Originally posted by plawrence:
If they were captured on the battlefield they were incarcerated until the war was over, and I have no problem with that.
Anyone we've captured as a result of militaryt actions in Afghanistan or Iraq absolutely should be detained.
But it's my understanding, and correct here me if I'm wrong, that we are detaining some (many?) people who were not captured on the battlefield, which pretty much eliminates the presumption of guilt, IMO.
As I understand, the majority of prisoners sent to Gitmo that are related to the War on Terror have been either captured by coalition forces on the "battlefield" (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) or have been captured trying to enter the United States (as in the case of Jose Padilla).
Further, there have been detainees who have been released or extradited during the course of the War on Terror. We haven’t simply thrown away the key.
Originally posted by plawrence:
How about to be certain that they are terrorists, and to make sure that they are deserving of being detained?
What I don't understand is "What's the problem with giving these guys a trial"?
If they're terrorists, then fine. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. But if they're not.....
And again, there is neither any legal precedent, nor any legal statute (from the Geneva Convention to the US Constitution) that requires us to try these detainees (obvious exceptions such as Padilla, who is a US citizen) or requires we give these people a "trial" at all. They are enemy combatants being detained by our government for the purpose of securing our nation and extracting vital information in the war on terror. They are neither criminals, in the standard sense of the word, nor are they prisoners of war, by definition.
Further, you ask about the problem giving them a fair trial. Okay.
First of all, do you think they could receive a quote unquote, "fair" trial in the United States?
Secondly, say one of these detainees is set free via a loophole and then rejoins Al Qaeda and commits an act of terror against America? Who do we blame then? The system, for letting him out? Or those who demanded he "stand trial" and celebrated his "innocence?"
Originally posted by plawrence:
Anyway....
I rested my case when I was provided with yet more examples of the type of posts i was talking about.
I rested my case the second time when i was provided with even more examples of the same.
But since we seem to have gotten back on the track here and are discussing the issues, that's a different story.
Kind of like retiring, and then un-retiring, eh? :p
I know we're all just a bunch of silly bullies, but I hope you can find it in your heart to put up with us!
Give me your lunch money.
Double-J
