What would you do to "Jihad Johnny"?

Doer said:
I was just thinking

....extremist... the Iranian Sh'ia ... feared most...the Wasabs...a Sunni Sharia...Habib, and Abdul...death....Not-Islam, Apostate...Sect leadership...Sunni Islam... the boot of Iran....ISIL sacrifices...Saddam ...Sunni Sharia ...Saud... non-Plural Islam.

Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

awwww, he's having the cutest stroke ever.
 
Jimdamick said:
I guess everyone knows that guy in black in the ISIL vids, who seems to be called Jihad Johnny. What would you do to him if caught? Life in jail with no parole, shoot on sight, or extra special stuff that should be reserved for future terrorists.Just curious, because I was thinking some bizarre shit, like stuff that would scare the shit out of the next guy that want's to chop off heads. Give me some ideas.
Click to expand...

@UncleBuck was right about the republican party's taste for torture. If we don't prosecute torturers in this country, we really have no right to condemn anyone else for it. 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' has worn thin with the rest of the world, yet we don't hold them accountable.

It's extremely dangerous over time to act amorally. Sometimes it doesn't even take long- witness the people of Jordan's response to the ISIS video showing them being the pilot alive... They used to be a divided nation, reluctantly drawn in by outsiders.

After that video aired, there are few Jordanians who don't support an all-out war to exterminate them.

The lesson is obvious, but I don't see many repubs reading their history books.
 
As for 'Jihad Johnny', capture him, give him a fair trial and let a jury decide. This is called civilization and it sets its own example.

If he resists arrest, especially if he's armed, slaughter him. That's what you do with violent thugs, nothing more.
 
ttystikk said:
As for 'Jihad Johnny', capture him, give him a fair trial and let a jury decide. This is called civilization and it sets its own example.

If he resists arrest, especially if he's armed, slaughter him. That's what you do with violent thugs, nothing more.
Click to expand...

So you're essentially saying, send him to the Hague ? I'm not sure what kind of jury would be arranged otherwise. It would be rather difficult to assemble one in the first place. What would be a fair juror?
 
heckler73 said:
So you're essentially saying, send him to the Hague ? I'm not sure what kind of jury would be arranged otherwise. It would be rather difficult to assemble one in the first place. What would be a fair juror?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the Hague? If he hurt an American citizen, try him in an American court. Gitmo is utterly unconstitutional and an albatross around our necks and any 'special system' like it would be rightly suspect. We need to show the world that justice by a jury of peers works, not apartheid.
 
ttystikk said:
Who said anything about the Hague? If he hurt an American citizen, try him in an American court. Gitmo is utterly unconstitutional and an albatross around our necks and any 'special system' like it would be rightly suspect. We need to show the world that justice by a jury of peers works, not apartheid.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to question. What is considered a peer in his jury?

peer
n. an equal. A "jury of one's peers," to which criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled, means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. It does not mean a jury ethnically, educationally, economically, or sexually the same as the defendant, although, in some jurisdictions attempts are made to meet those criteria.

Have you ever served or been called to serve on a jury?
 
ttystikk said:
@UncleBuck was right about the republican party's taste for torture. If we don't prosecute torturers in this country, we really have no right to condemn anyone else for it. 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' has worn thin with the rest of the world, yet we don't hold them accountable.

It's extremely dangerous over time to act amorally. Sometimes it doesn't even take long- witness the people of Jordan's response to the ISIS video showing them being the pilot alive... They used to be a divided nation, reluctantly drawn in by outsiders.

After that video aired, there are few Jordanians who don't support an all-out war to exterminate them.

The lesson is obvious, but I don't see many repubs reading their history books.
Click to expand...

No, mush-brain is not right. Torture is in the US Army field manual, what you guys call torture.
 
ttystikk said:
@UncleBuck was right about the republican party's taste for torture. If we don't prosecute torturers in this country, we really have no right to condemn anyone else for it. 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' has worn thin with the rest of the world, yet we don't hold them accountable.

It's extremely dangerous over time to act amorally. Sometimes it doesn't even take long- witness the people of Jordan's response to the ISIS video showing them being the pilot alive... They used to be a divided nation, reluctantly drawn in by outsiders.

After that video aired, there are few Jordanians who don't support an all-out war to exterminate them.

The lesson is obvious, but I don't see many repubs reading their history books.
Click to expand...

similar to how we all came together after 9/11.
 
ttystikk said:
Who said anything about the Hague? If he hurt an American citizen, try him in an American court. Gitmo is utterly unconstitutional and an albatross around our necks and any 'special system' like it would be rightly suspect. We need to show the world that justice by a jury of peers works, not apartheid.
Click to expand...

