Yes, because convicting a homegrown terrorist, one of our own citizens, who proudly and succinctly admits all of his crimes on the stand is entirely the same as a foreigner who is part of a larger terrorist network in an ongoing war, and committed his crimes outside our court system's juridiction. Yup, no unique difficulties there.
Uh, say what? Roeder *is* part of a larger terrorist network engaging in an ongoing war, and I suspect you have no idea exactly where the US court's jurisdiction ends.
As for proudly admitting his crimes: Well, that's a two-parter. First, Roeder did that because he was expecting a popular revolution, as he says the things EVERYONE is thinking but isn't willing to say, and he'd be released and adored and a hero for The Cause. Second, Roeder did that because he was the fall guy, desperately trying to protect the rest of the organisation.
As for the last: If you can't try 'em, you can't arrest 'em. Simple, basic principles, here.
To be fair to the OP, the US has no current military campaigns going on against Christian Extremists (however, to be fair to logic and reason, we are not at "war" with anyone either, so his use of the word was basically incorrect across the board).
Also, do other terrorists not proudly admit their crimes? Seems that is a hallmark of the mindset.
A better question is, which of the people currently bereft of rights, lawyers, trials, and illegally imprisoned in the US's offshore gulags has actually committed a crime?
Because there are a WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THERE, most of whom may in all probability be guilty of nothing more than being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"Being in prison" ≠ "committed a crime".
That's what rights, trials and due process are supposed to ascertain.
I think that's actually a very different question, though certainly no less worth looking into. There is, after all, a reason that we have due process for everyone (or had). It's because it works better than just arresting random dudes.
I suspect you have no idea exactly where the US court's jurisdiction ends.
Nice personal attack based on practically zero knowledge of me. Even so, it seems pretty clear that acts of aggression committed overseas in an ongoing conflict on foreign soil, falls into a distinctly different category than a clearly defined crime committed by our own citizens and within our own borders. Doesn't take someone with a law degree to realize those are *distinctly different* scenarios.
And which larger terrorist network do you claim Roeder is part of? I can guess from your other responses in this thread and blanket statements against religion on this blog that you're going to claim that the religious right is somehow a terrorist organization.
I would gladly agree with you that the authorization for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involves some dodgy legislation and a sketchy expanding of the scope of the term "war". One of my biggest peeves is that it's a war with no definable endpoint or expiration date. However, I think it's an even worse misappropriation of the term to extend it to the actions of a disorganized handful of religious nutjobs in this country.
Sorry, I think we're talking about different things. If you're talking about OBL or KSM, you can say they killed US citizens on US soil as organizers of 9/11. But aren't a lot of the prisoners just people that were picked up during the fighting overseas? In which case it's not US soil. That's who I was thinking of, but I'm not sure which theweaselking was referring to.
I agree that it's wrong to keep them locked up indefinitely without any clear declaration of what their charges are, but there's still an additional question of once their charges are laid out, is it more appropriate to try them under standard U.S. courts, or some kind of military tribunal. For someone who is a U.S. citizen and committed their crimes on U.S. soil, that answer is cut and dry. For a non-citizen who committed their crime overseas, it is less so.
And which larger terrorist network do you claim Roeder is part of?
The ones, plural, who are paying for his lawyers, helped him plan the attack, and who've planned, paid for, and carried out similar attacks in the past, and say they'll keep doing it?
I'm talking about groups like Operation Rescue and Stormfront and their politer political wings, like The 700 Club.
I can guess from your other responses in this thread and blanket statements against religion
Find me a defensible religion, then defend it, and I'll stop calling religious people stupid. Until then, religious people are stupid and their defective reasoning is an objectively bad thing. Some religions are worse than others because they're not just stupid, they inflict their stupidity on others and it hurts people.
you're going to claim that the religious right is somehow a terrorist organization.
Not all of it. Most of it is con men and the gullible idiots they prey on - but it also contains organisations that use violent methods to harm and intimidate anyone they think doesn't share their goals.
But aren't a lot of the prisoners just people that were picked up during the fighting overseas? who were rounded up randomly and/or were fingered without evidence by an informant who was paid more the more people he fingered, or who were taken into custody by local "law enforcement" who happened to be of a different religion or to want something the alleged terrorist had, again without any evidence at all?
Fixed that for you.
I'm sure it's possible that there is at least one actual terrorist in Guantanamo who did something worthy of being arrested and jailed - but I'm *also* sure that a fair-to-maybe-overwhelming percentage of them are innocent people, because we know what criteria it took to get taken into custody, tortured, raped, and murdered by American troops.
