Treatment of terror suspects as enemy combatants...

Per a New York Times article, Senator Lindsey Graham has called for Ahmad Rahami to be placed into indefinite military custody as an "enemy combatant" and interrogated for intelligence purposes, rather than held as a civilian criminal suspect:

While commenting about this on the September 20th episode of Outnumbered, Ambassador John Bolton offered the following thoughts:

Should a move be made to formalize the treatment of such jihadists in this way?

 

Stripping people of their citizenship is a dangerous path to go down.

 

i am against such legal dealings. we cannot just change laws to remove the basic right of innocent until guilty, and no legal representation

 

The bastards declared war on human civilian populations. As far as I'm concerned, it would not only have been done by now, but it would have been sweeping(see: France's response). As long as we continue to tolerate this barbarism in the name of "being consistent with our values", this will indeed have to be "our new normal". Absolutely sick.

Remember when FDR proclaimed "a day of reckoning" following Pearl Harbor? Now, we're a nation of sissies.

 

If there was some legitimate reason to stripping terror suspects of their constitutional rights then it would be a different discussion, but as it stands it's just a feel good idea that doesn't accomplish anything.

 

We just had 3 attacks over a 24 hour period a few days ago. The legitimate reason is keeping Americans and America safe. It's not a "feel good" idea, it's steps we need to take.

 

And how does taking away their rights after we catch them, make us safe?

 

I go back and forth on this.

1. We literally declared war on terrorism. Seriously. There were congressional votes. If the enemy was stateside carrying out the very same missions they would anywhere else, they are an enemy combatant and they should be treated as such. Even shot at the steak.
2. US citizens are US citizens and should always be protected by the constitution

I don't know what is more important the more they keep terrorizing our citizens. What if it gets much worse?

- - - Updated - - -

I go back and forth on this.

1. We literally declared war on terrorism. Seriously. There were congressional votes. If the enemy was stateside carrying out the very same missions they would anywhere else, they are an enemy combatant and they should be treated as such. Even shot at the steak.
2. US citizens are US citizens and should always be protected by the constitution

I don't know what is more important the more they keep terrorizing our citizens. What if it gets much worse?

 

Does taking away their rights after we catch them make us any safer?

 

Well you lose rights in prison either way. My question is- do we remove them from society as a whole (including prisons) and house them in military installations and go by the rules of war.

 

Why is this a dangerous path to go down? I don't think anyone is suggesting the stripping of American citizenship without due process; what Senator Graham seems to be suggesting is that citizens accused of planting bombs in support of ISIS be treated initially as enemy combatants, in order to try and gain timely intelligence that might prove to be critical when it comes to saving lives and/or preventing similar activities from taking place.

As Ambassador Bolton said, "innocent until guilty" works within the law enforcement paradigm, not within a wartime paradigm. Somebody who wants to kill Americans in support of some ISIS related jihad is, for all intents and purposes, an enemy combatant, and we don't Mirandize enemy combatants.

Not true. The problem is that if the suspect in question has information about other people or activities related to terrorism, letting them hide that information behind our legal system is not helpful to us. So, as a hypothetical, say that Rahami is aware of another attack being planned for later in the week. Does it make sense for us to let him schedule a meeting with his lawyer two weeks from now, and not have anybody be able to speak with him until then?

 

The point is to capture them BEFORE they commit any acts of terror. So what you're asking me, is it the right decision to get rid of them before they do harm? Yes, everyday, all day, 24/7, 200% confident in that decision if I were this country's commander in chief.

Our safety trumps their so-called rights that they trample on with their propaganda and acts against America.

 

We get the message across to our enemies...'We don't put up with it'.

 

I am livid that John Bolton who is a dildo head has the nerve to tell lies about the post WW II refugees among who was Inand my parents. I still have certified copies of the questions and investigation that my parents went through during the vetting process conducted by American immigration and refugee resettlement officials in Germany. Though there were Nazis who managed to get in fraudulently that was at a bare minimum. My father even had to answer a long questionnaire for me because I all of about 2 years old and wouldn,t gave know a Hitler Youth cell from a Bavarian Oak tree. Of course not being German would have blocked any invitation to join thecHitler Youth.

The vetting process was very tight post WW II and my dad was delayed because there was a guy who had a very similar, not the same, but similar as my dad who served in a SS Batalion. Lucky but turned out the guy was not from the same province as my dad and BIB dud not match. Even do my dad had to swear and sign a statement that he did not know the guy and was not related to him.

I want Ambr Dildo Breathe Bolton go explain to me why Werner Von Braun and hus happy horde of Nazi rocketmen were not only by passé fir vetting but didn,t have to come here by boat but were flown into the SouthWest and a few months later their entire immediate families were flown in while returning American service men took a long boat trip home. I know a guy who along with his mother and sister was flown in to join their rocket dad. So the few minor cases of refugee " fraud" was condoned by the government.

So Mr Ambassador if you want yo tell lies about the level of fraud among us WWII refugees you better pull your dido dead out of your butt and reserach the archives.

 

If we are to treat terrorists as enemy combatant soldiers then we need to deviate war against ISISIS -Stan , Hesballah -Stan sic. I would never give the terrists the status of soldiers who gap own go be our enemy at thus time.

 

We are talking about postponing their rights. And yes, in answer to your question, the reason that this is important is for just those cases in which timely questioning of a suspect who has knowledge of other activities can result in the saving of lives.

 

security in a free society is largely a matter of illusion, but treating terrorists and suspected terrorists as enemy combatants is more than just a feel-good action. it sends a clear signal that terrorism on behalf of a foreign entity is no longer going to be treated as a civilian matter, that such cases will be tried before the much stricter judges of a military tribunal and that the penalties will be much harsher as well. as it stands, we are fighting a rather lopsided war. on the one hand we have the technical superiority of advanced weaponry and a huge standing army. on the other hand we are not only fighting an enemy with no clear base of operations to attack, but are treating them with kid gloves when we do manage to capture them. enemy combatants are not due the same rights as u.s. citizens when they are captured and those who fight on behalf of our enemies have given up the right to hide behind the same sorts of protections we afford our citizens.

 

Ok, but I included Ambassador Bolton's statements in support of what Senator Graham had said; what do you think about his comment?

 

So now you want to strip their rights before they do something? That's definitely going too far.

 

and sen mccain profoundly stated, it isnt about who they are, it is about who we are. this would go against the core of innocent until proven guilty. i am completely against it

 

To quote you Liberals "If it saves one life" and I'd be saving hundreds of lives. They're trying to kill us

 

your ticking time bomb scenario is merely hollywood cinema effects. it is an old an invalid argument. once again, fear, is justifying radical behavior.

 

What part of "innocent until guilty" working within a law enforcement paradigm, not a wartime paradigm, do you not understand?

 

what dont you understand, we are not at war, period. you are in needless fear. the reality is, bombings have been going on in the us for longer than any of us have been born.

 

Thank-you. Therein lies the problem: a complete failure of some people to recognize that yes, we are in fact at war. An ISIS follower would be happy to blow you up or remove your head in order to prove it...