Reply to Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants.

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant?  He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.

This is the US.  We have one set of laws for everybody.  That's the point.

[/quote]

If you cannot understand the difference between, for example, the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists involved in Sept. 11th versus Timothy McVeigh, then you are clearly stupid or incredibly uninformed or have some mental problem, I don't know.[/quote]

Not the PP but in that person's defense, I thought we were discussing whether the Boston bomber should be tried as enemy combatants - not the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists...

Is it clear that this guy is that different from Timothy McVeigh?  In what way?  I haven't seen any evidence that he has ever been overseas and there has been no evidence of international connections.  McVeigh was upset with the government because of its handling of Waco, this guy says he and his brother were upset with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He seems more like McVeigh than the jihadist terrorists to me.[/quote]

The tim McVeigh argument is a moot point because

1) He isn't part of an international terrorist organization that declared war on the US
2) The enemy combatant law was passed after his who ordeal[/quote]

It isn't clear that DT is an international terrorist either.  But I assume that will all come out over time.   And we were making a comparison for theoretical reasons so when the law was passed doesn't really matter.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics