bombs in Boston ... and now in Texas???

quote:

---

but certainly an American soldier is a "person" entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

---

That sounds pretty clear and the 5th amendment is the 5th amendment, military or not.See also: (Source second page down)I think that last sentence there is related to the muddy language above. Everywhere I have looked has indicated that servicemen and women receive (or are supposed to under law) teh same due process as civilians. A LOT of people have made the argument that the verbiage is just vague enough that it can be construed any way possible. There have even been hearings, but I see them the same way as the birther hearings. NO case can be made yet.

Nope, not me.

And yet you originally quoted a paragraph that said differently. FWIW, servicemen 'due process' in a criminal context simply no depriving of life and liberty without a fair process. For the purposes of military men and women the exact nature of the process is defined by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which affords fewer protections that do civilian court systems. Couple that with the president and Congress' powers during prosecution of an actual war, and you've got something way less than a civilian would ever get. We've just looked at the wording. Show me the slippery parts that would apply to a Russian born US citizen with no known ties to anyone listed in the act.

Text of the fifth amendment. Emphasis added by me. Note the highlighted exception that applies directly to Bradley Manning but not to the Boston Bombers.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I just cited two sources that said, very matter of factly and in very plain english, that Military members are afforded the EXACT same 5th amendment rights as civilians. Do you have a source that says otherwise? If you were to actually look into the Patriot Act, you would see that he IS a terrorist and is subject to the Patriot Act.(see my bolded bits)
(I've condensed this section down for clarity) Secondly, we have this: Can you define "associated forces? Are you that confident that his religion won't be used as being sufficient "evidence"?Wait, what's that? politicians are ALREADY calling him an enemy comabtant. How's that for justice from those in office?I was thinking we were actually having a nice discussion, but it's obvious you just want me to be wrong without actually doing any homework yourself.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

(hint hint: that part isn't the due process part)Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I took a page from the jar handbook on social introspection. Phats FacebookThis is what I posted:

quote:

---

Now that this whole tragedy in Boston is winding down, I can only say this: Using critical thinking, I dismiss all of the "Alex Jones/Info Wars" rumors of a government conspiracy...they didnt blow up the World Trade Center either... but the United States could do better in regards to being an aggressive global Empire that preserves the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor of the world. In addition, as a Christian, I believe that humanity is in the midst of a centuries long Spiritual War and that as the population of the earth becomes enlightened and educated, this war is only going to intensify. And its not a physical nor a military/FBI/Police issue...it is a Jesus issue and humanity groans for our Savior...our lost communion with God...our Blessed Hope.

---

Now I know you critics will gnash your teeth at my religious outlook, and to be fair...this was quoted from one of the news articles on the Boston suspects: thus it could be argued that religion itself is a cause of many of these conflicts, though I would say that the abuse and manipulation of religion is the real issue. To love and believe in Jesus is of itself not problematic.

So the Texas fertilizer plant explodes, killing 30 and injuring over 200 workers ...... a "time-bomb" that was waiting to happen due to (a) deregulation (because it interferes with corporate profits), (b) GOP pandering to corporation interests over public interests, and (c) corporate greed that values profits over worker safety.Notice that fertilizer is notoriously explosive, and was a major ingredient in Tim McVeigh's Oklahoma bomb ...SO which is more reprehensible --- Boston or Texas?I say Texas, and that this is the tip of the iceberg of time-bombs created by deregulation and greed.Enjoy.

Sorry....bogus argument.....OFF TOPIC.

No it does not, does it.I've discussed the due process part, partly with references to sources you have provided. Militiary men get due process, but it is not the same process that civilian gets. And besides that, the highlighted part of the Fifth Amendment does explain how Manning can be to answer for a crime without the process a civilian would get (Grand Jury or equivalent).I've also invited you to interpret the acts you've cited in a way to suggest that Dzhokar Tsarnaev can get the same treatment. An invitation you have yet to take up beyond saying some people said anything goes.

