View Full Version : Surviving Pirate
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 12:17 PM
So what should be done with the 16 year old pirate who boarded an American vessel with the intent to negotiate the release of the American hostage?
Opinions wanted.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_re_us/piracy_suspect
Dude just won the lottery.
he was brought to America to stand trial.
I am betting the Obama admin will slap him on the hand, then give him a house in the "Burbs", citizenship, and a nice little income.
sigh.
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 12:22 PM
Dude just won the lottery.
he was brought to America to stand trial.
I am betting the Obama admin will slap him on the hand, then give him a house in the "Burbs", citizenship, and a nice little income.
sigh.
Why shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia for his crime?
He's not an American citizen.
Does America's sovereignty extend to our commercial interests around the world?
His trial in America poses another issue-- who will represent him?
Of course, who will pay for his representation? The Somali government?
Praxeas
04-21-2009, 01:16 PM
So what should be done with the 16 year old pirate who boarded an American vessel with the intent to negotiate the release of the American hostage?
Opinions wanted.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_re_us/piracy_suspect
Corrupt him. Send him to Disneyland. Teach him english. Give him an American girlfriend......take him to the movies...whatever :ursofunny
Praxeas
04-21-2009, 01:18 PM
Why shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia for his crime?
He's not an American citizen.
Does America's sovereignty extend to our commercial interests around the world?
His trial in America poses another issue-- who will represent him?
Of course, who will pay for his representation? The Somali government?
why SHOULD he stand trial in Somalia? Where in Somalia? They have no real central government to begin with.
His crimes were against American citizens.
From what I gather the deeds were done in International waters. Should we have allowed the Afghanistan government deal with persuing and trying the 9/11 conspirators?
n david
04-21-2009, 01:31 PM
Good stuff. He's not a US citizen, I'm not even sure the ship he and his dead pirates attacked was an American ship (American crew, yes, but not sure it was an American ship) - so how do we have jurisdiction in this case?
I think it's the adminstration trying to look tough. Unfortunately for the administration, this will be a case, I think, they will wish to fade away.
And yes, this young buck will be living the high life free as a bird in the US of A here soon.
send him to live with some of the NY or Hollywood liberals.
or give him a room in the White House and a monthly government check.
maybe put him on BHO's cabinet along with the other folks.
Why shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia for his crime?
He's not an American citizen.
Does America's sovereignty extend to our commercial interests around the world?
His trial in America poses another issue-- who will represent him?
Of course, who will pay for his representation? The Somali government?
because we have a triple liberal commie president who thinks it cool and urbane and believes such an act will make our eneimes love us!
what we should have done was fly over Somolia and pushed him out of the plane with a note saying "dont attack American ships".
after he stopped bouncing, they could read the note and know better in the future.
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 02:26 PM
why SHOULD he stand trial in Somalia? Where in Somalia? They have no real central government to begin with.
His crimes were against American citizens.
From what I gather the deeds were done in International waters. Should we have allowed the Afghanistan government deal with persuing and trying the 9/11 conspirators?
The 9/11 conspirators were folks who were in America legally and did their crimes against Americans on American soil.
Shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia because he is a Somali citizen?
The crimes were not committed on American soil-- is the ship even American property?
The fact that Somalia has no government is a moot issue.
I don't think my tax dollars should be going to give this guy representation in our legal system.
How many thousands will be wasted on this guy? For what purpose?
Could he possibly get a fair trial in the first place? In fact, why would there even be a need for a trial? The only reason he was "captured" is that he was trying to negotiate the release of the hijacked American.
He's already guilty.
It would have been better for the young buck to have been killed than to have brought him back here.
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 02:28 PM
Good stuff. He's not a US citizen, I'm not even sure the ship he and his dead pirates attacked was an American ship (American crew, yes, but not sure it was an American ship) - so how do we have jurisdiction in this case?
I think it's the adminstration trying to look tough. Unfortunately for the administration, this will be a case, I think, they will wish to fade away.
And yes, this young buck will be living the high life free as a bird in the US of A here soon.
When he does go back to his country, he'll be legendary!
How many Somalis ever make it to New York city???
edjen01
04-21-2009, 02:38 PM
hang him from the yardarm
edjen01
04-21-2009, 02:40 PM
When he does go back to his country, he'll be legendary!
How many Somalis ever make it to New York city???
I doubt it.
that country is in such disorder and is ran by gangs....unless he brings lots of guns back with him they'll probably just put him back to work.
The 9/11 conspirators were folks who were in America legally and did their crimes against Americans on American soil.
Shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia because he is a Somali citizen?
The crimes were not committed on American soil-- is the ship even American property?
The fact that Somalia has no government is a moot issue.
I don't think my tax dollars should be going to give this guy representation in our legal system.
How many thousands will be wasted on this guy? For what purpose?
Could he possibly get a fair trial in the first place? In fact, why would there even be a need for a trial? The only reason he was "captured" is that he was trying to negotiate the release of the hijacked American.
