Thread: So these are the types of people the supreme court want to turn loose on US courts?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I guess I'm just a simple guy.

If they are enemy combatants, shoot them.
If you happen to capture them, question them then shoot them. If they happen to be a citizen, question them, try them, then shoot them.

This goes for all non-citizens who happen to be caught in criminal acts against this country or its people, even if they happen to have illegaly made a home here.

My reasoning: You only get due process of the law if you have been living within the law excepting the incident in question. None of the above qualify.

I guess you're just too simple to remember that all of this "war on terror" began with the illegal invasion of two foreign countries and that the "enemy combattants" were citizens of their country defending it against an invader. You obviously have a strong sense of right and wrong ... that's very confused.

"Illegal"???? You keep using this word, I don't think you know what it means.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I guess you're just too simple to remember that all of this "war on terror" began with the illegal invasion of two foreign countries and that the "enemy combattants" were citizens of their country defending it against an invader. You obviously have a strong sense of right and wrong ... that's very confused.

The "War on Terror" began when a couple of planes were hijacked and flown into buildings.

I have a strong sense of nationalism.

They weren't defending it against an invader as then they would have been identified by their own government as "irregulars in the service of their country" not as unaffiliated combatants. This makes all the difference under the rules of war.

International relations is Anarchy has always been and always will be, the only true international law is the law of might makes right. I would include in that that to make yourself the winner also takes will and that where we as Americans have let ourselves down.

Frankly there should have been no war on terror. We should have identified the country of origin and sterilized it in nuclear fire, but we lacked the will. So we fight this war and have to put up with misrepresentations and abuse from the ignorant in the world community as well as from our own citizens.

At least we have found a easy way to show who our friends in the world are as well as identify false allies and sycophants.

After getting a chance to read the article this thread was originally about my only thought is:

"wouldn't it have been nice if Mohammad blew himself up before writing anything down" Imaging how much less hate there would be in the world today if the pagans in the area of origin for islam had just gone on being fire worshipers.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

After getting a chance to read the article this thread was originally about my only thought is:

"wouldn't it have been nice if Mohammad blew himself up before writing anything down" Imaging how much less hate there would be in the world today if the pagans in the area of origin for islam had just gone on being fire worshipers.

If you read the article then you'll know that it might just be a self extinguishing problem! After killing the two men, they shot their guns in the air which resulted in two more deaths and several injuries of their own people!

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Frankly there should have been no war on terror. We should have identified the country of origin and sterilized it in nuclear fire, but we lacked the will. So we fight this war and have to put up with misrepresentations and abuse from the ignorant in the world community as well as from our own citizens.

Now, this is interesting ... what, in your opinion, was the country of origin that we should have sterilized with nuclear fire? Most of the alleged hijackers were Saudis, are you implying that it wasn't Afghanistan or Iraq? So, why did we attack those countries and not the "real" source? And what are the "misrepresentations and abuse" that we are putting up with? What exactly is it that you would like to teach "the ignorant in the world community"? That they don't understand that might makes right?

"Remember Haditha? Turns out at trial, so far 7 of the Marines have been exonerated completely."

So the US government lodged accusations against soldiers that turned out not to be supported by the facts when these accused were allowed to challenge the charges levelled against them.

Well gee, you've just proven my original point. If we have evidence to prove the so-called enemy combatants are who we say they are, we shouldn't have any hesitation about proving it via the same legal standards we claim to stand for. Look-I have no doubt there are a number of enemy combatants being held in detention who are guilty as hell. But I'm not as sure that we also aren't detaining a number of others who may not be guilty of what "someone" says they are guilty of. The fact of the matter is that we pay informants to provide information that had led to the detainment of a number of there people, and whenever there is a financial incentive at stake, people will do or say things that may not always comport with the truth.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I guess I'm just a simple guy.

If they are enemy combatants, shoot them.
If you happen to capture them, question them then shoot them. If they happen to be a citizen, question them, try them, then shoot them.

I love this! Wait, what about torture, when does that happen, before, during or after the questioning? I can see how torturing them after shooting them could be beneficial as an educational tool, but why would you just wast the opportunity before that.

It's about money and influence, after all.

Ain't that true!
Methinks posting here won't get anybody any of the above. And I've got the perfect quote 'may your guy win' - I do mean it.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"Remember Haditha? Turns out at trial, so far 7 of the Marines have been exonerated completely."

So the US government lodged accusations against soldiers that turned out not to be supported by the facts when these accused were allowed to challenge the charges levelled against them.

This is the difference I do not believe everyone understands. The Marines accused at Haditha were not captured in conflict against us, nor were they captured with local townspeople as hostages and severed heads or IED's laying around. They were accused by enemy sympathizers and others, and our own senators and media types were quick to jump on the band wagon. They never once were prisoners of war, so my statement stands. The detainees at GitMo etc. are claiming to be prisoners of war. So it doesn't matter if they get trials for what they were caught doing right now. They have zero chance of release before the end of hostilities. Why release on the American populace a person who is a) not from America, and b) is sworn to kill Americans and is dying for the chance. Sorry, not going to happen.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Well gee, you've just proven my original point. If we have evidence to prove the so-called enemy combatants are who we say they are, we shouldn't have any hesitation about proving it via the same legal standards we claim to stand for. Look-I have no doubt there are a number of enemy combatants being held in detention who are guilty as hell. But I'm not as sure that we also aren't detaining a number of others who may not be guilty of what "someone" says they are guilty of. The fact of the matter is that we pay informants to provide information that had led to the detainment of a number of there people, and whenever there is a financial incentive at stake, people will do or say things that may not always comport with the truth.

Actually, your original point has not been proven here. There is plenty of evidence, however the captives at Guantanamo are not US citizens and have no rights to a trial as a US citizen. They have rights as (perhaps, and it is stretching it-EPW's-since "terrorists" are specifically excluded from protection under the Geneva conventions) however none of these rights includes a U.S. trial by jury. Furthermore, no matter what nation would have the jurisdiction for these men were they to be tried as civilians, they should not be released. POW's, as you recall, have not necessarily committed a crime. They are still, however, required to remain in captivity until the end of hostilities. If POW's/EPW's escape, good for them, however Geneva conventions also provide a mandate for shooting escapees in the act of escaping.
Finally, in response to the claim of paid informants, perhaps much has changed, but the informants we dealt with when I was over there had no idea for the most part of any reward money. Mostly people still bereft by the loss of families to one individual or another, who were all too happy to report him or her. Informants perhaps were paid for such services as leaving a sign that so-and-so was home perhaps. Also even in cases of those known to be paid, unless you have a far rosier ideal of the U.S. Government, it does not give out money freely to anyone claiming to have information. It already has a good idea who would know something, and likely that person stands to lose much more by telling than money, so why not sweeten the deal so at least if he is killed, his family will be taken care of. It is the least we could do for someone putting themselves on the line to take terrorists out of circulation.


Just my thoughts, again.

John P.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I guess I'm just a simple guy.

If they are enemy combatants, shoot them.
If you happen to capture them, question them then shoot them. If they happen to be a citizen, question them, try them, then shoot them.

This goes for all non-citizens who happen to be caught in criminal acts against this country or its people, even if they happen to have illegaly made a home here.

My reasoning: You only get due process of the law if you have been living within the law excepting the incident in question. None of the above qualify.

I like the way you think.


John P.