Huh? How does that even grammatically make sense? My statement was not a does or does not statement. I guess it comes down to "no, you haven't". Yes, it is. I showed that. You have not rebutted it. That sentence has four(4!) parts. The part you think supports your argument....doesn't.You see, this part:

quote:

---

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

---

is separate from the due process bit via the word NOR, as well as a few other distinctions. You know this. I know you aren't a retarded fucking monkey. Stop acting like one. Notice that I replied to you twice. You didn't respond to Message 140. I have, actually, clarified how Dzhokar Tsarnaev will be rightly viewed as a terrorist and subject to the PA. What hasn't happened isn't me failing to do something. It's you. Thank you, though, for turning this from a discussion where I valued your thoughts into an argument where I think you are a moron.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Hi PhatI appreciate what you're saying and I agree. The problem is though that it cuts both ways. We in the west aren't always just content to see our own culture maintained but are often intent on exporting it to the rest of the world, by whatever means necessary. This only assists the extremists in getting young hot heads with all that testosterone running through their system to believe that evil is actually good.I contend that the only way for any country to truly convert to the ways of democracy and freedom that we enjoy in the west if it is as a result of a broadly based popular movement from within the country, and as it did in the western world it is going to take generations for it to become firmly established. In the west we have a mentality of wanting instant results and and we aren't prepared to wait years let alone generations.Sure there may have been an improvement in the lives of some of the people in Iraq but I really question if the country as a whole is any better off than before all those bombs were dropped all over the place. It sure seems to me that if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win. I have no way of proving this but I would bet that the average Iraqi is less pro-western now that he/she was prior to the war. In the last couple of days we have had a major attack by terrorists averted in Canada. Here is a perfect example of how we have to be so careful of stereotyping. The alleged attack by a couple of Islamic extremists was prevented in large part because of the Islamic community in Canada. Planned Terrorist Attack in CanadaHere is a portion of that report.

quote:

---

The Canadian plot was foiled by police in cooperation with Canadian and American intelligence agencies after a prominent Muslim community leader in Toronto tipped off the RCMP.

---

Our first line of defence against Muslim terrorism is normative or moderate Islam. The extremists would like nothing more than to see us marginalize our Islamic citizens. Sure I disagree with much of their theology but there is also a great deal that we have in common and can share that with them.I do agree that it is easy to go into the Qu’ran and find quotes that can be used to encourage violence against people of other faiths. However, it is possible, as it is with the Bible, to get the exact opposite message as well.Here is an excellent Islamic web site that understands the Qu’ran in a way that encourages friendships and communitywith other faiths. Can Muslims be friends with Jews and Christians?{abe} That link didn't seem to work. Here is the url to cut and pasteCan Muslims be friends with Jews and Christians? - IslamiCityI know that we are all basically tribal but hopefully we are all moving, even if it is painfully slowly away from that. The most fundamental Christian message concerning morality, (which is not to say that it is only Christian but I use that as it applies to both Phat and myself), is that the our goal should be that we would all be of one tribe, regardless of belief or non-belief.{abe} I wanted to add this additional article on how it was the Muslims who alerted authorities so that this terrorist act in Canada was thwarted. Report from ReautersEdited by GDR, : No reason given.Edited by GDR, : problem with link

The Meaning Of Boston: Depends On Your Angle, Literally

quote:

---

We thought, however, it would be interesting to take a quick look at just what's been out there since the attack, how interest groups and partisans have attempted to use the Boston bombings to further a cause or make a political point. Here's just a flavor of what has unfolded

---

Perhaps terrorism achieves the goal of confusin political and social agendas, but it seems to me that it also unifies nationalism....something unwise for a foreign enemy to do. Unless of course the strategy is to cause us to overreact and bankrupt our system.

The goal of terrorism is to prompt an overreaction.The US almost always says "Good idea, let us overreact."But so far I have seen nothing about any foreign involvement in the Boston Bombing incident.

In fact, you posted a paragraph showing that due process for the military can involve different processes than that for civilians. I'll post that paragraph here for convenience (my emphasis added).

quote:

---

Marquette Law writes:
A soldier or sailor before a court-martial is entitled to due process of law, under the Fifth Amendment. To posit a contrary notion regarding the rights of American citizens called to defend their country upon language in Ex parte Quirin, which concerned the trial of enemy saboteurs, is most unwise. Due process of law may not make identical demands upon military and naval courts-martial as upon criminal procedure in the federal civil courts but certainly an American soldier is a "person" entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

---

You did make some kind response to my pointing this out, but you never addressed the specific phrase, highlighted above, that guts your entire argument. Yes. I acknowledged that. However the quoted part is still relevant because it provides an explanation for some of the treatment that Manning has received that I would not expect the Boston bomber to receive. As a combat soldier, Manning can be held for extremely long periods of time without an indictment, and as the provision of the Fifth that allows such treatment is separate from due process, there is no point in complaining that such actions violate due process. That provision doesn't apply to Dzhokar. Sure hooah212002. I'm an idiot, but you are just wrong.