He's already guilty.
It would have been better for the young buck to have been killed than to have brought him back here.
bro, you are asking the wrong question! your answer is a given.
The question is why in the world is the current administration who are supposed to be committed to keeping Americans safe, bringing a foreign national with a proven history of violence to the United States?
This is really vile and really typical of these high minded 60s rejects that are now in charge.
God help us all.
John Atkinson
04-21-2009, 02:57 PM
what we should have done was fly over Somolia and pushed him out of the plane with a note saying "dont attack American ships".
after he stopped bouncing, they could read the note and know better in the future.
Thank you! But since Somalia is in the same neighborhood as our great leaders homeland, they might even be related, cousins or something.
Praise the Lord and pass the water pail.
John Atkinson
04-21-2009, 02:58 PM
bro, you are asking the wrong question! your answer is a given.
The question is why in the world is the current administration who are supposed to be committed to keeping Americans safe, bringing a foreign national with a proven history of violence to the United States?
This is really vile and really typical of these high minded 60s rejects that are now in charge.
God help us all.
Yup, you know how I typically swing, but this current administration is so vile that even I voted republican....
Thank you! But since Somalia is in the same neighborhood as our great leaders homeland, they might even be related, cousins or something.
Praise the Lord and pass the water pail.
that doesnt seem to matter to this president. he has an Aunt in America living in abject poverty and a brother in Kenya in even worse conditions.
For the record, I firmly believe this killer/thug will get off scott free. and I think that is why he is here.
Obama will make a show about "Amerian Justice" and how fair he is and then send him back to his momma so he can resume his activities on the high seas.
here is a nice quote that drives home that point.
Ron Kuby, a New York-based civil rights lawyer, said he has been in discussions about forming a legal team to represent the Somalian.
"I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas," said Kuby.
"This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody and serious questions as to whether he can be prosecuted because of his age."
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 04:46 PM
Ferd,
The fact that he wasn't really "captured" but was actually in the process of negotiating the hostage's release further complicates this.
He shouldn't be tried here in America.
And the idea that President Obama may be related to this and every other African simply because he is African is not plausible, has nothing to do with the issue-- and why would it even be brought up? (not that you said this Ferd, but it's on my mind too.)
I stand by my initial statement that it would have been better for him to have been killed than to be brought here for trial.
But since he is here and will be standing trial as an adult, can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial here?
Why shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia for his crime?
He's not an American citizen.
Does America's sovereignty extend to our commercial interests around the world?
His trial in America poses another issue-- who will represent him?
Of course, who will pay for his representation? The Somali government?
How about the fact they have no govn't
You guys are being too rough on the little boy. Why, his daddy said that that was his first time out on a boat. Huh, he probably did not even know the rest of them were going to do that! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time! He thought they were going to the grocery store!
He just needs the NAACP to step in and they will help out!
How about the fact they have no govn't
Why should that matter, neither do we!:ursofunny
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 04:55 PM
How about the fact they have no govn't
not an issue.
If this guy had been a citizen of Bangladesh, in this situation, he'd still be in NY on his way to trial, imo.
Besides, he's not being tried in an international court or by a military tribunal. He is being tried in our legal system-- given rights that prescribed only for AMERICAN citizens.
Doesn't that get anyone else's goat around here?
HE'S NOT AN AMERICAN AN NOT GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS!!!
You and I are paying for his court proceedings-- and for what?
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 04:57 PM
You guys are being too rough on the little boy. Why, his daddy said that that was his first time out on a boat. Huh, he probably did not even know the rest of them were going to do that! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time! He thought they were going to the grocery store!
He just needs the NAACP to step in and they will help out!
Why would the NAACP help this sap?
You know they won't-- they really can't!
Why would the NAACP help this sap?
You know they won't-- they really can't!
You wait! He was grinning the other day because he knows he has a free ride! William Jefferson bombed in Somalia and his protoge is going to do worse!
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 04:59 PM
I didn't set this thread up to be hinged upon this Somali's race.
His race, the President's race, your race, my race are non-issues in this discussion...
unless you can validate his race being an issue in this discussion-- which no one has.
John Atkinson
04-21-2009, 05:02 PM
Ferd,
The fact that he wasn't really "captured" but was actually in the process of negotiating the hostage's release further complicates this.
He shouldn't be tried here in America.
And the idea that President Obama may be related to this and every other African simply because he is African is not plausible, has nothing to do with the issue-- and why would it even be brought up? (not that you said this Ferd, but it's on my mind too.)
I stand by my initial statement that it would have been better for him to have been killed than to be brought here for trial.
But since he is here and will be standing trial as an adult, can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial here?
I said it. It is called "Tongue in cheek" I believe. I simply despise to the very core of my existence the current administration. When some one mentions it with revulsion I just must chip an amen in there.
I didn't set this thread up to be hinged upon this Somali's race.
His race, the President's race, your race, my race are non-issues in this discussion...
unless you can validate his race being an issue in this discussion-- which no one has.
I am not dissing him based on race! I did not say that was a problem. By just mentioning the NAACP did you presume that I was creating a race card?
If that is the case then things are worse than I thought.
No matter what either of us think about race, the truth is, he is a black man, here in our system, on an international issue! If you think someone like the NAACP is not going to get involved then you must be wiser then me.
Either them or another civil rights group is going to step in and get involved. This is international exposure!
I would bet on it, if I was a betting person!
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:06 PM
For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:
1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and
2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.
But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?
This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid.
John Atkinson
04-21-2009, 05:08 PM
For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:
1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and
2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.
But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?
This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid. I agree completely. Move the trial to Texas...:thumbsup
StillStanding
04-21-2009, 05:09 PM
I didn't set this thread up to be hinged upon this Somali's race.
His race, the President's race, your race, my race are non-issues in this discussion...
unless you can validate his race being an issue in this discussion-- which no one has.
:thumbsup
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:11 PM
I am not dissing him based on race! I did not say that was a problem. By just mentioning the NAACP did you presume that I was creating a race card?
If that is the case then things are worse than I thought.
No matter what either of us think about race, the truth is, he is a black man, here in our system, on an international issue! If you think someone like the NAACP is not going to get involved then you must be wiser then me.
Either them or another civil rights group is going to step in and get involved. This is international exposure!
I would bet on it, if I was a betting person!
Civil rights groups and immigrant rights groups are already involved.
His family is appealling to the media in Minneapolis-- a place where there are many Somali immigrants.
When you brought up the NAACP, you brought up race-- you weren't the first one to kind of hint at it.
I just want to make sure since I started this thread that I clearly state that unless someone can validate why race should be discussed, it shouldn't be discussed.
Just trying to set the parameters for a good discussion.
Civil rights groups and immigrant rights groups are already involved.
His family is appealling to the media in Minneapolis-- a place where there are many Somali immigrants.
When you brought up the NAACP, you brought up race-- you weren't the first one to kind of hint at it.
I just want to make sure since I started this thread that I clearly state that unless someone can validate why race should be discussed, it shouldn't be discussed.
Just trying to set the parameters for a good discussion.
Jermyn
No offense intended friend:thumbsup.
I do get tired of seeing many of those civil rights groups that are totally wrapped up in the political exposure.
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:14 PM
I agree completely. Move the trial to Texas...:thumbsup
:)
But that's my point!
WHY IS THERE EVEN A TRIAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Is there ANYWHERE this pirate can get a fair trial in America, given the nature of what he stands accused of?
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:16 PM
Jermyn
No offense intended friend:thumbsup.
I do get tired of seeing many of those civil rights groups that are totally wrapped up in the political exposure.
not offended.
SOMETIMES, my steel chin works great while I'm on AFF! :)
what we should have done was fly over Somolia and pushed him out of the plane with a note saying "dont attack American ships".
after he stopped bouncing, they could read the note and know better in the future.
I like that idea
I didn't set this thread up to be hinged upon this Somali's race.
His race, the President's race, your race, my race are non-issues in this discussion...
unless you can validate his race being an issue in this discussion-- which no one has.
Race is made an issue by Racists.
Racists will justify whatever he did because of his color.
Remember:
He good, whitey bad.
John Atkinson
04-21-2009, 05:23 PM
:)
But that's my point!
WHY IS THERE EVEN A TRIAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Is there ANYWHERE this pirate can get a fair trial in America, given the nature of what he stands accused of?
It will be impossible, simply because it will be tried in the media for the most part. All rhetoric aside the issue is murky. He isn't a US citizen, therefore the rights guaranteed under the constitution are not applicable.
No official state of war exists, so he can't be considered a prisoner of war and afforded the roghts of the Geneva convention.
His country doesn't have the system in place to try him
Like you said. Stupid.
While this may be an upsetting solution to a lot of Americans, me included, the only "smart" thing I see is to turn him over to a world court for justice.
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:28 PM
Race is made an issue by Racists.
Racists will justify whatever he did because of his color.
Remember:
He good, whitey bad.
I don't think anyone will try to justify his actions.
The question arises when we try to justify AMERICA'S actions in bringing him back here to be tried in our civilian legal system designed for American citizens.
Even spies, in order for them to be spies, have American citizenship and thus, eligible for trial in an American court system.
How does this guy merit a day in an U.S. court?
How can he get a fair trial?
When he is convicted, what will be the punishment?
Why couldn't this act of Somali piracy be considered an Act of War?
...
Why couldn't this act of Somali piracy be considered an Act of War?
I could see where it would not be considered an act of war if he did not act in an official capacity representing his government.
He committed a crime against a U.S. citizen.
Why could we not seize him and try him for some crime?
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:37 PM
Does the pirate that came to the American Government to negotiate the release of her hostage deserve any of this for punishment?
http://unusualhistoricals.blogspot.com/2007/10/crime-punishment-punishment-and.html
Why or why not?