You can hurt a US citizen in some cases and it not a US legal issue at all. It is Military Tribunal issue. And the reason there has been no tribunal is the outcome is Death.

No where else, has these protections. Most of the Gitmo guys, should have been executed already, and anywhere else, they are...Like Jordan. And the laws on Un-lawful combatants are quite clear. You don't like the rules? No one likes the rules.

Since SCOTUS allows it, by definition Gitmo detention by DOD, is Constitutional.

If it was not, it would already be shut down.
 
Last edited:
heckler73 said:
That's what I was trying to question. What is considered a peer in his jury?

peer
n. an equal. A "jury of one's peers," to which criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled, means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. It does not mean a jury ethnically, educationally, economically, or sexually the same as the defendant, although, in some jurisdictions attempts are made to meet those criteria.
Have you ever served or been called to serve on a jury?
Click to expand...

i have..but am disqualified because of marriage to LEO.
 
ttystikk said:
As for 'Jihad Johnny', capture him, give him a fair trial and let a jury decide. This is called civilization and it sets its own example.

If he resists arrest, especially if he's armed, slaughter him. That's what you do with violent thugs, nothing more.
Click to expand...

It is a completely false characterization, to dismiss this as just another violent thug, nothing more.

He is an Executioner of a constituted Sharia Court.

So, don't downplay the problem while you prop up the histrionics by likening Gitmo to apartheid.
 
ttystikk said:
@UncleBuck was right about the republican party's taste for torture. If we don't prosecute torturers in this country, we really have no right to condemn anyone else for it. 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' has worn thin with the rest of the world, yet we don't hold them accountable.

It's extremely dangerous over time to act amorally. Sometimes it doesn't even take long- witness the people of Jordan's response to the ISIS video showing them being the pilot alive... They used to be a divided nation, reluctantly drawn in by outsiders.

After that video aired, there are few Jordanians who don't support an all-out war to exterminate them.your post has

The lesson is obvious, but I don't see many repubs reading their history books.
Click to expand...

I think your post has alot of validity, but I don't think the republican / democrat thing is the division point. It is a distraction from the main point.

Torturing people is certainly wrong and I appreciate your pointing that out. So is using force to make people associate or keep them from associating if that's what they want to do. In fact all kinds of systemic coercion are wrong. Strike the root. Peace.
 
Doer said:
You can hurt a US citizen in some cases and it not a US legal issue at all. It is Military Tribunal issue. And the reason there has been no tribunal is the outcome is Death.

No where else, has these protections. Most of the Gitmo guys, should have been executed already, and anywhere else, they are...Like Jordan. And the laws on Un-lawful combatants are quite clear. You don't like the rules? No one likes the rules.

Since SCOTUS allows it, by definition Gitmo detention by DOD, is Constitutional.

If it was not, it would already be shut down.
Click to expand...

Most of those incarcerated in Gitmo have been shown to have done... nothing at all.
 
Doer said:
It is a completely false characterization, to dismiss this as just another violent thug, nothing more.

He is an Executioner of a constituted Sharia Court.

So, don't downplay the problem while you prop up the histrionics by likening Gitmo to apartheid.
Click to expand...

How does that make him anything but a thug who takes orders from other thugs?
 
Rob Roy said:
I think your post has alot of validity, but I don't think the republican / democrat thing is the division point. It is a distraction from the main point.

Torturing people is certainly wrong and I appreciate your pointing that out. So is using force to make people associate or keep them from associating if that's what they want to do. In fact all kinds of systemic coercion are wrong. Strike the root. Peace.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
ttystikk said:
How does that make him anything but a thug who takes orders from other thugs?
Click to expand...

Well, because these are not thugs. You are just slinging labels. A Thug? Meaningless.

Here is a thug by your definition.

d9586992767219a901bcc80e04a0b180.jpg


You can say a thug is anyone who kills? Then we all live by thuggery.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk said:
Most of those incarcerated in Gitmo have been shown to have done... nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Most have been shown to have done nothing?

You just made that up. The issue is How we know what they did. The evidence against them is quite solid for Tribunal, but not for a nammby pammby NY courtroom. WHY? The battlefield is not a crime scene. It cannot be re-constructed before a jury. And Jury of Peers. How can any US citizen be a peer when these guys were rounded up in conflict? The Gitmo peer are the Lawful combatants.

BS. Prove the Nothing. It cannot be nothing. What were they doing? Just standing around? You don't even know the number of detains still at Gitmo and you don't know the military crimes.

You just talk in broad labels.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk said:
So just because it's in the manual it's okay? o_O
Click to expand...

What you call torture is OK in the US Army Field manual. Therefore by deifinition it is not torture.

If you are gonna be a mover and shaker, you have to think beyond, is it OK by you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top