Criminal Trials for Terrorists

[ewlewis]

Right now I am really laughing over this thread. It seems that every few weeks this thread pops back up and it really has come to annoy me. People have debated back and forth and for some reason every time I see its title I become really irritated. So when I saw it today the first thing I thought was, "Who the hell is the jerk that started this stupid thread anyway." Well as some may now already know, I am that stupid jerk. So I guess all one can do is laugh.

[ScotsJim]

Dear ewlewis,

I am reminded by your post of why, in my little Gentlemans Club I attend at times, we have a rule ; absolutely no talk of politics or religion permitted.

It works a treat

Have a nice day Sir.

Regards,
Jim

[KevLa]

Personally, I'm all for freedom of speech. And no thread has to be opened if one doesn't want to read the latest post. Discussion of pipe smoking is all well and good, but there comes a point when one wants to know what others think about truly important issues. And before someone makes a comment along the lines of "You're saying pipe smoking isn't important?????????", compared to whether or not people are given fair trials before being punished, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[gnossos]

well to be fair you could find a forum whose main topic was political discussion Of course it's more important, and sure, we shouldn't stop our chats or anything so long as they remain civil, but at the end of the day this is a board dedicated to talking about pipe smoking Sometimes you just want to turn on cartoons or whatever and not get stressed out about it for a minute and I think some folks use pipe boards for just that!

still curious if this is going to get treated as terrorism. Seems fairly clear that it was violence towards a political end...

[eric]

I remain open to the idea of shutting down the political discussion and debate on this forum. I remain open to the idea of leaving this section available for political discussion and debate too so long as it remains confined to this area of the forum.

I basically consider this "your" forum so I'll leave the decision to the consensus. In the meanwhile, anyone troubled by political discussion should refrain from opening threads in the "Master Debators" section as the rest of the forum is free from politics.

Fair enough?

[eric]

I'm going to be curious to see if the guy caught yesterday gets tried as a terrorist.

Not sure what the charges are or will be. I don't think he'll be shipped off to Guantanamo. That would be impossible anyway because President Obama shut it down right after he took office in fulfillment of his campaign promise. Right? He did shut it down as he promised he would right? He was very clear about his intentions and it takes nothing more than his giving the order...

Uh...anyway....

I don't watch the news and know very little about this story. That said I assume it would be handled as a law enforcement matter. He wasn't captured on a battlefield overseas.

So far it looks like the charges are:

... he was charged with one count attemp assassination of congress member; two murder; two attempted murder...

Those sound like appropriate charges, but again, I haven't studied the store closely.

[brim325]

I see no need to close the thread at all , I do enjoy this thread a lot , I don't post here often but I do read here a lot. Like Eric said ^^^^^ If there something you don't like on the thread just avoid it . I think on a overall average we all enjoy this thread.

[ewlewis]

I guess I should say that in no way was I trying to indicate that this thread be closed, or any debating thread for that matter. I was actually just trying to point out something I found quite funny.

[eric]

I guess I should say that in no way was I trying to indicate that this thread be closed, or any debating thread for that matter. I was actually just trying to point out something I found quite funny.

Nothing I said was directed at you, brim, or anyone else in particular. I just wanted to point out that everything is optional and I listen carefully to the consensus of posters regarding what to do with the forums.

Many of the early members here came from a forum where many felt Big Brother was breathing down their neck making sure they didn't ruffle any feathers and whatnot. No need to rehash ancient history, just wanted to say that I allow political talk and a lot of other things because I figure if I respect everyone as adults there won't be a lot of problems and so far that has been the case here. But I'm always open to suggestions.

[ruraldean]

My own view is essentially the same as Eric's. The one proviso is that any disagreement in here doesn't spill out into the main forum and cause trouble there.

Gnossos will remember that the hillbillies had a problem that overspilled which ended up with a member leaving.

[SmokinFool]

well to be fair you could find a forum whose main topic was political discussion Of course it's more important, and sure, we shouldn't stop our chats or anything so long as they remain civil, but at the end of the day this is a board dedicated to talking about pipe smoking Sometimes you just want to turn on cartoons or whatever and not get stressed out about it for a minute and I think some folks use pipe boards for just that!

Quite right. This is, after all, what brought all of us here. We share this common bond. We did not come here to discuss politics, religion or animal rights. That said, there will be "other" issues ("other" meaning non pipe-related) that some members may want to discuss with each other from time to time. I have no problem with the continuation of the "Master Debaters" section of the forum, as long as it is the platform used by members to hold contentious and POTENTIALLY contentious discussions, and such discussions do not "spill over" into other parts of the forum, as has already been mentioned. Obviously, one cannot always predict what topics may become contentious, but a little discretion will go a long way in helping to prevent such occurrences.

[gnossos]

Heh, well the Guantanamo discussion is one I won't go into now But no I never would expect him to go there. It just seems clear that assassination attempts are pretty much by definition terrorist acts, I'm just really curious because while we've heard "extremist", "psychotic", " disturbed", "assailant", etc etc etc etc, not one reporter seems to have said "terrorist" and... I mean...

It's just weird to me is all. I suppose it would complicate things for when they want to bring him to court, esp. since he's a citizen whereas presumably no one incarcerated in Guantanamo is.

[Jameson]

This is a little off thread-topic but I really like the fact that there is a place here specifically for discussing debateable issues. I for one feel that there is far too much arguement for arguement's sake and not enough intelligent, discussion and debate on important issues. Afterall, how many world altering conversations have taken place over friendly, albeit heated, debate and a pipe full or three of tobacco?
I think it's good for us to discuss issues such as this, but it is all of our responsibility to think about what we say before we say it.

