It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Except on 9/11 there was no 'war on terror'.. no enemy combatants, none of that.... can't retro actively hold people accountable for laws that did not exist.. lol..
Don't worry...
There are colorful pictures and sound..
August 1998
Skip to 2:20
edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Perhaps then the govt should have sent an arrest / police SWAT team.. trained to preserve life, process evidence, testify in court, arrest suspects.. rather than trained killers.
When the king, or hitler, or the gestapo, or saddam, or inset boogie-man decided outside a court of law someone must die.. they dispatched an assassination squad of trained killers.. they're evil bastards!!.. when the US party leader de jure does the same, eh.. it's cool... they had a note, and a few of their buttbois said it was ok.. so did various TV personalities.
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Perhaps then the govt should have sent an arrest / police SWAT team.. trained to preserve life, process evidence, testify in court, arrest suspects.. rather than trained killers.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SLAYER69
The crime occurred on US Soil, US laws apply. (If we are talking about 9/11).
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Michael Moore is a moron.
Think about this. How many people wanted the Gitmo detainees declared Prisoner's of War? If the Gitmo detainees are POW's, that makes Bin Laden an enemy combatant. No trial required. Simple enough.
Originally posted by RustyNailer
He got a fair trial and a swift death sentence. Justice was served as no one in the Twin towers got a trial before they were executed...
Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
Because if you are not a "legal" resident in this country, then by definition you are "illegal" and thus already breaking a law, and we don't want criminals with guns. You can be here on a Visa and still buy a gun. I have plenty of friends that are citizens of other countries, and they have concealed weapons permits.
I wasn't asking what laws the US citizen rampaging Canada would fall under, I was asking what moral code. Is it different if he is outside the US? Are Canadians less important than Americans? Apparently, if Iraq is any precident, it is ok to go to Canada, capture a Canadian, and torture or abuse them, refuse them any rights or visits or contact with the outside world, and then either release them back into the wild, or dispose of their bodies. Are Canadians some kind of lesser animal than Americans?
My entire argument is that the Constitution is more than a law. The very existence of the United States is based upon some ideals that our forefathers found to be "self-evident" and "inalienable." In other words, the document is not necessary to have those rights. Those rights exist in nature. A person is born with those rights. As Americans, we believe this to be true, and so where ever we may go, we carry those ideals and morals with us. It does not matter that we are out our country, because we live by a certain morality. It is ludicrous to think that it is ok to refuse those same rights to our captives or criminals.
Another example, the US is currently prosecuting "sex trips" where Americans go out of the country and do things that are somewhat legal in the country they are visiting, and then coming home innocently. We think it is immoral and we are prosecuting those cases.
Ideals and Morality are something a person sticks to no matter where they are. Our politicians and military and contractors and tourists overseas should be living by the same moral code they live by in the States.
Originally posted by anumohi
binladen could have easily been taken into custody without killing anyone