Ft Hood shooter can question victims

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

msq2

Banned
Banned
Aug 27, 2009
14,581
7,482
743
#5
Why?

Do you also want any mass shooting called an "act of terror" and thus the legal process suspended for the accused?
While i don't mind that sort of treat towards the shooter at fort hood and other mass murderers; I do mind that this could lead to a slippery slope with civil liberties.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,293
2,789
1,743
#6
Why?

Do you also want any mass shooting called an "act of terror" and thus the legal process suspended for the accused?
Not all but in this case the shooter clearly commits this act in the name of allah. He should be tried by a military tribunal and treated as a enemy combatent.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,293
2,789
1,743
#8
Today I learned a crime committed in the name of religion is automatically an act of terror.
His stated reason for the shooting was because we were killing Afgans. to refresh your memory we are at war with the extremist's in that country. This would be the same as if he was a German American killing american soldiers because they were killing germans. In WW II.In that case he would have had a court marshall and then shot within 1 year or less..
 

msq2

Banned
Banned
Aug 27, 2009
14,581
7,482
743
#9
I may be mistaken, but dont dont remember us ever declaring war on Afghanistan.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,293
2,789
1,743
#10
I may be mistaken, but dont dont remember us ever declaring war on Afghanistan.
We went to war with the folks who were in charge of Afghanistan after 9-11. The military executed Eddie Slovik during WW II and his crime was desertation and I would think killing your fellow soldiers would at least desere the same penality wouldn't you?
 

Darth Sensitive

Official OP Referee
Dec 10, 2007
6,392
1,534
1,743
#11
We went to war with the folks who were in charge of Afghanistan after 9-11. The military executed Eddie Slovik during WW II and his crime was desertation and I would think killing your fellow soldiers would at least desere the same penality wouldn't you?

No. We haven't declared war since June 5, 1942.

But coming from someone who thinks people deserve a "court marshall", that's not terribly misunderstanding.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,293
2,789
1,743
#12
No. We haven't war since June 5, 1942.

But coming from someone who thinks people deserve a "court marshall", that's not terribly misunderstanding.
Splitting hairs aren't you. When we send troops into battle to me that is war. War on terror was what it was called , Korean war, Vietnam war 1st gulf war, the congress never declared war in any of those but they were war neverless. Try asking the veterans who served in those countries if they thought it was war. Walks like a duck it's probably a duck.
 

kulanapan

Territorial Marshal
Nov 27, 2012
5,573
1,928
243
Dallas
cafehayek.com
#13
Not all but in this case the shooter clearly commits this act in the name of allah. He should be tried by a military tribunal and treated as a enemy combatent.
So it matters what somebody says before they commit a crime? You're suggesting that he should be tried for political speech as well as the actual crime...
 

kulanapan

Territorial Marshal
Nov 27, 2012
5,573
1,928
243
Dallas
cafehayek.com
#15
I think that he acted as an enemy combatant, so I think he should be treated as such.
Did the crime take place in a war zone?

In addition, how can he be an enemy combatant if he's employed by the US military? Maybe the term you're really looking for is "treason," but that is also subject to debate.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,125
16,441
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#16
Did the crime take place in a war zone?

In addition, how can he be an enemy combatant if he's employed by the US military? Maybe the term you're really looking for is "treason," but that is also subject to debate.
Nope the term I was looking for was enemy combatant. He (the murdering coward, not unlike osama the sock monkey, who will now go to trial) is an admitted enemy of the United States, when an enemy attacks you, you are by extension, in a combat zone whether it is a hospital, the streets of baghdad or the crapper. So, yes since he engaged in combat, although admittedly in a wholly cowardly manner, against members of the US military and their families, that makes him an enemy combatant and should mean that where he engaged those persons is a combat zone treason would mean he was one of us I don't believe he ever was.
 

kulanapan

Territorial Marshal
Nov 27, 2012
5,573
1,928
243
Dallas
cafehayek.com
#17
Nope the term I was looking for was enemy combatant. He (the murdering coward, not unlike osama the sock monkey, who will now go to trial) is an admitted enemy of the United States, when an enemy attacks you, you are by extension, in a combat zone whether it is a hospital, the streets of baghdad or the crapper. So, yes since he engaged in combat, although admittedly in a wholly cowardly manner, against members of the US military and their families, that makes him an enemy combatant and should mean that where he engaged those persons is a combat zone treason would mean he was one of us I don't believe he ever was.
So any US soldier who commits a crime against another US soldier becomes an enemy of the United States? That's not the precedent I'm familiar with...
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,293
2,789
1,743
#20
Did the crime take place in a war zone?

In addition, how can he be an enemy combatant if he's employed by the US military? Maybe the term you're really looking for is "treason," but that is also subject to debate.
He turned it into a one man war zone the victims were unarmed.