Who decided Abdulmutallab was to be treated as a simple civilian?

[Universe Prince]

Yea......and?  Still missing the point there, Prince

Yes, apparently you are.

[sirs]

Ever planning on presenting that point, or is it going to remain as elusive as Usama?

[Universe Prince]

The point has been presented. I don't plan on spelling it out for you. You're smart enough to figure it out.

[BT]

re:the underpants bomber

"This man has no dick"

[sirs]

The point has been presented. I don't plan on spelling it out for you. You're smart enough to figure it out.

No, the point has not been presented.  Unless you're trying to play the same game Clinton, and now Obama are trying to do, in claiming that these acts of terrorism, are merely criminal activity, that rates up there with your typical mugging, or gas station hold up, or drive by shooting.  In those cases, the acts are being perpetrated by criminals, and as such are provided constitutional protections.  Acts of terror/war, perpetrated by enemy combatants, foreign I might add, have no such rights.  If you don't believe me, explain the continued use of drones to target and kill terrorists, prior to their even performing their latest terrorist act.  Where's their "right to remain silent"??

[Plane]

I think you are pointing to the fact that citizenship is not required to take advantage of the fifth admendment.


Another reason to use the rules that apply to prisoners of war, rather than criminals .


If a POW is unco-operative he can stay in stir untill the war is over , in this war that is probly long enough .

I beleive it was hoped that a right to refuse to incriminate onsself  would prevent the practice of torture.

Oh? Why would that be a concern?

King George that Third had no compunctions at all about the use of corporal punishment or outright torture.  The founders spent years under this threat, if captured, they would have been killed in a manner that would have impressed a Taliban.

I imagine that there was an empathy happening.

[Universe Prince]

I think you are pointing to the fact that citizenship is not required to take advantage of the fifth admendment.

Thank you, Plane.

Another reason to use the rules that apply to prisoners of war, rather than criminals .

I support using the rules that apply to prisoners of war. Last I checked, the U.S. government had argued against that and basically refused to do it.

I beleive it was hoped that a right to refuse to incriminate onsself  would prevent the practice of torture.

Oh? Why would that be a concern?

King George that Third had no compunctions at all about the use of corporal punishment or outright torture.  The founders spent years under this threat, if captured, they would have been killed in a manner that would have impressed a Taliban.

I imagine that there was an empathy happening.

So they sought to restrict government to prevent the abuse of prisoners. Interesting.

[sirs]

Another reason to use the rules that apply to prisoners of war, rather than criminals .

I support using the rules that apply to prisoners of war. Last I checked, the U.S. government had argued against that and basically refused to do it.

And last I checked, we ARE using the rules that apply to enemy combatants in a war.  No?  Nor did I limit my reference of the 5th amendment to ONLY american citizens/criminals

[Universe Prince]

No, the point has not been presented.  Unless you're trying to play the same game Clinton, and now Obama are trying to do, in claiming that these acts of terrorism, are merely criminal activity, that rates up there with your typical mugging, or gas station hold up, or drive by shooting.  In those cases, the acts are being perpetrated by criminals, and as such are provided constitutional protections.  Acts of terror/war, perpetrated by enemy combatants, foreign I might add, have no such rights.  If you don't believe me, explain the continued use of drones to target and kill terrorists, prior to their even performing their latest terrorist act.  Where's their "right to remain silent"??

So military action determines who does and does not have rights? No, of course not. But in any case, my point was made, and it has nothing to do with equating acts of terrorism with ordinary criminal behavior. But you've asked an interesting question, though I think you have far more to gain from contemplating the answer than I do.

[Universe Prince]

And last I checked, we ARE using the rules that apply to enemy combatants in a war.  No?

To which rules are you referring? The U.S. government specifically argued that the detainees suspected of terrorism were not prisoners of war. So clearly those rules regarding enemy combatants are not the rules we are using.

Nor did I limit my reference of the 5th amendment to ONLY american citizens/criminals

Of course you did not. Yet you still seemed to have missed the point.

[sirs]

And last I checked, we ARE using the rules that apply to enemy combatants in a war.  No?

To which rules are you referring? The U.S. government specifically argued that the detainees suspected of terrorism were not prisoners of war. So clearly those rules regarding enemy combatants are not the rules we are using.

Clearly they are referring to enemy combantants NOT of a deisgnated country's military force, but still deemed enemy combantats.  POW's were specific to those soldiers that are part of an orgnainzed country's military.  that's why terrorists, of the Islamic militant version, are not offered that luxury

No, the point has not been presented.  Unless you're trying to play the same game Clinton, and now Obama are trying to do, in claiming that these acts of terrorism, are merely criminal activity, that rates up there with your typical mugging, or gas station hold up, or drive by shooting.  In those cases, the acts are being perpetrated by criminals, and as such are provided constitutional protections.  Acts of terror/war, perpetrated by enemy combatants, foreign I might add, have no such rights.  If you don't believe me, explain the continued use of drones to target and kill terrorists, prior to their even performing their latest terrorist act.  Where's their "right to remain silent"??

So military action determines who does and does not have rights? No, of course not.

YES, of course they DO.  Whether the rights are that of Constitutional protections, as in cases of criminal activity, or limited rights provided for terrorists/enemy combantants/POW's, when engaging in terrorist and/or war-like activity

But in any case, my point was made, and it has nothing to do with equating acts of terrorism with ordinary criminal behavior. But you've asked an interesting question, though I think you have far more to gain from contemplating the answer than I do.

Not really, and I noticed you decided not to answer the main point as to the disconnect between our military actions against terrorists abroad, but providing them full constitutional protections here.  Let's hope the GOP can help enlighten the populace on that same disconnect

Nor did I limit my reference of the 5th amendment to ONLY american citizens/criminals

Of course you did not. Yet you still seemed to have missed the point.

A point that continues to reside soemwhere in Bin Laden's cave, somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan

[Universe Prince]

Clearly they are referring to enemy combantants NOT of a deisgnated country's military force, but still deemed enemy combantats.  POW's were specific to those soldiers that are part of an orgnainzed country's military.  that's why terrorists, of the Islamic militant version, are not offered that luxury

You have not answered the question.

So military action determines who does and does not have rights? No, of course not.

YES, of course they DO.  Whether the rights are that of Constitutional protections, as in cases of criminal activity, or limited rights provided for terrorists/enemy combantants/POW's, when engaging in terrorist and/or war-like activity

Really? You want to stand by the notion that the existence of one rights are determined by military action?

Not really, and I noticed you decided not to answer the main point as to the disconnect between our military actions against terrorists abroad, but providing them full constitutional protections here.  Let's hope the GOP can help enlighten the populace on that same disconnect

The disconnect may not be what you think it is.

A point that continues to reside soemwhere in Bin Laden's cave, somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan

No, the point is right here, in this thread, freely viewable by anyone with an internet connection.

[sirs]

It's been fun watching you do your best impression of Frank Gorshin' the Riddler.  When you've decided to actually present your point vs trying to get me to go dig for it, I'll be eagerly receptive to viewing it.  Especially regarding the disconnect

[Universe Prince]

The point has been presented. I suggest that if you were eagerly receptive, you'd see it.

[sirs]

I suggest if it were, I would