Wouldn't it be ironic

[Lanya]

...If someone were to complain about Muslims putting Christian terrorists  to death w/o a fair trial? 

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/well-beyond-satire.html

[sirs]

How so?

[sirs]

More of that tried and true Lanya tactic of not answering direct questions, I see       

[Lanya]

I didn't see your question. 


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/well-beyond-satire.html

Read the post, and if you still have a question I will try to answer it.  It's pretty self-explanatory.  I think...

[Plane]

    I don't see it as especially ironic , if these guys are really guilty of something , they are home grown terrorists.
    Christians in Indonesia have a hard time , but I hope they are not really resorting to terrorism .

[sirs]

My apologies if you missed the question earlier Lanya, and understandible, when trying to get in tune with this new forum format.  Now, could you answer my question, in your own words, please.  What's/where's the irony of terrorists being convicted of crimes and put to death.  Have we (the U.S.) fraudulantly and without cause been putting Islamofascist terrorists to death?

[Lanya]

White House wants tribunals in which the accused can't see the evidence against him.  Because it's too classified.  That would be an "irregularity" in a trial, I'd think.
We have a system of law and we're turning it upside down here.  No, we have not put to death anyone  (other than torture that went too far) because we have not tried ANYONE.  We simply let them stay in prison.
That's just a start.   I'm not going to explain the administration's desires regarding how to try these people...I couldn't if I wanted to, and many people have written about them.

from truthout:
  "The proposed tribunals would largely hew to those that the Supreme Court rejected in June. The measure says Congress would, by approving the proposed tribunals, affirm that they are constitutional and comply with international law, which the Supreme Court said they did not."
'''''''''''
'"I do not think we can afford to again cut legal corners that will result in federal court rejection of our work," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said."
  Mr. Graham emphasized again on Wednesday that the military justice system outlined ways to allow classified evidence to be introduced without jeopardizing national security.
'''''''''''
    "I do not believe it is necessary to have trials where the accused cannot see the evidence against them," he said.
''''''''
    He predicted that this would make the bill vulnerable to more court challenges and that it would establish a bad precedent that could be used against American troops if other countries brought them to trial. In the bill, the administration says military laws for courts-martial were inappropriate for terrorists. To use those rules, the measure says, "would make it virtually impossible to bring terrorists to justice for their violations of the law of war."[........]
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090806Z.shtml

[sirs]

So, one more time....in YOUR words, what's/where's the irony of terrorists being convicted of crimes and put to death.  Your title, your claim.  Have we (the U.S.) fraudulantly and without cause been putting Islamofascist terrorists to death?

[Plane]

 "...because we have not tried ANYONE.  We simply let them stay in prison. "


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Isn't that the norm for prisoners of war?

Thousands of Germans and Italians were guilty of shooting Americans and were captured and sent to prison camps , would it have been right to try them for murder?

I don't think so, if the  Geneva Conventions do apply then these are Prisoners of War and ought never be tried.

If they are international Criminals then it is the right and responsibility of the Congress to establish procedures for their trial and punishment.

I think that they are a lot like Pirates , stateless hijackers of commerce and kidnap artists , Pirates were tried on the spot by shipcaptains authorised to do so by the Congress.

[sirs]

if the  Geneva Conventions do apply then these are Prisoners of War and ought never be tried.  If they are international Criminals then it is the right and responsibility of the Congress to establish procedures for their trial and punishment.  I think that they are a lot like Pirates , stateless hijackers of commerce and kidnap artists , Pirates were tried on the spot by shipcaptains authorised to do so by the Congress.

Good deductions & analogy Plane     

[sirs]

Hmmmmm, she must have missed seeing the question again              At least that's the only thing that comes to mind, since lanya appeared to be taking a more principled stand at answering questions.  Or so I was lead to believe.  Perhaps that's where the irony is

[Plane]

Hmmmmm, she must have missed seeing the question again              At least that's the only thing that comes to mind, since lanya appeared to be taking a more principled stand at answering questions.  Or so I was lead to believe.  Perhaps that's where the irony is

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Lanya can't be compelled , I am glad she has brought up an interesting topic even if she has lost intrest in it.


       If Timothy McVeigh had been given a very quick and questionable trial and executed in secret before the ink was dry on his death warrant , that would be something like what has happened in Indonesia.

         The diffrrence between this and Prisoners of War is tha Prisioners of war ought never be tried for acts of war , unless the acts rise ti the level of war crimes.

         I am entirely and energeticly against putting the ordinary footsoldier of Al Quedia on trial , if our troops are captured by the enemy should they be tried? I think not , they should be treated as POWs and given reasonable care untill they can be released either in an exchange or at the close of hostility.

         The call for trials for POWs is contrary to the Geneva Convention and is a very bad idea, only a few of the Al Quieda should be tried for war crimes , most of them should be eventually released, generally in exchange for one of ours.

           If we try them and sentence them ,what will we trade for our own when they may be captured?

[sirs]

I am entirely and energeticly against putting the ordinary footsoldier of Al Quedia on trial , if our troops are captured by the enemy should they be tried? I think not , they should be treated as POWs and given reasonable care untill they can be released either in an exchange or at the close of hostility

Works for me