[rmrfstar]

When you say "these terrorist attacks", do you have a concrete definition in mind? Or are you just expressing outrage and disgust?

Because right now, people accused of terrorism can be held in Guantanamo without habeas corpus. They are also subject to inclusion on government "kill lists"[1] with no opportunity for judicial review. The executive branch is claiming powers it has not had since the time of absolute monarchy. We should carefully consider any proposal to expand the meaning of the word "terrorism".

I'm outraged too, but I think these criminals should be afforded full due process rights. At both the investigatory stage and the trial stage.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-invokes...

[ldavison]

Technically speaking, it would be domestic terrorism. As citizens they should be afforded due process rights.

One could argue "terrorists" as you're defining re Gitmo should as well, but that's a different topic.

[gamblor956]

No, domestic terrorists are treated as criminals if they are citizens or permanent residents because they have Constitutional rights. If convicted, they go to the Supermax in Colorado.

Non-state foreign terrorists are held at Guantanamo.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

If a group of muslims rushed a barricade and put pipe bombs outside Republican offices in the Capitol because they disagreed with the outcome of a political election, what would you call this action?

[rmrfstar]

Please don't insinuate that I think people should be treated differently based on their religious affiliations.

I think that due process rights of despicable people should be protected precisely because I want them to be available to disfavored affinity groups like religious minorities, labor movements, and pacifists.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

> Please

This is not an action.

[hawaiianbrah]

What do you mean, here? I didn’t follow.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

I asked for the name of an action and he referred to it as 'please'