Jermyn Davidson
04-21-2009, 05:42 PM
I could see where it would not be considered an act of war if he did not act in an official capacity representing his government.
He committed a crime against a U.S. citizen.
Why could we not seize him and try him for some crime?
Who in Iran do we seize and try for the unlawful detaining of the American there?
So the precedent we are setting is anywhere an American is harmed, we will bypass that country's sovereignty, get the criminal offenders and try them in our own country where they will be SURE to get a fair and impartial trial.
Does that make sense to anyone?
Where is America's jurisdiction in this?
What country is that ship property of? Do they have any rights to prosecution?
edjen01
04-21-2009, 08:17 PM
For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:
1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and
2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.
But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?
This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid.
regarding #1....who cares if he was "captured" or fell out of a bar drunk...got is got. the fact that he IS a pirate is reason enough.
about #2....thats the point. if every pirate knew this is what would happen if we caught them...me thinks they would leave our boats and crews alone....there are plenty of French & English ships to capture.
arrrrrr matey!!!
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 12:38 AM
The 9/11 conspirators were folks who were in America legally and did their crimes against Americans on American soil.
They were not citizens though. My questions is or was, did we have a right to go into Afghanistan to seek those that organized it or should have have just HOPED the Taliban will do it for us? Why should we turn this criminal over to the Somali government...which War Lord do we turn him over to?
Shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia because he is a Somali citizen?
For crimes against Somalies? Yes. For Crimes against Americans? No
The crimes were not committed on American soil-- is the ship even American property?
So? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor should we have hoped someone in Japan would prosecute their crimes? No. We did it ourselves.
The fact that Somalia has no government is a moot issue.
no it is not. You said turn them over to Somalia....for what? a party? Justice? Who enacts justice if there is no government?
I don't think my tax dollars should be going to give this guy representation in our legal system.
Then vote for a conservative with guts who would have done a Tribunal in international waters and made the guy walk the plank
How many thousands will be wasted on this guy? For what purpose?
Justice. The alternative is to let him go to attack another ship and possibly kill other citizens on another day
Could he possibly get a fair trial in the first place?
Is that what you are concerned about? I sense a lack of genuineness. First your complaint was your tax dollars and now you are worried about him getting a fair trial? Do you think he will even get a trial in Somalia? If steps on the wrong toes there he would not even get a trial. They'd just off him.
But if a trial is what he should get, where and who is gonna do it there in Somalia? Who will prosecute it? A somalian?
In fact, why would there even be a need for a trial?
he broke International laws against an American citizen
The only reason he was "captured" is that he was trying to negotiate the release of the hijacked American.
he was captured because he was the lucky punk that did not get his brains blown out
He's already guiltySo what do we do? let him go free for being guilty of commiting a crime NOT on American soil?
It would have been better for the young buck to have been killed than to have brought him back here.
For who? Him? For you? Again it's hard to figure out what you are trying to accomplish? Are you concerned for him? For your self and your tax dollars? For justice to be done? Are you just bored and will argue any point no matter how absurd it is? :thumbsup
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 12:42 AM
For the record, I firmly believe this killer/thug will get off scott free. and I think that is why he is here.
Obama will make a show about "Amerian Justice" and how fair he is and then send him back to his momma so he can resume his activities on the high seas.
here is a nice quote that drives home that point.
Ron Kuby, a New York-based civil rights lawyer, said he has been in discussions about forming a legal team to represent the Somalian.
"I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas," said Kuby.
"This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody and serious questions as to whether he can be prosecuted because of his age."
He will lament how impoverished they all are and plead us to understand and why it is so important to redistribute wealth. He will ask congress to spend 1 Trillion dollars on uniforms and berets and put them in Obama's Civil army and send them out to preach his gospel and pay them for it out of our pockets.
I sympathize with these guys, but that does not justify what they did. IF we let them go they will be emboldened
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 12:46 AM
Ferd,
The fact that he wasn't really "captured" but was actually in the process of negotiating the hostage's release further complicates this.
He shouldn't be tried here in America.
And the idea that President Obama may be related to this and every other African simply because he is African is not plausible, has nothing to do with the issue-- and why would it even be brought up? (not that you said this Ferd, but it's on my mind too.)
I stand by my initial statement that it would have been better for him to have been killed than to be brought here for trial.
But since he is here and will be standing trial as an adult, can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial here?
He wasn't a hostage negotiator. He is a pirate. He hijacked a ship, committed attempted assault or mayham or murder and kidnapped a citizen of the US.
I think it would be better for us if he were killed than brought here. If he is found guilty he will be getting free room and board
Can he get a fair trial here? Why not? Obama our king will make sure he does
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 12:48 AM
not an issue.
If this guy had been a citizen of Bangladesh, in this situation, he'd still be in NY on his way to trial, imo.
Besides, he's not being tried in an international court or by a military tribunal. He is being tried in our legal system-- given rights that prescribed only for AMERICAN citizens.
