Originally posted by plawrence:
The "battlefield", the way I see it, is just that.
If we capture a guy during a military action, that's one thing.
But if we go to someone's home - wherever that home may be - and arrest them based on the suspicion that they may be a terrorist, that's something else.
So basically, we have to wait until he's shooting our soldiers for him to be a terrorist, by that definition.
You make it sound like they are storming peoples houses and kidnapping them like its some sort of
Kristallnacht, like we're rounding up random people and locking them away.
Clearly, for every terrorist we get, there are names and further information our government uses to determine enemies of the state. Just because they aren't firing at our soldiers doesn't mean they aren't aiding or participating in Al Qaeda activities - be it money laundering/wiring, subverting the networks of government agencies via computer, or other noncombatant but still subversive activities.
I have to agree with Don Cardi. The War on Terror brings the enemy onto our soil, intentionally permeating and assimilating our culture with the prupose of striking from within. The traditional battlefield, as in the days of Patton or Bradley, is no longer a relevant term, at least in this case.
Originally posted by plawrence:
But still, saying that they can't get a "fair" trial is no reason not to give them any trial.
But again, your statement is preconditioned on the idea that they have the right to a trial, which they don't.
Originally posted by plawrence:
Same problem as when any other seemingly or obviously guilty person is freed via a "loophole".
That's the price we pay for having the best system of jurispridence in the world.
That's a price, thanks to Gitmo, we
won't have to pay. Though, judging by their efforts, people like Barbara Olshansky would love to see these animals free and practicing their malevolence.
Originally posted by plawrence:
What exactly do you mean by "celebrated his 'innocence'"?
Personally, I hope that every single one of those detainees is guilty, because it's that many more terrorists that are off the streets and no longer posing a danger to this country.
But what is there to "celebrate" if there were trials and a few "not guilty" verdicts?
I'd be happy that they system is working, and I'd behoping that the verdicts were correct.
And if they eren't, as I say, that's the price we sometimes have to pay for having the system that we do
But I wasn't out celebrating when, for example, O.J Simpson was found not guilty (although there were those who, for what they felt wer good reasons, were celebrating), or John Gotti was, any of the several times he wasn't convicted.
You know as well as I do the millions of dollars being spent in an attempt to get these people freed, or at least brought to trial by American lawyers and agencies such as the ACLU and people like Olshansky.
Much like blacks in Los Angeles danced in the streets when OJ's verdict was read, or when Palestinians danced in the streets on 9/11, I have no doubt people like Cindy Sheehan or Ms. Olshansky would consider the enfranchisement and eventual freedom of these terrorists to be a celebrated achievement, yet another black on on the fascist US government.
Unfortunately, should that be allowed to happen, the consequences would be grave indeed for all American citizens.
Originally posted by plawrence:
And finally, BTW, I never said that everyone was a "bunch of silly bullies."
What I did say was that there was someone who I felt was like a schoolyard bully, and that in general the posts that some of the people made in this thread were silly, not the posters themselves.
How...diplomatic.
I didn't realize it was possible speak out of two totally separate orifices at the same time.
Give me your lunch money.
Double-J