[KevLa]

This is a little off thread-topic but I really like the fact that there is a place here specifically for discussing debateable issues. I for one feel that there is far too much arguement for arguement's sake and not enough intelligent, discussion and debate on important issues. Afterall, how many world altering conversations have taken place over friendly, albeit heated, debate and a pipe full or three of tobacco?
I think it's good for us to discuss issues such as this, but it is all of our responsibility to think about what we say before we say it.

Hear, hear!

[eric]

Heh, well the Guantanamo discussion is one I won't go into now But no I never would expect him to go there. It just seems clear that assassination attempts are pretty much by definition terrorist acts, I'm just really curious because while we've heard "extremist", "psychotic", " disturbed", "assailant", etc etc etc etc, not one reporter seems to have said "terrorist" and... I mean...

It's just weird to me is all. I suppose it would complicate things for when they want to bring him to court, esp. since he's a citizen whereas presumably no one incarcerated in Guantanamo is.

Lets test your assertion.

Have you or have you heard others describe John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, John Hinckley, or Lee Harvey Oswald as a terrorist? If no, why not?

Within the context you are using the term, what is your definition of the term "terrorist" and how does that definition apply to assassinations? How are the charges brought against this guy insufficient?

Also, citizens can and are charged with terror related crimes - there have been dozens.

At this stage in the discussion I'm not really so much in disagreement with you - I'm really just asking for clarity.

The approximately 170 detainees left at Guantanamo and the rest that have been transferred to their country of origin already are basically Taliban and Al Queda operatives captured on the battlefield as part of our armed conflict with those entities. Per the US Supreme Court this is perfectly as it should be - they can be held until the conflict is over. That's getting into a whole other discussion.

What I don't understand is where you are drawing a connection between this gunman in Arizona and combatants captured in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[HappySquareHead]

As a counter-point to Eric's last post, if terrorism is breaking the law to affect political change, wouldn't Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohatma Ghandi be terrorists? Certainly pro-zionist bombers in post WWII Palestine should be...but how about a group of citizens who injured others and destroyed property on a ship from England dressed as Native Americans to protest high taxes?

This is what's wrong with calling people terrorists. Once you start using that label to identify "super villians", it'll come right back and bite you on the ass. As someone's said before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I say we just call them criminals and deal with them appropriately.

[eric]

...if terrorism is breaking the law to affect political change, wouldn't Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohatma Ghandi be terrorists?

I don't think I could settle for your definition of terrorism because it would include sit ins and peaceful protest. The definition of terrorism is pretty slippery and hard to define - kind of like p0rn - can't define it but I know it when I see it. I will say any definition of terrorism should involve an element of violence. But violence alone isn't enough to call it terrorism either. Liquor store robberies involve violence.

...but how about a group of citizens who injured others and destroyed property on a ship from England dressed as Native Americans to protest high taxes?

The Boston tea party? I might call it guerilla warfare, probably rebellion, and even criminal (under existing Brittish empire laws at that time) but don't know that I'd call it terrorism. If a group broke into a car lot today and vandalized all the Toyotas because they hate foreign cars or some such I wouldn't call that terrorism either. If a religious group burned down a warehouse full of Playboys I'd call it arson but not terrorism. If the same group went around pipe bombing factory workers, models, and executives in the gentleman's magazine industry that would be terrorism.

[gnossos]

terrorism isn't "breaking the law" for political change, it's violent action whose intended consequence is not the direct result of the violence. The "victim" is not the deceased, it's those still alive who allow the act of violence to change them.

To answer your question, no, I don't see those people labeled as terrorists, and I don't know why. I'm not necessarily saying he SHOULD be. I don't even know what that would entail beyond what he's going to end up with anyways.

I'm less mentioning it as far as something he should be charged for, and more because it seems weird that no one has used the word this time even as a descriptor.

[HappySquareHead]

To Eric and Gnossos, I stand corrected on my definition of terrorism...most definitions involve the words coersion or violence. However, I still maintain that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act as no state of war existed in 1773. So was John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859. And this is my point: that most nations have groups that are guilty of terrorism at some point in history...and sometimes those groups turn out to be on the right side of history. It just seems that we use that word to clarify the difference between them and us, and I think that's the wrong tack to take.

The right tack is to demonstrate the difference between them and us. That's done by following our constitution and respecting Habeas Corpus and putting criminals in American prisons and holding trials for the accused...and not torturing them. Doing otherwise turns us into the repressive and tyranical type of government that supports the criminals we're probably holding in Guantanamo Bay now (I say probably because after several years, they still haven't been charged with anything).

[bob9039]

I'm just really curious because while we've heard "extremist", "psychotic", " disturbed", "assailant", etc etc etc etc, not one reporter seems to have said "terrorist"

The wacko who shot the congress woman is not a terrorist. He did not do it to incite terror for political purposes. That is the definition of a terrorist. He is a criminal (or insane).


For the record, I believe E.W's initial question concerning criminals is flawed. It is a leading question that assumes Gitmo prisioners are criminals. There is a difference between criminals, terrorists, and our enemies at war. The Gitmo folks are prisioners of war. Terrorists who commit crimes on U.S. soil are criminals. Wackos that commit crimes are criminals. Not all criminals that kill (even mass shootings) are terrorists... they are just thugs, believe in really wierd stuff, had a mental breakdown, or are crazy.