Doesn't that get anyone else's goat around here?
HE'S NOT AN AMERICAN AN NOT GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS!!!
You and I are paying for his court proceedings-- and for what?
so why is just letting go a better alternative?
BTW we still pay for the international court. I find it ironic you are decrying his getting rights only an american should get, then decrying that he can't possibly get a fair trial here.....huh?
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 12:49 AM
For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:
1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and
2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.
But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?
This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid.
Are you saying he did not partake of the hijack and kidnapping?
Jermyn Davidson
04-22-2009, 03:13 PM
They were not citizens though. My questions is or was, did we have a right to go into Afghanistan to seek those that organized it or should have have just HOPED the Taliban will do it for us? Why should we turn this criminal over to the Somali government...which War Lord do we turn him over to?
His trial should not occur in America. He is a Somali citizen, there is a government there (though shaky) let them try and punish him, imo.
For crimes against Somalies? Yes. For Crimes against Americans? No
For the sake of those concerned about getting him a "fair" trial by brining him back to America, my question is given the nature of his crimes, how can he get a fair trial by an impartial AMERICAN jury?
So? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor should we have hoped someone in Japan would prosecute their crimes? No. We did it ourselves.
Act of War. I wonder why uncontrolled piracy could not be an act of war? This would make this case a lot less stickier.
no it is not. You said turn them over to Somalia....for what? a party? Justice? Who enacts justice if there is no government?
There is a form of government.
Then vote for a conservative with guts who would have done a Tribunal in international waters and made the guy walk the plank!
Tribunal would have been the most fair and aggressive way to handle this-- short of killing him.
Justice. The alternative is to let him go to attack another ship and possibly kill other citizens on another day!
Do you really think it will be just for this guy, once he is convicted, for him to be sentenced to a life that may actually be better for him in many ways?
Then if we go through with the trial and then let him go, we've done NOTHING but waste time and money.
Is that what you are concerned about? I sense a lack of genuineness. First your complaint was your tax dollars and now you are worried about him getting a fair trial? Do you think he will even get a trial in Somalia? If steps on the wrong toes there he would not even get a trial. They'd just off him.
One of the issues folks who are concerned for this guy is the fact that he can't get a fair trial here in America-- a point I agree with.
But if a trial is what he should get, where and who is gonna do it there in Somalia? Who will prosecute it? A somalian?
If this guy was an American, you'd better believe America would be jockeying to get him back here for trial. Were those Blackwater civillian tried in Iraqi courts for their crimes against iraqis? With your logic, they should have.
You and I both know that was NEVER an option for those AMERICAN citizens.
he broke International laws against an American citizen
The best solution would be to try him in an International Court since the crime happened on international waters.
he was captured because he was the lucky punk that did not get his brains blown out
So what do we do? let him go free for being guilty of commiting a crime NOT on American soil?
He was captured under the banner of truce-- if he had a white flag, he would have waived it and he WOULD NOT have been detained.
For who? Him? For you? Again it's hard to figure out what you are trying to accomplish? Are you concerned for him? For your self and your tax dollars? For justice to be done? Are you just bored and will argue any point no matter how absurd it is? :thumbsup
Just trying to bring out all of the complexities of ths case for public discussion.
Jermyn Davidson
04-22-2009, 03:16 PM
regarding #1....who cares if he was "captured" or fell out of a bar drunk...got is got. the fact that he IS a pirate is reason enough.
about #2....thats the point. if every pirate knew this is what would happen if we caught them...me thinks they would leave our boats and crews alone....there are plenty of French & English ships to capture.
arrrrrr matey!!!
I disagree with point one.
Because he was negotiating, he should not have been detained, imo.
Since he was detained, it needs to be brought up in his trial (probably at the penalty phase) the fact that it was his intent to negotiate the release of the American hostage.
Jermyn Davidson
04-22-2009, 03:19 PM
so why is just letting go a better alternative?
BTW we still pay for the international court. I find it ironic you are decrying his getting rights only an american should get, then decrying that he can't possibly get a fair trial here.....huh?
It is ironic.
Why does he rate the rights of an American?
So, because he participated in a criminal act against an American, he now rates all of the rights entitled to Americans.
And after all of the nonsense, it is impossible for him to get an impartial jury-- making a farce of justice out of the whole ordeal!
RevDWW
04-22-2009, 03:20 PM
Are there no yard arms?
Jermyn Davidson
04-22-2009, 03:26 PM
Are there no yard arms?
way to simple of a solution to a situation that is being handled the wrong way.
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 07:12 PM
His trial should not occur in America. He is a Somali citizen, there is a government there (though shaky) let them try and punish him, imo.
If he is to be tried I think it should be in the US or in a neutral country. He won't get a trial or punishment in Somalia. His crime was against US citizens and interests and possibly not on Somalia soil
For the sake of those concerned about getting him a "fair" trial by brining him back to America, my question is given the nature of his crimes, how can he get a fair trial by an impartial AMERICAN jury?