Open courts. Open evidence. Rights of the accused. Due process. Reasonable time limit. If they're *actually* guilty of something, it should be easy to prove. If you can't prove it, *they're not guilty* and you're imprisoning *innocent people*.
America is running pretty short on late-term abortion doctors (http://www.esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor-warren-hern-0909). They seem to get shot at a lot. Don't get killed, and your country, your town, and even your own patients will condemn you for doing your job. I wonder if there's a more thankless job in the medical field.
Those people are not being tried here, though. right now they're in limbo (still). to be fair, they should be charged or released. And really, here's the problem with "military actions". We're not at war. they are not representatives of a nation. As a result, we can't really legally try them at all. they didn't break any US laws because they weren't here. they attacked US citizens, but it can easily be claimed that they were defending themselves and uit's probably true. And we can't try them in a military tribunal because they are not part of a military .... they're still in limbo because there's not really any law to employ here.
Coroner. Not only do they never get thanked by the people they treat, but most of their patients absolutely refuse to speak to them or even acknowledge their existence.
My response (besides YAY HE WAS CONVICTED!) is this: Dear Associated Press, Killing people is not "activism." This guy is not an activist. Try "terrorist" or "murderer."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 12:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 12:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 12:41 pm (UTC)As for proudly admitting his crimes: Well, that's a two-parter. First, Roeder did that because he was expecting a popular revolution, as he says the things EVERYONE is thinking but isn't willing to say, and he'd be released and adored and a hero for The Cause.
Second, Roeder did that because he was the fall guy, desperately trying to protect the rest of the organisation.
As for the last: If you can't try 'em, you can't arrest 'em. Simple, basic principles, here.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 01:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 01:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 01:14 pm (UTC)Also, do other terrorists not proudly admit their crimes? Seems that is a hallmark of the mindset.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 01:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 01:25 pm (UTC)Ugh. Talk about tarnishing the word..
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 02:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 02:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 03:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 06:39 pm (UTC)Because there are a WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THERE, most of whom may in all probability be guilty of nothing more than being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"Being in prison" ≠ "committed a crime".
That's what rights, trials and due process are supposed to ascertain.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-01 07:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 03:25 am (UTC)Nice personal attack based on practically zero knowledge of me. Even so, it seems pretty clear that acts of aggression committed overseas in an ongoing conflict on foreign soil, falls into a distinctly different category than a clearly defined crime committed by our own citizens and within our own borders. Doesn't take someone with a law degree to realize those are *distinctly different* scenarios.
And which larger terrorist network do you claim Roeder is part of? I can guess from your other responses in this thread and blanket statements against religion on this blog that you're going to claim that the religious right is somehow a terrorist organization.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 03:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 03:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 05:11 am (UTC)The ones, plural, who are paying for his lawyers, helped him plan the attack, and who've planned, paid for, and carried out similar attacks in the past, and say they'll keep doing it?
I'm talking about groups like Operation Rescue and Stormfront and their politer political wings, like The 700 Club.
I can guess from your other responses in this thread and blanket statements against religion
Find me a defensible religion, then defend it, and I'll stop calling religious people stupid. Until then, religious people are stupid and their defective reasoning is an objectively bad thing. Some religions are worse than others because they're not just stupid, they inflict their stupidity on others and it hurts people.
you're going to claim that the religious right is somehow a terrorist organization.
Not all of it. Most of it is con men and the gullible idiots they prey on - but it also contains organisations that use violent methods to harm and intimidate anyone they think doesn't share their goals.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 05:17 am (UTC)that were picked up during the fighting overseas?who were rounded up randomly and/or were fingered without evidence by an informant who was paid more the more people he fingered, or who were taken into custody by local "law enforcement" who happened to be of a different religion or to want something the alleged terrorist had, again without any evidence at all?Fixed that for you.
I'm sure it's possible that there is at least one actual terrorist in Guantanamo who did something worthy of being arrested and jailed - but I'm *also* sure that a fair-to-maybe-overwhelming percentage of them are innocent people, because we know what criteria it took to get taken into custody, tortured, raped, and murdered by American troops.
Open courts. Open evidence. Rights of the accused. Due process. Reasonable time limit. If they're *actually* guilty of something, it should be easy to prove. If you can't prove it, *they're not guilty* and you're imprisoning *innocent people*.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 06:04 am (UTC)That much is ALSO cut-and-dried, Constitutionally and under common law.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 09:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-02 02:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-03 05:58 am (UTC)Dear Associated Press,
Killing people is not "activism." This guy is not an activist. Try "terrorist" or "murderer."