View Single Post
Old 05-11-2006, 07:38 PM   #44
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Once again, who decided that these men imprisoned in Guantanamo were terrorists? They certainly haven't been legally convicted of any crime in a civil sense, and they're not being treated as POWs ought to be treated under international conventions. So what gives you the right to sit there and pass judgement on them as your military have also summarily done?

Who decides who is and who is not a terrorist? If these shadowy figures decided that I was a terrorist, would that make me a terrorist? Do these people have such a monopoly on the dispensing of absolute truth? Of course not. Nobody does. That's why we have laws, juries and due process.

As a system of law it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight fairer than your preferred method of drumheads and summary condemnation.
Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.

Second, if you went to Afghanistan or Iraq and started shooting at our troops, what would happen to you would depend on whether or not you're a citizen of the United States (I'm not sure where you're from). If you're a US citizen, then you are entitled to certain rights under the US Constitution, among them due process of the law and a trial by a jury of your peers. If you're not from the US, then the US Constitution doesn't apply to you, and you would fall under a different set of rules. By your statement above, you seem to be assuming that the US military is going around rounding up anyone they feel like rounding up...and that seeming assessment is entirely innacurate. These are enemy combatants who were fighting against the United States military. I refer to them as terrorists because many of them use terror tactics to try and drive US public opinion against the war, and many are, in fact, members of terrorist organizations. Maybe under a strict definition they wouldn't classify as "terrorists", but who cares? That's just semantics. Either way, they were captured while trying to kill US soldiers.

Finally, using the US court system to try foreign combatants for attacking our troops makes no sense whatsoever. These prisoners fall under a completely different set of laws. You may not like it, but that's how it works. Not liking it doesn't make it illegal. You wanna make it illegal, start passing the petition around to get it on the ballot. I'm sure you'll find somebody to sign it.


I'd also like to address something you said earlier that caused me to chuckle:
Quote:
Most pundits agree that it's all completely counter to international law, AND US LAW TOO. Illegal.
Here's something about pundits: they can pretty much say whatever the heck they want, and that doesn't mean that it's true. Just because 9 out of 10 pundits agree that something is illegal, that doesn't make it illegal. Only the law can do that. Show me the law that is being violated, and I'll agree that it's illegal.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,