|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
01-22-2006 17:31
From: Mulch Ennui I just asked you to explain Padilla
I didn't say it was your call
was just an illustration... Explain in what context? I didn't decide anything in regards to Padilla. So what can you possibly hope to illustrate from it? Moreoever, how can I explain something I have no involvement with?
_____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
|
01-23-2006 01:23
From: Reitsuki Kojima Essentially, yes. The reason, I suppose, you had Jose Padilla mentioned to you is that he has been held by the military without charge for quite some time before finally being referred to civilian authorities. The point was that he should NEVER have been held by military authorities. To that end, is it okay to hold american citizens with military force if you capture them outside america via military force? Also, same question except the american is captured within US borders and held outside? Also, same question except american is captured within US borders and held inside? |
|
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
|
01-23-2006 01:35
btw, I would just like to mention that I am fairly certain that the 'truce' portion of the video released on Al-Jazira was not aimed at the USA. To illustrate this point, I merely have to point out a few simple things. First, it was in arabic (it also aired with sign language). Second, it was given to Al-Jazira rather than any number of available major network reporters. Third, the content of the message does not directly direct the truce statement at the USA. Instead it mentions Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are open conficts between Al-Quida, the new Afghani Government, the old Taliban, the new Iraqi Government, and the rebels. Any mention of Truce would much more appropriately be directed at all these groups. Lastly, because of the direct threat against the USA of further attacks. Which in this case meant against the USA rather than our troops.
So no, there will be no truce between the USA and Osama Bin Laden. None was offered. Further, it was extremely silly the way our media has jumped on the misinterpretation as the only possible one.
It would be refreshing for the middle east if a truce is brokered there. So I can hope that actually gets done while at the same time we work our asses off on domestic security given that we have indeed been warned.
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
01-23-2006 10:51
Mulch, there is no need to take this further. We have both revealed ourselves. Others can use our interaction in whatever manner they choose, to glean whatever ideas they can manage.
Pollyanna, err...Champie
|
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
01-23-2006 11:04
From: Siro Mfume The reason, I suppose, you had Jose Padilla mentioned to you is that he has been held by the military without charge for quite some time before finally being referred to civilian authorities. The point was that he should NEVER have been held by military authorities.? Which, again, has what to do with me? *points, again, to the section of text he re-stated* From: Siro Mfume To that end, is it okay to hold american citizens with military force if you capture them outside america via military force?
Also, same question except the american is captured within US borders and held outside?
Also, same question except american is captured within US borders and held inside? Conditionaly yes*, no, and no, in that order *If, by "via military force", you mean they were part of a militant or otherwise orginized, hostile resistance to our military, and were captured as part of ongoing military operations, then yes. In that case, I consider them an enemy combatant, for the purposes of detainment. Should be tried in America, however.
_____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
|
01-24-2006 03:13
From: Reitsuki Kojima *If, by "via military force", you mean they were part of a militant or otherwise orginized, hostile resistance to our military, and were captured as part of ongoing military operations, then yes. In that case, I consider them an enemy combatant, for the purposes of detainment. Should be tried in America, however. Alrighty, now if this 'combatant' is shooting at american soldiers I can agree with you. How about if he is attending anti-american conventions (outside the US as this is the precondition for the US military to obtain him)? Is this okay (to capture him)? |