ISIS threatens beheading of two Japanese hostages

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to discuss one thing. As you may know, ISIS burned the pilot and smashed him with cement, the ideas came from ISIS supporters via internet. Therefore those supporters are our enemies so do you think they should be arrested, even though they haven't joined ISIS?
 
CrazyPaul said:
I would like to discuss one thing. As you may know, ISIS burned the pilot and smashed him with cement, the ideas came from ISIS supporters via internet. Therefore those supporters are our enemies so do you think they should be arrested, even though they haven't joined ISIS?
Click to expand...

no. that would be against the concept of free speech. there is a big difference between who talk the talk and walk the walk.
 
Well ... Chris Kyle walked the walk, but the left is claiming he was all talk.

Why do they do that?
 
Steinhauer said:
Well ... Chris Kyle walked the walk, but the left is claiming he was all talk.

Why do they do that?
Click to expand...

why are you listening to them? who cares? forget about it. stop politicizing every thread. feel free to create a new thread about whatever the quibbling is.
 
Jiro said:
why are you listening to them? who cares? forget about it. stop politicizing every thread. feel free to create a new thread about whatever the quibbling is.
Click to expand...

It appears that the left will support anything that isn't American. Like, say for example, if an American President decided they were going to kill every ISIS prisoner we had after ISIS decapitated our journalist, they would howl at how inhumane the President was.

We saw this during the "enhanced interrogation" debates.

But, when a foreign King does it ... that is somehow different isn't it?

And then, we have an American sniper war hero like Chris Kyle who had over 160 confirmed kills. He is immediately labelled a cowardly butcher by the left.

But when Jordanian bomb runs kill 55 terrorists, they are celebrated as heroes by the American left .... why is that?
 
Steinhauer said:
It appears that the left will support anything that isn't American. Like, say for example, if an American President decided they were going to kill every ISIS prisoner we had after ISIS decapitated our journalist, they would howl at how inhumane the President was.

We saw this during the "enhanced interrogation" debates.

But, when a foreign King does it ... that is somehow different isn't it?

And then, we have an American sniper war hero like Chris Kyle who had over 160 confirmed kills. He is immediately labelled a cowardly butcher by the left.

But when Jordanian bomb runs kill 55 terrorists, they are celebrated as heroes by the American left .... why is that?
Click to expand...
so your point is.....? and I don't know where you're getting all these ridiculous stories.
 
Jiro said:
so your point is.....? and I don't know where you're getting all these ridiculous stories.
Click to expand...

The news .... :roll:

There is a whole wide world outside of AD ya know.
 
Steinhauer said:
It appears that the left will support anything that isn't American. Like, say for example, if an American President decided they were going to kill every ISIS prisoner we had after ISIS decapitated our journalist, they would howl at how inhumane the President was.

We saw this during the "enhanced interrogation" debates.

But, when a foreign King does it ... that is somehow different isn't it?
Click to expand...
It is different because foreign kings aren't constrained by the American Constitution. They use a different set of laws.
 
Reba said:
It is different because foreign kings aren't constrained by the American Constitution. They use a different set of laws.
Click to expand...

I know there has been contentious debate regarding the "rights" of unlawful combatants (and it is politically charged as well as divisive). From my understanding, unlawful combatants do not have any Constitutional Rights. I personally think this may be why the current President has been hesitant in claiming certain acts of terror within our borders were actually acts of terror. If he claimed they were acts of terror, the person who committed them could be considered an unlawful combatant.

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
 
Steinhauer said:
I know there has been contentious debate regarding the "rights" of unlawful combatants (and it is politically charged as well as divisive). From my understanding, unlawful combatants do not have any Constitutional Rights. I personally think this may be why the current President has been hesitant in claiming certain acts of terror within our borders were actually acts of terror. If he claimed they were acts of terror, the person who committed them could be considered an unlawful combatant.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Click to expand...

your understanding is incorrect. what you are implying is that the President should do whatever he wishes with the unlawful combatants. perhaps you don't understand Reba's post. such action would be illegal. and we went over this again. the unlawful combatant actually does have a legal right.
 
Jiro said:
your understanding is incorrect. what you are implying is that the President should do whatever he wishes with the unlawful combatants. perhaps you don't understand Reba's post. such action would be illegal. and we went over this again. the unlawful combatant actually does have a legal right.
Click to expand...

Yes, I recall going over this with you. You are incorrect, unlawful combatants have no rights. In order to have a "misunderstanding" one must first, have the ability to comprehend what they are talking about - you still have no comprehension.


Just like this unlawful combatant had no rights.

Do you understand now? He was NOT a captured POW.
 
Steinhauer said:
Yes, I recall going over this with you. You are incorrect, unlawful combatants have no rights. In order to have a "misunderstanding" one must first, have the ability to comprehend what they are talking about - you still have no comprehension.


Just like this unlawful combatant had no rights.

Do you understand now? He was NOT a captured POW.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Stein. I enjoyed watching the video. In America, we can't do that due to the constitutions but we can kill them in other countries by air bombing. That's the reason why I asked about ISIS supporters in America. As Jiro mentioned, we can't arrest them due to free speech. That means FBI has to work harder to watch what they (possibly over thousands) are doing. Remember two teenage girls who were ISIS supporters planning to join them but were blocked by Turkey, I think and the girls were sent back to America and they are still free. I don't like it. America is too soft. If those girls came from Iraq or Saudi Arab and were sent back there, they would be dead already.
 
Steinhauer said:
Yes, I recall going over this with you. You are incorrect, unlawful combatants have no rights. In order to have a "misunderstanding" one must first, have the ability to comprehend what they are talking about - you still have no comprehension.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but facts are facts. Supreme Court has ruled that they do have rights and Congress has already granted them rights.... so did DoD and DoJ. If I'm incorrect, please do provide credible source. and you know the government no longer uses "unlawful combatant" term?

Steinhauer said:
Just like this unlawful combatant had no rights.

Do you understand now? He was NOT a captured POW.
Click to expand...
um....

yea you have no comprehension at all. he was captured by Iraqi army... how does that concern us?
 
Jiro said:
I'm sorry but facts are facts. Supreme Court has ruled that they do have rights and Congress has already granted them rights.... so did DoD and DoJ. If I'm incorrect, please do provide credible source. and you know the government no longer uses "unlawful combatant" term?


um....

yea you have no comprehension at all. he was captured by Iraqi army... how does that concern us?
Click to expand...

You are still confused:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki
Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended that the protection of US citizenship was effectively removed by a key congressional act that blessed a global war against al-Qaida.

Known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the broad and controversial 2001 law played a major role in the legal decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, the former al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen, in 2011, according to a redacted memorandum made public on Monday.

"We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.
Click to expand...

An unlawful combatant does not have Constitutional rights, they don't even have rights recognized by the Geneva Convention.
 
Steinhauer said:
. . . "We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.

An unlawful combatant does not have Constitutional rights, they don't even have rights recognized by the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...
That applies only to Americans who are caught fighting abroad, correct? Awlaki wasn't killed in the USA.
 
and now the family of American hostage Kayla Mueller just received a confirmation that their daughter is dead.

very sad :(
 
Jiro said:
and now the family of American hostage Kayla Mueller just received a confirmation that their daughter is dead.

very sad :(
Click to expand...

Ooooohhh! I feel so sad. My condolences to her family.
 
Jiro said:
and now the family of American hostage Kayla Mueller just received a confirmation that their daughter is dead.

very sad :(
Click to expand...
I just read news. ISIS said the airstrike killed her. Pentagon said no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top