Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine on September 10, enough elements of a conspiracy for murder charge would have been met. April 10 may have been a little more problematic.

It seems like if the guy is in a sleeper cell, they should be able to charge him with some kind of conspiracy, no?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like if the guy is in a sleeper cell, they should be able to charge him with some kind of conspiracy, no?

Probably, though the evidence would have been harder to prove up. Though, I imagine it's the same evidence for "enemy combatant." Do they even have to prove anything up for that?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Probably, though the evidence would have been harder to prove up. Though, I imagine it's the same evidence for "enemy combatant." Do they even have to prove anything up for that?

I think enemy combatants are by definition not US citizens or US residents, no? So they don't really have rights, especially when they are being held in the no-man's-land that is Guantanemo (not US soil, not foreign soil).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think enemy combatants are by definition not US citizens or US residents, no?

That is incorrect. The one has nothing to do with the other, I believe.

So they don't really have rights, especially when they are being held in the no-man's-land that is Guantanemo (not US soil, not foreign soil).

The notion that they have no rights has more to do with this notion that the President has unbridled powers under Article II that are not limited in any way by pesky details like the Fifth Amendment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine on September 10, enough elements of a conspiracy for murder charge would have been met. April 10 may have been a little more problematic.

unless one of them cracked (and we may actually have one in custody who didn't crack) what evidence would we have had? reality is he would either have been held under Ty's "no reason" or we would have had to let him go. box cutters packed in your carry on is not a crime.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like if the guy is in a sleeper cell, they should be able to charge him with some kind of conspiracy, no?

i can't decide if the no muffins and poor chip days make you smarter or dumber.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
unless one of them cracked (and we may actually have one in custody who didn't crack) what evidence would we have had? reality is he would either have been held under Ty's "no reason" or we would have had to let him go. box cutters packed in your carry on is not a crime.

If there was no evidence, why would we have been picking him up?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there was no evidence, why would we have been picking him up?

we heard he was involved with al queda and we believed he had trained at a camp in Afghanistan. Could you list the crimes we could charge him with?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we heard he was involved with al queda and we believed he had trained at a camp in Afghanistan. Could you list the crimes we could charge him with?

If there's evidence of crimes, we should pick him up. If there isn't, we shouldn't. You can go away for a long time for conspiracy to murder. But you like these hypotheticals that assume that the executive is omniscient about threats to the country and yet powerless to do anything useful in a court of law. Both are belied by reality, yet you persist.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
quick question: we catch M. Atta on Sept. 10. What would you charge him with?

Dunno. Kinda depends.

Quick question: What evidence do I have?

Quicker answer: He is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, so I can turn him over to their secret police without much fear he'll ever come back.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there's evidence of crimes, we should pick him up. If there isn't, we shouldn't. You can go away for a long time for conspiracy to murder. But you like these hypotheticals that assume that the executive is omniscient about threats to the country and yet powerless to do anything useful in a court of law. Both are belied by reality, yet you persist.

the problem is that there are now people willing to do war-like acts of mass murder that do not tie into any particular country, and until the act of mass murder takes place there may often be little evidence. we got lucky with the LAX bomber because he decided to make the bomb in Canada and import it. for years the French were telling Canada to arrest him or kick him out*, BUT he hadn't done anything, other than be involved in training for a global jihad and all. Same with Atta.

Your point seems to be, to protect our freedom we have to let the next Atta roam free and even get on the plane. I suppose you could check his bags carefully or something.
See our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this- unless maybe if membership in al queda is made proof of insanity or something.

*gwnc disclaimer- I didn't mean that as Canada bashing. he simply had not done anything illegal. try to catch the PBS docu on the guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the problem is that there are now people willing to do war-like acts of mass murder that do not tie into any particular country, and until the act of mass murder takes place there may often be little evidence. we got lucky with the LAX bomber because he decided to make the bomb in Canada and import it. for years the French were telling Canada to arrest him or kick him out*, BUT he hadn't done anything, other than be involved in training for a global jihad and all. Same with Atta.

Your point seems to be, to protect our freedom we have to let the next Atta roam free and even get on the plane. I suppose you could check his bags carefully or something.
See our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this- unless maybe if membership in al queda is made proof of insanity or something.

*gwnc disclaimer- I didn't mean that as Canada bashing. he simply had not done anything illegal. try to catch the PBS docu on the guy.

You're still trying to spin a hypothetical where there is enough evidence that someone in the executive branch is smart enough to want to stop the guy, but not enough evidence that the courts will. You're telling a little tale about how we should trust the police when they tell you that someone is guilty and not leave it to the courts. It smacks of fascist propaganda.

In point of fact, there may be such instances. It's the price of living in a free society.

You say that "our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this" -- well then, propose a change in the law, instead of just putting the executive branch above the law.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're still trying to spin a hypothetical where there is enough evidence that someone in the executive branch is smart enough to want to stop the guy, but not enough evidence that the courts will. You're telling a little tale about how we should trust the police when they tell you that someone is guilty and not leave it to the courts. It smacks of fascist propaganda.

In point of fact, there may be such instances. It's the price of living in a free society.

in fact I gave a real world data point for my "hypo" where authorities knew a guy was jihadi but left him on the street. and I also extrapolated that M. Atta had committed no crime until he hijacked the plane, and asked what we should have done.

The only one who "keeps" doing the same thing is you. You won't admit that the executive postiion you advocate would prevent us from holding M. Atta.

by the way calling someone's arguments "fascist" is getting close to a n automatic loss, no?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in fact I gave a real world data point for my "hypo" where authorities knew a guy was jihadi but left him on the street. and I also extrapolated that M. Atta had committed no crime until he hijacked the plane, and asked what we should have done.

The only one who "keeps" doing the same thing is you. You won't admit that the executive postiion you advocate would prevent us from holding M. Atta.

by the way calling someone's arguments "fascist" is getting close to a n automatic loss, no?

So are you basically saying that anyone who someone thinks is associated with a group that we decide is a terrorist group should be rounded up and held indefinitely? This sounds more like Stalinist Russia.

ETA I watched Dr. Zhivago last night! Whee!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in fact I gave a real world data point for my "hypo" where authorities knew a guy was jihadi but left him on the street. and I also extrapolated that M. Atta had committed no crime until he hijacked the plane, and asked what we should have done.

The only one who "keeps" doing the same thing is you. You won't admit that the executive postiion you advocate would prevent us from holding M. Atta.

by the way calling someone's arguments "fascist" is getting close to a n automatic loss, no?

Are you basing your little fantasy on the notion that Homeland Security will know better how to protect us than a judge, or is it all about the quantum of evidence required to convict someone?

As for the fascist thing, I said "smacks of." So rest easy. Your trains aren't running on time yet.