criminal courts: it makes it on appeal to the Supreme Court. This is good because we'd finally get a ruling on whether the US government can hold people indefinitely without trial.

The problem is, neither potential outcome from the USSC hearing the case is good, because either 1) you can't be held indefinitely without trial, and they let these guys go because of that or 2) you can be held indefinitely without trial, and the USSC upholds the ability of government to so detain individuals at their whim. Neither is any good whatsoever.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

More than that, though. In civilian court it may be that the circus will lead to the compromising of intelligence agents, just for example: Agent X is closing in on a plot, suddenly he's compromised, the attack occurs instead of being thwarted. All manner of ill can come of civilian trials, that are less likely with a military trial. There are reasons to believe that a civilian trial is not in our best interests.

You watch too much 24.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Thank you for those words of wisdom. I can see now that it'd be impossible for an agent to have his/her cover compromised, and terrorists really do not want to attack us here at all. What was I thinking????????

Now that that's over with, the trials apparently will occur no matter our opinions here. If anything bad does happen, so long as my family is safe, then meh.

Honestly, even if these people do get off, why do you think they're so dangerous? These aren't super villains. They're just people. It's not like the only reason we haven't had another big attack is because we've locked up all the people who could pull it off. There's millions of pissed off muslims out there who aren't behind bars and who would be willing to do the same as these men. Yet somehow we're not all dying left and right.

And another thing. If you're willing to sacrifice your principles for the security of your family, why not just sacrifice our principles that are keeping us involved in the Middle East? We could just pull out altogether and they'd probably be a lot less inclined to attacking us, thereby saving American lives.

My point is, there's lots of **** the US does based on principle that indirectly endanger its citizens and cost lives. Are those all wrong?

I concede the discussion. Have the civilian trials. Bring on the show. The chances that anything bad will happen are slim to none. I only hope that if something bad does happen because of this, it happens to the "principles are more important than people" crowd.

Your appeal to emotion lacks power, Beryllin; as do your threats. Sadly, the irony here lies in your posting history. You have, more often than I recall, suggested that the United States abandon its principals of equality and equal protection under the law for your religious principles. Indeed, you often argue that it is your principles which matter more than legal equality and the end of legal injustice. Perhaps, you should render unto Caesar what it is his, because the very principles you suggest our nation sacrifice are those that guarantee your right to the religion you hold so dear.

_________________

Thread over.

Did the definition of "threat" change radically while I was sleeping? Nowhere are there "your threats", to use your words; I have threatened no one and intend to threaten no one. If there's any threat involved, it's from the possibility that a terrorist may go free and at some point in the future harm more Americans. I have nothing to do with that, so it's in no way my threats.

Nor is there any irony involved. You think that if the First Amendment were abolished, I would stop practicing my religion? I only follow Christ because the government says I can? No, when the Constitution is a footnote in history and America no longer exists, Christianity will still be moving forward, should the Lord tarry that long. If there is any irony, it's in the fact that I have explained why I hold the positions I do on certain issues and people here still do not understand; it's almost as if people can read the words but not comprehend the meaning of the words. Or so it seems to me. This thread demonstrates that.

*edit* Btw, the more I think about this the more mystified I become about where people are coming up with the idea that I am issuing threats, so I'm going to self-report this and get an opinion from the moderators.

Not threats so much as over-the-top hyperbole.

I want to see these men have a fair trial - or as fair as we can give them. I want it to be open and transparent. We have to be able to show that even those who have done such harm are worthy of the same legal protections that I have.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?