Yes, I am the opposite of Pro Terrorist, a category which many here would fall under, imho.
Ok, since people still have comprehension probems, I will simply state my reply again.
American “talibans” should be treated no differently than foreign “talibans”. And that’s my opinion.
If somebody asks that same silly question again, something which I already have answered numerous times, I will cut & paste the same answer.
Daisy,
Based on your statements, I have to retract what I said previously, when I said:
Now that it’s retracted, I’ll replace it with:
Some of you don’t seem to care about the rights of people who don’t speak or look like us, or people who associate with people who don’t speak or look like us.
Because wars are not handled by the courts, but on the battlefield, by the military. What did we do with the Germans and Japanese during WWII? Killed them, or captured them and held them prisoner until the war was over. We didn’t bring each individual German or Japanese soldier to trial as criminals. (I am not refering to war crimes trials of leaders after the war was over). Why should the Taliban be treated any differently?
You’ll have to forgive our stupidity. When you say:
which is about someone who actually had a lawyer, and had a speedy trial, we were somehow unable to put 2 and 2 together and realize that that is identical to being locked up in Gitmo with no access to legal representation nor facing any sort of trial.
If only we could fix our comprehension problems, I’m sure the rest of us would agree with you.
You can retract statements all day, for all I care. I don’t know why you are targeting that statement towards me though, unless if you mean Me, when you wrote Some of you, and in that case why not just spit it out, don’t beat around bush (no pun intended), or be shy.
I don’t know why I should have to keep repeating things here. But since certain people obviously need to hear certain things in duplicate and triplicate, then you will know that I have already replied to that statement, when I pointed out that there there should be no difference in American talibans or foreign talibans, nor could I care what they look like or what language they speak.
Enemies of the USA are to be defeated, regardless if it’s 1942 and they speak German & Japanese or if it’s 2003 and they speak some other tongue.
millroyj, are you denying that Allied forces took prioner a number of Axis forces in WW2? If you aren’t I don’t see your point. Even in WW2, the Nazi regime treated British and American POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Japan, in many cases, didn’t, and as such, was validly criticised for not doing so.
If I’ve totally missed your point, I apologise.
Yes, it is always the terrorists who seek to uphold the rule of law and the US Constitution.
That whole ridiculous Detailed, day by day timeline which you asked me to provide (something I would never do), was based upon the assumption that his trail had taken place.
Some people here aren’t debating, it’s more about asking trick questions, and just trying to get the other side to look bad.
I’ve said all I have to say about the Gitmo detainees. I’m not going to reply to any more silly questions, which have already been answered.
Yes, apparently you did miss the point. The Allied forces took thousand of prisoners in WWII. They did not put them individually on trial for criminal offenses, which is what some want us to do with the detainees in Gitmo. Why should the Taliban be treated as mere criminals?
Daisy, you are entirely correct. Foreign and American members of the Taleban and al Qaeda should be treated entirely equally - they all should be subject to a due legal process with valid legal representation as Lindh was.
Objections?
Absolutely not. Lindh was lucky enough to have fallen through the hoopholes, since he was a special case based on his citizenship. The others can rot in Gitmo, as far as I’m concerned. That doesn’t mean the others deserve the same treatment. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
This is a war, and we’re not going to put these enemy combatents through our legal system. They will be dealt with down in Gitmo, where their fate will be decided.
Correction : The Absolutely not, should just be Absolutely, as I disagree %100.
Also, when I say legal system I meant civil legal system. The last thing anybody needs is a bunch of costly and time consuming circus trials, where these idiots will be able to spread their propaganda.
Daisy Cutter, the ideas you propose are barbaric. They are a return to the dark ages of humans and we should never, ever, go there again. Separation of powers and checks and balances are among the most basic principles of western civilization and your ideas would destroy western civilization no less than Al Qaeda.
Having said that, I also say I entirely agree with your belief that all humans are entitled to the same human rights and that being an American citizen should not be a passport to better treatment when committing terrorist acts. I have to applaud you for this because many others who propose your same ideas then would create exceptions for Americans. You and I agree everybody should be treated alike regardless of nationality but we disagree on how they should be treated.
It just seems like denying someone a trial because what he did was particularly heinous is a bad idea.
“He raped and murdered a woman! Why should we waste our time on a trial? Just lock him up! Better yet, shoot him!”
“He had DRUGS in his glove compartment! Don’t you know that we’re at WAR with DRUGS? We can’t waste our time putting every drug user on trial! Just lock him up!”
It doesn’t matter how horrible your actions were–you still deserve a trial.
Dr. J
I 'member the old days *<spitoon: ding! > * when folks talked 'bout notions like ‘Innocent until . . . . ’ and ‘uphold the Constitution’ never did make a whole heap a’ sense though; tell me how much justice Sam Hoooooston got at the Alamo, huh ?
Don’t forget that Bush said “make no mistake, these are bad people”.
That proves it. He knows already. No need for a trial.
Would you mind pointing out what in that story states the detainees have access to counsel? It says they WILL get military counsel, supposedly. It does not say they have access to counsel now.
Assuming, of course, that they did in fact join al-Qaida - I was of the understanding some of these prisoners were members of the Taliban, which is no al-Qaida, and which in fact does have some claim to Geneva Convention protection. But you don’t know either way, because, of course, there’s no trials going on.
If they’re "illegal combatants, " they’re criminals. So let’s see them get trials already. They’re men and they deserve justice, whether that justice ends with being freed or being hanged.
Wars are governed by the Geneva Convention, not by the chimp in the White House. There are rules on how to deal with POWs. If we’re going tp pretend that the “War on Terror” is actually a war then we have to follow the rules of war. The “unlawful combatant” thing is completely disingenuous considering that we are the ones who attacked them. We launch a military attack against an ill-defined, un-uniformed enemy and then we claim that they are “unlawful” because they are ill-defined and un-uniformed.
Either they are enemy combatants or they are criminals. There is no alternative designation which allows us to deprive them of basic human rights. We have to pick a designation and stick with it.
What is Bush trying so desparately to hide anyway?
As Daisy Cuter implicitly confirms, they’re just political pawns, trophies for the mantle piece that warm the heart of the Bush constituency – a rae feel good factor providing endless photo ops to bolster his standing with them.
Should be seeing a whole lot more of them the closer the election gets, probably in chains jogging along in those orange suits behind the Bush campaign wagon.