100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: OBAMA EXPECTED TO REVERSE HIS DECISION ON MILITARY TRIBUNALS | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the same reason you support the terrorism of both america and israel, however i don't support terrorists, i support freedom fighters....and how is the truth thrown in my face? i told you facts. All but one of your pictures are that Osama Bin Laden but this debate's getting old and irrelevant to the topic. Your posts are not worth responding to......... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the same reason you support the terrorism of both america and israel, however i don't support terrorists, i support freedom fighters....and how is the truth thrown in my face? i told you facts. All but one of your pictures are that Osama Bin Laden but this debate's getting old and irrelevant to the topic. Your post is not worth responding to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow man my bowl is like totally clogged with resin i need something to scrape it with.....oh wow wrong thread,oooops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no war was actually declared upon us (not by legal definition anyhow, which requires a nation to declare war upon a nation). I think we needed to respond but not in the manner which we did. You do not have to stand up and verbally declare war in order to declare war. Look back to Pearl Harbor. When japan attacked us, it was considered an act of war, even though they attacked PRIOR to verbally declaring war. This is but one example. Do you need someone to stand there and TELL you that they are going to hit you before they hit you, for it to be considered an assault? japan is a nation,, yes? they used national military for the attack..that would fit what I was referring to as a NATION declaring war on a nation. As of yet, I know of no nation declaring war upon us behind or prior to 9/1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. That is an excerpt from wikipedia online. By that definition, anyone who is being tried as a terrorist, or for terrorism related issues, needs to be tried by a military tribunal, not a civilian court, as terrorism is directed towards non-combatants (non-military). If I broke a civilian law while I was in the Army, I would be tried and punished through a civilian court. If I broke a military law, or did something that involved the military, then I would be tried and punished under UCMJ (Uniform Code of MILITARY Justice). in regards to a non-American being tried in military tribunal or civilian court and receiving the same benefits as an American citizen, I disagree vehemently. Certain HUMAN rights, yes, but not AMERICAN rights. then please explain to me why the soldier that raped a 14 year old iraqi and murdered her family in cold blood was tried in a civilian court and not a military court. Bush's explanation was..."he wasn't in the military when the charges were brought against him" so...it's ok to try criminals that are middle eastern in military courts but not US soldiers? Might i add...this guy got off for his crime. Lifes not fair and I do hate it too. The difference between a hero and a traitor is only in who wins,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow man my bowl is like totally clogged with resin i need something to scrape it with.....oh wow wrong thread,oooops Grow up.......... 
|
|
|
|
|
