I think they should arrest Osama's cow.. and charge him of terrorism cos he gave milk to Osama!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi I think they should arrest Osama's cow.. and charge him of terrorism cos he gave milk to Osama!!

if joe six pack was the personal driver for a known and wanted serial murderer he would also be guilty of a crime. Harboring and providing assistance to criminals is a punishable crime. As i said before, i have sympathy for the guy, however, he knew that Osama was the most wanted man on the planet - there are consequences when you make a stupid choice like that.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the code of military justice has applied to POWs since its enactment. Since a POW can be a 'war criminal' the code applies to 'war criminals'. I simply don't agree that the US should submit itself to the jursidiction of an international court on an issue that involves US security. Despite your feelings, osama bin laden did commit a crime in the US, thus, if hamdan was complicit in those actions he violated US law. Since the actions are considered acts of war, it is not unreasonable to apply the military code in this case. If 9/11 wasn't an act of war by your definition, then any actions comitted by hamdan post-9/11 during the afghan war are surely subject to military law because it occurred in a time of war. The fact that the US brought war upon them is irrelevant because one party has to begin the war. Believe it or not, I actually have some sympathy for the guy since it appears all he did was drive osama, but submitting to the hague is an awful precedent.

An act of war? 9/11 was a terrorist attack. And terrorism is a CRIMINAL ACT. Acts of war are initiated by state actors. 9/11 was initiated by a TERRORIST GROUP. A CRIMINAL GROUP. You lend Al-Qaida too much credit by classifying their actions as an "act of war". They are not a military. These guys are criminals, and should be charged as criminals. Additionally, torture is illegal according to international law, and this court allows evidence obtained through coercion to enter the courtroom. That is not justice. That is a vendetta. Vendettas have no place in the rule of law.

Hamdan wasn't even captured in combat/battlefield. He was detained by Afghans at a checkpoint. So much for being a "combatant", let alone "war criminal".

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton An act of war? 9/11 was a terrorist attack. And terrorism is a CRIMINAL ACT. Acts of war are initiated by state actors. 9/11 was initiated by a TERRORIST GROUP. A CRIMINAL GROUP. You lend Al-Qaida too much credit by classifying their actions as an "act of war". They are not a military. These guys are criminals, and should be charged as criminals. Additionally, torture is illegal according to international law, and this court allows evidence obtained through coercion to enter the courtroom. That is not justice. That is a vendetta. Vendettas have no place in the rule of law. Hamdan wasn't even captured in combat/battlefield. He was detained by Afghans at a checkpoint. So much for being a "combatant", let alone "war criminal".

you can make an argument that afghanistan was a state actor in 9/11 because the country provided material support for al qaida to initiate the attacks. In any event, 9/11 was incomparable in history, so you can't make simple analogies to past acts and classify it as a plain vanilla terrorist act. Notwithstanding, these guys are hardly simple criminals because there is in fact a war waging right now in afghanistan with the US and NATO on one side pitted against al qaida and the taliban on the other side. Simple criminals don't have the means to wage a war against a nation.

It is unimportant how hamdan was captured. Many nazis were not captured on the battlefields either, but they were not tried in a criminal court. Similarly, Slobodan Miloševiæ wasn't captured on the battlefield, however, he was tried in a war tribunal. Your emphasis on the location of capture is absolutely irrelevant as to whether a person is a war criminal, combatant, or otherwise.

I can't justify tourture at all.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Believe it or not, I actually have some sympathy for the guy since it appears all he did was drive osama

no. he was captured by Northern Alliance forces. the four other Al Queera in the car with him were killed in another firefight. three Soviet surface to air missiles were in the trunk of his car.

he'll get time served and could be released early next year as opposed to the 30 to life prosecutors tried for.

Last edited by Q5echo on Aug-08-2008 at 06:41

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you can make an argument that afghanistan was a state actor in 9/11 because the country provided material support for al qaida to initiate the attacks. In any event, 9/11 was incomparable in history, so you can't make simple analogies to past acts and classify it as a plain vanilla terrorist act. Notwithstanding, these guys are hardly simple criminals because there is in fact a war waging right now in afghanistan with the US and NATO on one side pitted against al qaida and the taliban on the other side. Simple criminals don't have the means to wage a war against a nation.

Afghanistan was in a state of civil war. It was a failed state. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and extremist groups. To say the Taliban government meant to attack America on a pre-meditated basis is just plain wrong. There is also not a war going on in Afghanistan. There is an INSURGENCY against foreign occupation forces considered to be infidel crusaders. Al-Qaida is not a fighting force. They are a terrorist group. The Taliban are the insurgents. They can certainly be classified as POWs, but not Al-Qaida. I wouldn't give them the dignity of calling them a military force. They the worst type of criminals..Terrorists. Terrorists don't wage war, they wage campaigns of terrorism. To try lowly foot soldiers, or a driver in this case, as war criminals in a military show trial, is a farce.

But I guess me and you just have our differences..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It was a failed state. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and extremist groups.

right like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, UK, Italy...blah blah blah

honestly dude, you haven't the slightest clue what breeds terrorism and extremist groups.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo right like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, UK, Italy...blah blah blah honestly dude, you haven't the slightest clue what breeds terrorism and extremist groups.

lol, whatever...You seem to think occupying sovereign countries stops terrorism...DUDE...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, whatever...You seem to think occupying sovereign countries stops terrorism...DUDE...

...and another thing you ignorant dipshit. you haven't the slightest clue what 4th generation warfare is. youre trapped by this concept that modern warfare is only state initiated. wrong. paramilitary groups, wholly idependent of "the state", have been waging war for 60 odd years. thank you WWII.

god youre stupid

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...and another thing you ignorant dipshit. god youre stupid

I love getting a emotional reactions out of you..

quote:

you haven't the slightest clue what 4th generation warfare is. youre trapped by this concept that modern warfare is only state initiated. wrong. paramilitary groups, wholly idependent of "the state", have been waging war for 60 odd years. thank you WWII.

I think I have a very coherent clue of today's warfare. You've probably misread my statements. I'll repeat it again, Al-Qaida is not a para-military group. They are a criminal terrorist group. And if you yourself knew anything about 4th generational warfare, heavy handed military force will not defeat a decentralized guerrilla or terrorist group. History has shown that terrorist groups are dismantled almost always by police action and detainment.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I love getting a emotional reactions out of you..

i'm not emotional. just pointing out how ridiculously ignorant you are.

quote:

I'll repeat it again, Al-Qaida is not a para-military group. They are a criminal terrorist group.

again, youre locking yourself into definitions that, one, are completely subjective. two, using said subjective definitions wrongly in an objective sense. just dumb dude. pure f**king arrogant stupidity

a paramilitary group can be any armed groups not officially considered a national military force. this is not new to anybody. you though, apparently.

your county's SWAT team is a paramilitary group. Al Queera in Afghanistan is a paramilitary group. Al Queera in Iraq is a paramilitary group.

Al Queera has ranks. they train in weapons and tactics and actively engage other military organizations from Pakistan to Indonesia to the Arabian peninsula. they actively recruit from around the world. IOW Al Queera owns you...if only in an intellectual sense.

quote:

And if you yourself knew anything about 4th generational warfare, heavy handed military force will not defeat a decentralized guerrilla or terrorist group.

tell that to the Columbians shitbrick. or the Phillipinos. or a 19 year old Marine corporal in Diyala.