9/11 Mastermind To Face Trial....In New York

[2NaFish]

"all men" but not actually all men.

at no point do you try to explain this. you waffle about what everyone else does but dont explain how what you want fits with the fundamentals of your system.

were the old dead dudes who said "all men....are endowed with certain inalienable rights" wrong?

[Iconic Shawn]

They're right. And they were making those rules for the people of this great country as oppose to whatever rights or beliefs about life were common out in the rest of the world.

We said, we're all equal behind these lines. But there ARE lines. If you're not American you shouldn't give a shit about what our rules and beliefs are and honestly, NONE of it applies to you just like none of the UK rights or any rights anywhere apply to me.

If I was to try and cross any middle eastern border I'd be killed (maaaaybe, cause I think I can take them all). Those would be my rights there no matter what their documents say about their citizens and thats alright.

We believe one thing for ourselves but we don't expect the rest of the world to go along with it, and the rest of the world should not expect to benefit from it.

~S~

[2NaFish]

all men. not some men. all men.

but keep trying to argue that all men only means some men. its really very funny.

[Iconic Shawn]

I'm arguing that the document ONLY pertains to the good people of this country. It was not intended for anyone else.

Should we start mailing all the men who are created equal in the world but don't make a lot of money welfare checks too?

~S~

[2NaFish]

I'm arguing that the document ONLY pertains to the good people of this country. It was not intended for anyone else.

Should we start mailing all the men who are created equal in the world but don't make a lot of money welfare checks too?

~S~

Nope. But i dont think that the right to unemployment cash is an inalienable right, the right to a fair trial is. You wanted to deprive someone of that right out of vengence and a desire to save money.

Even if you were right about all men not meaning all men (which patently you are not), it is against the system that you want to preserve. You would protect freedom by removing it.

[Iconic Shawn]

You keep forgetting (or simply ignoring over and over and over again...) that the rights you're talking about, were drawn up for We the fucking people, here, in the United States of America.

We're not removing their rights. They had no rights to begin with.

"the right to a fair trial is." says what world wide accepted document?

~S~

[2NaFish]

inalienable + all men =  cant be taken from anyone.

you cant fight to protect a system by undermining it.

[Iconic Shawn]

Dude.. who said we're fighting to protect any system? We're fighting to protect us, and the world from flash terrorist attacks. Or at least to have some kind of fight against it or some no how against them.

Again.. "the right to a fair trial is." says what world wide accepted document?

I think you've lost this one brother. Yield.

~S~

[2NaFish]

Dude.. who said we're fighting to protect any system? We're fighting to protect us, and the world from flash terrorist attacks. Or at least to have some kind of fight against it or some no how against them.

I think you've lost this one brother. Yield.

~S~

Who said it? Start off with bush, but any politician who has tried to sell the war has said so.

The 'war on terror' is an ideological battle, not a war of invasion. Their way of life against ours; they want a world run in accordance with god's law(death to the west, etc) whereas we are trying to protect western values.  You remember them? Western values incorporate the right to a fair trial.

[Iconic Shawn]

Muhammad Hassan gets eliminated at the Royal Rumble by everyone

This is how it should always be against these "dudes". Everyone just get together and get them out of here.

~S~

[aintitfun22]

i agree with Iconic Shawn that the document was intended for American citizens only. However, I dont believe that Americans deserve more rights than others. That being said, there are exceptions. Islamic militant extremists arent even accepted in their society. Same with militant christian extremists. None of them deserve a civilian trial where they can publicize their prejudiced beliefs. Holding the trials of the 9/11 terrorists in NYC is particularly dangerous because NYC could become a target, it is a huge forum for the terrorists to convey their ideas, and because it is extremely costly(defending it from further terrorist attacks incited by this trial, etc.). There really isnt any reason for it. I dont believe they deserve a civilian trial to be perfectly honest, but if you want to give them one, why in new york? Because the crime happened there? fine, hold it in upstate NY or something. No need to help the terrorists publicize their ideals and/or deal with the logisitics and cost of doing the thing there. No benefits to holding it in NYC in my opinion.

note: it is being held actually in NYC right? if its being held in upstate NY I take this back to an extent, though holding it in Kansas  or some place makes more sense to me, b.c. it'd be less of a target and a smaller forum for terrorist ideas.

[nemo]

i agree with Iconic Shawn that the document was intended for American citizens only. However, I dont believe that Americans deserve more rights than others. That being said, there are exceptions. Islamic militant extremists arent even accepted in their society. Same with militant christian extremists. None of them deserve a civilian trial where they can publicize their prejudiced beliefs. Holding the trials of the 9/11 terrorists in NYC is particularly dangerous because NYC could become a target, it is a huge forum for the terrorists to convey their ideas, and because it is extremely costly(defending it from further terrorist attacks incited by this trial, etc.). There really isnt any reason for it. I dont believe they deserve a civilian trial to be perfectly honest, but if you want to give them one, why in new york? Because the crime happened there? fine, hold it in upstate NY or something. No need to help the terrorists publicize their ideals and/or deal with the logisitics and cost of doing the thing there. No benefits to holding it in NYC in my opinion.

note: it is being held actually in NYC right? if its being held in upstate NY I take this back to an extent, though holding it in Kansas  or some place makes more sense to me, b.c. it'd be less of a target and a smaller forum for terrorist ideas.

You're getting things completely backwards here though, to you someone who's guilty of those crimes doesn't deserve to be treated by the same laws as the rest of us (and if that's your opinion fair enough, nothing I say is going to change that), but you're assuming the guilt of everyone being held before the trial even begins.  The very point of a trial is to determine whether or not someone actually is guilty. 

Again, imagine you (or to perhaps make this scenario slightly more realistic, your friend who's a muslim of middle-eastern origin) were accused of terrorism and arrested on suspicion of having been involved in the attacks after returning from a long trip to visit family and friends in Pakistan.  Now in this situation you know you're innocent, I know you're innocent, but the media reports just say 'terror suspect thought to have played a key role in 9/11 arrested' and the police say they think they have firm evidence linking you to the crime.  Would you agree that you don't deserve a civilian trial due to the nature of the crime you have been accused of?

And I'm afraid that to me the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Suggest that they're not only referring to US citizens, but to everyone, regardless of nationality, skin colour, religious belief, etc, etc.  If you look at the first couple of sentences of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, you'll see that he does too, and that he thinks this belief in equality for all is a fundamental part of the philosophy upon which the US and its constitution are built.

[aintitfun22]

You're getting things completely backwards here though, to you someone who's guilty of those crimes doesn't deserve to be treated by the same laws as the rest of us (and if that's your opinion fair enough, nothing I say is going to change that), but you're assuming the guilt of everyone being held before the trial even begins.  The very point of a trial is to determine whether or not someone actually is guilty. 

Again, imagine you (or to perhaps make this scenario slightly more realistic, your friend who's a muslim of middle-eastern origin) were accused of terrorism and arrested on suspicion of having been involved in the attacks after returning from a long trip to visit family and friends in Pakistan.  Now in this situation you know you're innocent, I know you're innocent, but the media reports just say 'terror suspect thought to have played a key role in 9/11 arrested' and the police say they think they have firm evidence linking you to the crime.  Would you agree that you don't deserve a civilian trial due to the nature of the crime you have been accused of?

And I'm afraid that to me the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Suggest that they're not only referring to US citizens, but to everyone, regardless of nationality, skin colour, religious belief, etc, etc.  If you look at the first couple of sentences of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, you'll see that he does too, and that he thinks this belief in equality for all is a fundamental part of the philosophy upon which the US and its constitution are built.

so your not challenging whether they should be held in NYC? ok. thats what i really think is indefensible.


i believe in civilian trials for those where there is a chance that the defendant is not guilty. these guys admit to the crimes. the trial is a mere formality. a costly and wasteful one. especially in NYC.

[nemo]

so your not challenging whether they should be held in NYC? ok. thats what i really think is indefensible.


i believe in civilian trials for those where there is a chance that the defendant is not guilty. these guys admit to the crimes. the trial is a mere formality. a costly and wasteful one. especially in NYC.

I'm challenging the idea that anyone should be sentenced without a fair impartial trial beforehand.  You can't condemn someone purely on the seriousness of the crimes of which they're accused.  If I said that you raped every child in Iceland, while flaying their mothers and throwing their flesh onto an open fire we shouldn't just decide 'a trial's too good for him, just shoot him, or lock him up and throw away the key.'  i know that's a ridiculous example, but there's no excuse for abandoning due process, is there?