How can he not? IF he can't get one, nobody can. But how can WE get a fair representation against him in a Somali court?
Act of War. I wonder why uncontrolled piracy could not be an act of war? This would make this case a lot less stickier.
It could be, or considered terrorism
There is a form of government.
It has control only over a small region, not over the entire nation. It's not very organized or resourcful
Tribunal would have been the most fair and aggressive way to handle this-- short of killing him.
I agree
Do you really think it will be just for this guy, once he is convicted, for him to be sentenced to a life that may actually be better for him in many ways?
It's more just than letting him go to do the crime again.
Then if we go through with the trial and then let him go, we've done NOTHING but waste time and money.
which is why we should not let him go, which turning him over to Somali would essentially do IMO
One of the issues folks who are concerned for this guy is the fact that he can't get a fair trial here in America-- a point I agree with.
I don't agree. The facts will be presented, he will be judged on the facts
If this guy was an American, you'd better believe America would be jockeying to get him back here for trial. Were those Blackwater civillian tried in Iraqi courts for their crimes against iraqis? With your logic, they should have.
If Somalia wants to press the International courts for this guy, let them. This crime occured not IN Somalia
The best solution would be to try him in an International Court since the crime happened on international waters.
Then why are you suggesting turning him over to Somalia? Again your answers contradict themselves. I might agree, but then who get's stuck with the punishment should he be found guilty
He was captured under the banner of truce-- if he had a white flag, he would have waived it and he WOULD NOT have been detained.
First of all, we don't know that is a fact. Second, on the one hand you speak as though he is guilty and should be tried by an International court...no a tribunal...or should have been killed...not sure which but you've argued for all three so now you are suggesting he is totally innocent?
Why did his mother try to do damage control by saying he was running with the wrong crowd because they pressured him...and not rather say he was a good guy just there to try to negotiate for the release of the captives? No no no...he was there WITH the other three that did this criminal act. If he raised a truce it was AFTER his buddies were blown away. That does not make him innocent.
Just trying to bring out all of the complexities of ths case for public discussion.
Ok :thumbsup
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 07:15 PM
I disagree with point one.
Because he was negotiating, he should not have been detained, imo.
Since he was detained, it needs to be brought up in his trial (probably at the penalty phase) the fact that it was his intent to negotiate the release of the American hostage.
Look...this occured miles and miles off shore. Either he was with the raiding party or he came along later by himself, a good Samaritan just trying to get these Americans released....that sounds fishy. He was WITH and PART of the pirates that boarded this ship and took a prisoner hostage. ALL the pirates negotiate for their captives release. That is why they take them hostage, to negotiate their release via a ransom
Praxeas
04-22-2009, 07:16 PM
It is ironic.
Why does he rate the rights of an American?
So, because he participated in a criminal act against an American, he now rates all of the rights entitled to Americans.
And after all of the nonsense, it is impossible for him to get an impartial jury-- making a farce of justice out of the whole ordeal!
Who said he rates ALL the rights of an American? :nah
Walks_in_islam
04-23-2009, 01:44 AM
Where does this say that our Constitution or Bill of Rights applies ONLY to American citizens? Certainly it applies to ALL crimes prosecuted on US soil. Do we separate citizens and non-citizens and throw out the "created equal" that our forefathers defined in stone as the basis for our country. If anything, the mistake was extrapolating the place and defining the crime as "having been committed on US soil". By law then they were required to return this young moron for trial (albeit nowhere near the state and district where this crime was committed.) Otherwise, crimes committed against American citizens overseas certainly are and always have been prosecuted in the country where they were committed.
My understanding is that a crime committed on a ship operating under a US flag was interpreted to be committed de facto on US soil. Thus, the administration was stuck with figuring out a way to try him while still preserving constitutional law and I guess the nearest port was NYC. Calls for judge, jury, and execution on US navy ships, though they sound nice, and are probably popular (especially on this site) certainly do not preserve or follow US law. This guy effectively surrendered. The others did not. The constitution either is or is not a working document. Did not GWB erode it enough without summary executions aboard US navy vessels?
Point a gun at the navy, get killed for it, it's your problem. Die in wartime, again you asked for it. Surrender while committing a crime and subsequently get tried/executed - goes against the very values that those navy personnel are out there protecting. America is a set of ideals after all. They are imperfect in some ways but at the same time those ideals made America the great country it is. Toss those ideals and we toss what America is with it.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
That is not a call for "soft action" against criminals. That is the word-for-word text of our Constitution that drove this decision. US citizens have different rights than non-citizens but this is not one that is, ever has been, or can be applied differently to criminals prosecuted on US soil.
Jermyn Davidson
04-23-2009, 09:05 AM
The bolded in the post above is NOT APPLICABLE in this situation.
If it was, the trial still would NOT be happening in America.
Our most current parallel to this situation would be the Blackwater civillians accused of crimes they did commit in Iraq, by the Iraqi government.
