Reply With Quote
I would feel much better about our country if it killed combatants on the battlefield, then lock them up without access to courts for an indeterminate amount of time.
and.... why should we change the method we used to try and convict him? The fact that the US system of justice assumes innocence before guilt is one of the things that makes this country great, in my opinion. Do you feel differently?
I would feel much better about our country if it killed combatants on the battlefield, then lock them up without access to courts for an indeterminate amount of time.
the "and......." was in hoping you would finish your sentence. he was tried. convicted, and.......................
let's finish that sentence and we can continue. people love putting words in other people's mouths on here.
you would either way, no?
Just guessing, probably not. LnnGrrrR is active military. I doubt he's much bothered by the other guys dying on battlefields.
Said it better than I could have.
When people die on the battlefield, well, happens. That type of action occurs in war. Lots of innocent people die, and that's something civilian leaders must take into account when they start a war.
However, when you remove someone from the battlefield, I have the belief that we should give them certain basic rights. Not saying they have to necessarily have the same rights as a POW, but until they're proven to be guilty, I don't see why we shouldn't let them have those rights.
Other people disagree. *shrug*
And went to jail and was killed.the "and......." was in hoping you would finish your sentence. he was tried. convicted, and.......................
let's finish that sentence and we can continue. people love putting words in other people's mouths on here.
I'm fine if we take that course of action for the remaining prisoners in GTMO. Try them, and if they are guilty, lock them up, or send them to Death Row, or give them whatever sentence the judges deem fair. If they are innocent, then expatriate them to their country of origin. If that country won't take them, see who will.
he was executed, not killed.
Splitting hairs, aren't we? I'm pretty if you execute someone, you're also killing them.
Cmon now, Viva. I've seen you complain about liberals doing everything they can to complain, , etc etc, but your post before this was leading, and this post is semantics.
Do you have a rebuttal based on rational analysis? Or is this the part where you just agree to disagree, and think that even though we were able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh successfully, that we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to do that in the future?
sorry about that. i was confusing you with the guy having issue with executing this convicted terrorist.
well i was just leading you to finish your thought. i didn't really see it as a gotcha tactic, but again, i was confusing you with someone else.
shoot
if someone's death count gets in the hundreds then i see you being on a different level. if the evidence is stacked against you then you should lose your rights. i may not be following your train of thought in your last statement. are you saying i'm wrong in thinking "we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to" kill hundreds of innocent people in broad daylight "in the future"?
I can understand your thought process, but if the evidence of the crime is so obvious, what's wrong with putting them on trial ASAP? That way they can get convicted and then executed/jailed/etc.
No matter what the crime is, I think that we should hold up to the basic values of our justice system (ie. innocence before guilt, habeas corpus, etc). We have, IMHO, the best justice system in the world. What better way to show Western values than to use that justice system to process even the most heinous villains?
I don't think we have to sacrifice some of our values to maintain our security.
ah. now i see where you're coming from. i guess i wasn't clear, but yes, they should be tried, convicted and all that good stuff. i didn't mean to imply that if we think you did a heinous crime like mcveigh did then you go straight to the chair or what have you.
Execution is a form of killing. So what. The important distinction is he was kill/executed and not murdered.
Declinism. Things are getting worse. Values aren't so important to people as previously. Certainly not worth living and dying for, and probably worth trading for some bogus peace of mind.
See, that's what I want to see with the terrorists at GTMO. Try them, convict them, then do whatever the judge thinks is reasonable.
Do they necessarily deserve innocence before guilt? According to our laws, it's questionable whether it's necessary. However, I feel that it's desirable to prove that we did everything we could to prove the guilt of the men captured.
Is there a chance that some will be let free that might do something bad? Yes, but we take that chance today, when we let out pedophiles, rapists, and murderers out of jail.
Again, reasonable people on the opposite side of the fence state that, by not going by international standards of war, they deserve no rights at all, or severely restricted rights. But I can't say for certainty whether or not everyone that was captured was actually guilty, and if the release of some prisoners is any evidence, it's near 100% certain that some of them are innocent.
So put them on trial, a trial where they are allowed a basic defense, and the right for the defendant, or at least their attorney, to see what evidence the prosecution is using against them. If they're found guilty, then my conscience (and, I feel, the nation's) is free.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions