Eric Frein charged with terrorism

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
Eric Frein the man who murdered Pennsylvania state troopers was charged with terrorism yet the Fort Hood shooting is considered 'workplace violence.' So the white man who gunned down a cop gets a terrorism charge yet the Muslim (Hasan) who murdered 14 and hurt 30 others doesn't get charged with terror even though he was linked to known terrorists and Hasans co-workers knew he was radicalized.

Only in Obamas America
 
Krgrecw said:
Eric Frein the man who murdered Pennsylvania state troopers was charged with terrorism yet the Fort Hood shooting is considered 'workplace violence.' So the white man who gunned down a cop gets a terrorism charge yet the Muslim (Hasan) who murdered 14 and hurt 30 others doesn't get charged with terror even though he was linked to known terrorists and Hasans co-workers knew he was radicalized.

Only in Obamas America
Click to expand...

Not sure the explanation on this. Doesn't make sense
 
Metaphysicist said:
Military law expert Scott L. Silliman says the answer is simple - because the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a punitive article for "terrorism."

link
Click to expand...

I was gonna get there, but I was tooo ****ing tired last night to respond. Thanks for doing the linkage. It's amazing that gilesfan with all his seal buddies doesn't know there's a difference between civilian and military courts.
 
So Meta, does the article not say that Obama and the DOD could charge him with terrorism but choose not to because they wouldn't want to deal With all the crap that would come with that charge? That charge would also open the DOD up to lawsuits that they couldn't win.

As the president and the leader of the DOD, Obama could have and should have charged him with terrorism.
 
"That charge would also open the DOD up to lawsuits that they couldn't win."

Believe you answered your own question --
 
zitothebrave said:
I was gonna get there, but I was tooo ****ing tired last night to respond. Thanks for doing the linkage. It's amazing that gilesfan with all his seal buddies doesn't know there's a difference between civilian and military courts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Navy Seals are experts in law.
 
Krgrecw said:
So Meta, does the article not say that Obama and the DOD could charge him with terrorism but choose not to because they wouldn't want to deal With all the crap that would come with that charge? That charge would also open the DOD up to lawsuits that they couldn't win.

As the president and the leader of the DOD, Obama could have and should have charged him with terrorism.
Click to expand...

The last line of the article:

Military prosecutors could have added a civilian charge of terrorism, says Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer. But he argues that would have added an unnecessary layer of complexity with little, if any, benefit.

So, could have... yes. Should have... meh. I would prefer that Presidents not inject themselves into military court cases merely to score political points.
 
Metaphysicist said:
The last line of the article:

Military prosecutors could have added a civilian charge of terrorism, says Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer. But he argues that would have added an unnecessary layer of complexity with little, if any, benefit.

So, could have... yes. Should have... meh. I would prefer that Presidents not inject themselves into military court cases merely to score political points.
Click to expand...

You must really dislike the Obama admin then. They've been against military trials for terrorists since the beginning of his first presidential campaign. It is nice though that now they've decided to not make it about politics.
 
zitothebrave said:
Instant Hall of Fame quality post.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a legit point. You guys can get a bit obnoxious with your mocking sometimes. I mean if you have a good argument against the op then make it, but honestly I don't think anyone has come itt and made a shutdown counterpoint. Obama admin has clearly been contradictory on their decision making in these cases. It's a fair grump.
 
weso1 said:
I thought it was a legit point. You guys can get a bit obnoxious with your mocking sometimes. I mean if you have a good argument against the op then make it, but honestly I don't think anyone has come itt and made a shutdown counterpoint. Obama admin has clearly been contradictory on their decision making in these cases. It's a fair grump.
Click to expand...

I agree. Certain posters go straight to mocking and it is like talking to 13 year olds
 
weso1 said:
I thought it was a legit point. You guys can get a bit obnoxious with your mocking sometimes. I mean if you have a good argument against the op then make it, but honestly I don't think anyone has come itt and made a shutdown counterpoint. Obama admin has clearly been contradictory on their decision making in these cases. It's a fair grump.
Click to expand...

How can it be a legit point when you're comparing a court marshall (aka military court) to civilian court. They're not the same. Throwing a terrorism charge would be a hollow gesture, if he did it Fox and Friends would be like "OMG Obama is tampering with the military courts, what a dictator!" It wasn't Obama who made any decision either way. Military courts and Pike County courts. Short of posturing for high rhetoric there's nothing Obama did, unless you think that buffoon is more powerful than he actually is, which in and of itself is a trip.
 
Ziti, you do know who runs the DOD right? You do know who can make the call to charge enemies of state in civilian courts and vice versa correct?

To say that Obama can't and doesn't have any pull in this is absurd. He has final say
 
weso1 said:
You must really dislike the Obama admin then. They've been against military trials for terrorists since the beginning of his first presidential campaign. It is nice though that now they've decided to not make it about politics.
Click to expand...

That's not true, and even if it was, I think you should be able to admit that it would not be "merely to score political points."

Note that here we are talking about a situation where military lawyers themselves are clearly stating there are no really benefit to doing this, and there are in fact real detriments to doing so.
 
weso1 said:
I thought it was a legit point. You guys can get a bit obnoxious with your mocking sometimes. I mean if you have a good argument against the op then make it, but honestly I don't think anyone has come itt and made a shutdown counterpoint. Obama admin has clearly been contradictory on their decision making in these cases. It's a fair grump.
Click to expand...

If you don't think this point has been shut down, then you basically think doing so is impossible. To recap:

Q: Why is he not being charged with terrorism?

A: He's a soldier; his case is being handled in the military courts; military courts don't have a "terrorism" charge.

Trying to spin this into a race thing because "Obama" is tilting at windmills.
 
Krgrecw said:
Ziti, you do know who runs the DOD right? You do know who can make the call to charge enemies of state in civilian courts and vice versa correct?

To say that Obama can't and doesn't have any pull in this is absurd. He has final say
Click to expand...

I hereby submit that Zito shall henceforth only be known as Baked Ziti.
 
Krgrecw said:
Ziti, you do know who runs the DOD right? You do know who can make the call to charge enemies of state in civilian courts and vice versa correct?

To say that Obama can't and doesn't have any pull in this is absurd. He has final say
Click to expand...

There is 0 precedent for him to do that. Sure he could do it, and a good enough lawyer could get the charges thrown out on precedent. Then you run the risk of opening Pandora's box and now soldiers in a war zone can be subject to civil court for events that happened overseas. And many other things. If you want to say that Obama should push for charges of terrorism to be added in extenuating circumstances of soldier on soldier violence. And I could go on. You're basically asking for a president who pretends to do ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top