Power means summary executions of those who haven't been proven to have done anything wrong, other than live in a different country?
The military needs to be allowed to kill people.
That is what military's do.
If it is logistically more beneficial to execute prisoners, that is what happens... you are trying to win a war... and no one on the winning side gets executed for war crimes.
It's not right, it's not fair.. but that is the way it is and always has been.
what a stupid mother er.
Clambake I don't think you will find a single time in history where anything in my above statement would be considered false.
We value human life and the concept of liberty, other than the lives and liberties of those who happen to have been born in the wrong country -- for them, we use su ions that we cannot substantiate as the sole criteria for execution!
Hooray!
I'm not sure how the military's need to kill people applies when the people who are to be killed have been taken into custody, interrogated, investigated, and as to whom we've been unable to prove anything. But I'm sure that the bully pulpit of superpowerdom somehow contemplates killing even in those cir stances. Goat herders beware!
The released herders disappeared and likely immediately betrayed the team's location to local Taliban forces and within an hour the SEALs were engaged in a fire-fight against a force of 80-150 enemy fighters.
Of course, the best solution is just to kill everyone. Shoot, why not just advocate dropping a nuke?
Honestly?
I'm worried about what the radiation would do to the Snow Leopards and Markhor.
And praytell, what is this country supposed to stand for?
You do more disservice to this country when you claim that we are "giving it all away" by standing true to the values espoused by many who founded this nation.
George Washington knew that respect can go a long way towards winning over your enemy, for one. In fact, he specifically stated that soldiers had to be decent to POW's... why? So they would see the righteousness of our cause.
Giving up the moral high ground is not an effective strategy.
Are you familiar with LOAC? If not, maybe you should read up on it. A code of chivalry would be decent reading material as well.Honestly?
I'm worried about what the radiation would do to the Snow Leopards and Markhor.
Tell me, if we drop a bomb on any country we like, what would be the reasoning stopping another country from bombing us?
Have you ever heard of MAD?
Of course I'm not a big fan of the nuclear option that was a joke. I'm not a "nuke em all" type guy.
Chivalry is what got us in this predicament. It only works when both sides go by the same code. Ask the marines in the Pacific how well Chivalry worked with the Japanese.
Do you feel America stands for liberty? Freedom? The basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Do you agree with those beliefs?
still fightin the japs, huh?
welcome to the 40's ladies and gentlemen!
Of course I do. And I can tell your next step is to tell me that I am infringing on their life and their liberty and freedom... but go back to my earlier post and you will get the answer to your next question.
"My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it."
This statement applies to all of Jefferson's (well really Locke's except for property) fundamental rights.
In order to protect my liberty, I will take away another man's.
In order to protect my freedom I will take away the freedom of someone else.
Do not infringe upon my liberty and I will not infringe upon yours.
And before the goat farmer comes back, he is an unfortunate casualty. It's not an easy choice to make to kill the guy so he doesn't report your position or ruin the integrity of your mission.
But you cannot deny in Luttrel's scenario that a case can be made to kill him in self defense. It wouldn't stand up in any court of law if it ever got there, but at least the 3 SEAL's that died on that mountain that day would be alive to stand trial.
When you give people a choice to be war criminals or face almost certain death all you do is make a whole lot of war criminals.
releasing prisioners due to lack of evidence!
what is this country coming to???
Do you have the right to kill a person based on a hypothetical? Are you morally justified in denying a man's life and liberty in REALITY when the chances that he could deny you life are HYPOTHETICAL in nature?
Heck, what about other liberties we grant to people. Should we grant people the right to defend themselves? There is a possibility that the man IS a murderer and we might be letting him go. That does damage to our society as well. Should we kill all suspects, to be safe, secure and sure?
You need to learn how to argue. All you do now is write the contents of a protest poster down in the little white box and hit submit.
I don't agree with LnGrrr or FWD but I respect their intelligence and ability to make points and try to trap.
You've distorted the goat herder hypothetical to suit your own ends. This discussion started with your assertion that after interrogating a detainee, we should simply execute him, no matter the proof (or lack thereof) obtained through his interrogation.
My suggestion of the goat herder was meant to inquire about whether he, after being taken into custody and detained, should be summarily executed even if, while in custody and interrogated, we could develop no proof of his involvement in any terroristic conduct.
I've indulged the SEAL rabbit trail to this point without insisting upon returning to the real question of the goat herder's fate after being taken into custody, where there are no exigent cir stances (revealing a tactical position or ambushing soldiers) at play. Supposing that the facts in the paragraph above applied to my goat herder -- he has been taken into custody, he has been detained, he has been interrogated, and we can't prove anything -- are you telling me he still gets executed, just because we have su ions that we cannot corroborate and he happens to have been picked up in Afghanistan?
to this point, you're not worth the catch. you think you live in another time.
however, you are an obedient follower thats void of critical thinking.
#1 bolded: If we are at war, the chance that he could deny life may become more than a Hypothetical. That's why I am for giving commanders the option of making a judgment call in the field.
Paragraph #2: I think you misspoke. Life is an unalienable Right so protection of it isn't something that can be granted... it is inherent to the right. I have never once promoted the killing of any suspects. This man, nor the goatherd is a criminal. I don't believe they should be subject to the courts.
If he is TRULY innocent and he serves us no tactical advantage as a detainee I have no problem letting him go. If our "lack of evidence" presented to the court is a result of our inability to release classified information, I would rather keep him as a detainee or have him dead.
This whole damn thing is a hypothetical, so I guess you got me. My tendency in these matters is to have faith that the government has held someone for some tangible reason. Others of you have no such faith.
By your assumptions, if we cannot present any evidence, we don't have any.
By mine, if we have people in the know with "strong su ions" that he is involved without de-classifiable proof... it's a war keep him locked up or get rid of him before the courts can free what is a known (to some) threat.
That got me in trouble with WMD's, but I wanted to grab hold of the population of Iraq and re-educate two generations of kids to be Western Friendly so it seemed like a good talking point.
I always had my doubts about the ability of our population to stomach an occupation for more than a few years. Sadly my doubts were realized and we have proved yet again that America with its 4-8 year leadership turnover is an untrustworthy ally, just as Nasser was saying 50 years ago in a region with a thousand year memory.
habeas corpus isn't in the cons ution. Like I said though, having a seperate type of habeus corpus for detainees should be acceptable. If not we would not have been able to go to war with loyalists in the revolutionnary war, or be able to execute german pows.
What kind of libertarian is accepting of the us govt taking over college loans, and the healthcare industry but against non citizen enemies of the state being detained? I could understand the normal "how do we know all the ones in gitmo are terrorists?" but that isn't the case. This guy is a HVT.
You sure about that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