Their trial was held where? They were tried by who? The victims of their crimes were who?
This pirate's trial should not be happening in NYC.
DividedThigh
04-23-2009, 09:07 AM
send him back and let them deal with him, if he shows up again, then let the snipers take care of the issue, no more free trips to amelika and no more money spent on him, period, dt
DividedThigh
04-23-2009, 09:11 AM
that doesnt seem to matter to this president. he has an Aunt in America living in abject poverty and a brother in Kenya in even worse conditions.
seems the only one who should get to keep there money in obamas world is he and mich, god help us is right, dt:nah
Jermyn Davidson
04-23-2009, 09:13 AM
Who said he rates ALL the rights of an American? :nah
Within the scope of our legal system he is.
As for as being contradictory, the way this situation is being handled is a contradiction of justice.
This Somali is being prosecuted for international crimes against Americans and his trial is being held in America.
He can not get a fair trial here based off of the conflict of the victims of his crime and the jury pool-- all who would be involved would be Americans who have already formed an opinion of this kidnapper of American citizens.
IMO, he should be tried by an international tribunal or tried by his home country. Hopefully, this statement of opinion does not read contradictory. :)
He is guilty-- but for those who are concerned about fairness, and who want to actually endeavor to be just, what's happening now are a bunch of folks pretending to be "fair".
The end result will be the release of this guy back to the Somali government anyway-- why fake around with all of the nonsense?
Is there ANYONE on this board who really believes this pirate will spend one day of a "sentence" in an American prison?
DividedThigh
04-23-2009, 09:56 AM
Within the scope of our legal system he is.
As for as being contradictory, the way this situation is being handled is a contradiction of justice.
This Somali is being prosecuted for international crimes against Americans and his trial is being held in America.
He can not get a fair trial here based off of the conflict of the victims of his crime and the jury pool-- all who would be involved would be Americans who have already formed an opinion of this kidnapper of American citizens.
IMO, he should be tried by an international tribunal or tried by his home country. Hopefully, this statement of opinion does not read contradictory. :)
He is guilty-- but for those who are concerned about fairness, and who want to actually endeavor to be just, what's happening now are a bunch of folks pretending to be "fair".
The end result will be the release of this guy back to the Somali government anyway-- why fake around with all of the nonsense?
Is there ANYONE on this board who really believes this pirate will spend one day of a "sentence" in an American prison?
agree with you bro, got your back, dt
n david
04-23-2009, 10:45 AM
1. Even if he's sentenced to an American prison ... especially for life ... he's SET! It'd be like a *** mansion with 3 meals a day, a bed with a pillow, weights, basketball, cable tv, etc. I bet you these Pirates, once they see what happens to them when captured ... they'll be turning themselves in PLEADING for Obama to prosecute them with life in an American prison.
(life in a Somali prison ... eh ... not so much)
2. If this was done during Dubya's Presidency, I bet real money the press would be up in arms about that administration prosecuting a poor boy. But The ONE, our majestic Obama has done it, so it's groovy.
Our Press Then: "Hey Dubya, can you look at the camera real weird like, so we can talk about how stupid you are?"
Our Press Now: "Hey BO, can I get another pic with yo shirt off, pleez? You such a buff-tastic Prez."
DividedThigh
04-23-2009, 12:04 PM
BO is appropriate, i have always disdained bad smells, lol
Jermyn Davidson
04-24-2009, 09:42 AM
1. Even if he's sentenced to an American prison ... especially for life ... he's SET! It'd be like a *** mansion with 3 meals a day, a bed with a pillow, weights, basketball, cable tv, etc. I bet you these Pirates, once they see what happens to them when captured ... they'll be turning themselves in PLEADING for Obama to prosecute them with life in an American prison.
(life in a Somali prison ... eh ... not so much)
2. If this was done during Dubya's Presidency, I bet real money the press would be up in arms about that administration prosecuting a poor boy. But The ONE, our majestic Obama has done it, so it's groovy.
Our Press Then: "Hey Dubya, can you look at the camera real weird like, so we can talk about how stupid you are?"
Our Press Now: "Hey BO, can I get another pic with yo shirt off, pleez? You such a buff-tastic Prez."
If GWB was President still, I think this guy would have found a way to be dead already. Somewhere along the way, he would resisted arrest or something....
This just wouldn't be an issue.
However, I think McCain's response would have been a bit too heavy handed.
As far as international diplomacy, Obama is doing a decent job of making friends-- but what will happen when he has to be firm?
We will not see a firm President Obama in the handling of this surviving pirate, unfortunuately.
If GWB was President still, I think this guy would have found a way to be dead already. Somewhere along the way, he would resisted arrest or something....
This just wouldn't be an issue.
However, I think McCain's response would have been a bit too heavy handed.
As far as international diplomacy, Obama is doing a decent job of making friends-- but what will happen when he has to be firm?
We will not see a firm President Obama in the handling of this surviving pirate, unfortunuately.
I dont believe for one second this guy would be dead if GWB was president. I suspect he would be tried in some place like Kenya though.
As for Obama doing a decent job of making friends, well if you think being buddies with Raul Castro and that freak in Venesuela is a good thing, then there ya go.... we dont agree at all.
I think Obama has been an abysmal failure in foreign policy. much worse than in domestic policy where I think he is a stinking facist pig.
Jermyn Davidson
04-24-2009, 10:17 AM
I dont believe for one second this guy would be dead if GWB was president. I suspect he would be tried in some place like Kenya though.
As for Obama doing a decent job of making friends, well if you think being buddies with Raul Castro and that freak in Venesuela is a good thing, then there ya go.... we dont agree at all.
I think Obama has been an abysmal failure in foreign policy. much worse than in domestic policy where I think he is a stinking facist pig.
Man, with GWB, the guy he picked to personally oversee the situation would somehow "bumbled" this whole ordeal, resulting in the accidental death of the pirate :) -- which would then be painted as something else.
At any rate, IMO the pirate would already be dead had this occurred on GWB's watch!
It's not new that we don't agree! :) :) :) :) :)
Pressing-On
04-24-2009, 10:21 AM
I dont believe for one second this guy would be dead if GWB was president. I suspect he would be tried in some place like Kenya though.
As for Obama doing a decent job of making friends, well if you think being buddies with Raul Castro and that freak in Venesuela is a good thing, then there ya go.... we dont agree at all.
I think Obama has been an abysmal failure in foreign policy. much worse than in domestic policy where I think he is a stinking facist pig.
Here's where BO is going.
Obama: The Grand Strategy
by Charles Krauthammer
Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing.
Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics. Not anymore. Health care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow.
Taken as a whole, Obama's social democratic agenda is breathtaking. And the rollout has thus far been brilliant. It follows Kaus' advice to "give pandering a chance" and adheres to the Democratic tradition of being the party that gives things away, while leaving the green-eyeshade stinginess to those heartless Republicans.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/04/24/obama_the_grand_strategy
Billy Boy
04-24-2009, 10:21 AM
The 9/11 conspirators were folks who were in America legally and did their crimes against Americans on American soil.
Shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia because he is a Somali citizen?
The crimes were not committed on American soil-- is the ship even American property?
The fact that Somalia has no government is a moot issue.
I don't think my tax dollars should be going to give this guy representation in our legal system.
How many thousands will be wasted on this guy? For what purpose?
Could he possibly get a fair trial in the first place? In fact, why would there even be a need for a trial? The only reason he was "captured" is that he was trying to negotiate the release of the hijacked American.
He's already guilty.
It would have been better for the young buck to have been killed than to have brought him back here.
Perhaps God wanted him to have a chance to be saved before you killed him!
Man, with GWB, the guy he picked to personally oversee the situation would somehow "bumbled" this whole ordeal, resulting in the accidental death of the pirate :) -- which would then be painted as something else.
At any rate, IMO the pirate would already be dead had this occurred on GWB's watch!
It's not new that we don't agree! :) :) :) :) :)
I dont think you can find a single case where that happened under GWB.
Here's where OB is going.
agreed.
Look where this somoli pirate is concerned, the goal here isnt to get him tried. the Obama goal is to show the world that we give terrorists and pirates American Due Process.
It will not shock me at all that the guy walks on a technicality (going on board that ship under truce)
That would make this work out 100% as Obama would want. it proves his point that GWB was a bad guy.
Pressing-On
04-24-2009, 10:31 AM
agreed.OOPS! Should be BO and not OB - oh well. LOL!
Jermyn Davidson
04-24-2009, 11:25 AM
Perhaps God wanted him to have a chance to be saved before you killed him!
So I guess God didn't want the other guys to have that same chance before their heads exploded like watermelons when the sniper rounds pierced their skulls....
Jermyn Davidson
04-24-2009, 11:27 AM
I dont think you can find a single case where that happened under GWB.
Not that exact situation, but plenty situations where his folks screwed up royally.
Think Rumsfield with Abu Gharib;
Hurricane Katrina;
maybe if I tried hard, I'd find something else.... :)
Not that exact situation, but plenty situations where his folks screwed up royally.
Think Rumsfield with Abu Gharib;
Hurricane Katrina;
maybe if I tried hard, I'd find something else.... :)
Oh dont get me wrong Rumsfled messed up more than just that. and I was glad to see him replaced.
but that is not same as what your talking about. very very different things.
what we should have done was fly over Somolia and pushed him out of the plane with a note saying "dont attack American ships".
after he stopped bouncing, they could read the note and know better in the future.
I still think this was the best answer
Jermyn Davidson
04-27-2009, 07:57 AM
I still think this was the best answer
Sam,
SMILE! Someone in Somalia loves you! :)
Jermyn Davidson
04-27-2009, 07:58 AM
So I guess God didn't want the other guys to have that same chance before their heads exploded like watermelons when the sniper rounds pierced their skulls....
bump
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.