Discussion in 'Media' started by AquaAthena, Dec 9, 2010.
once again we see the results of relying on 'experts...'
Think the warmists will see the connection to the Global Warming scam...ever?
No, they don't want to....
Arming the Afghanistan "freedom fighters".
Say. I have a GREAT idea. It comes with wonderful intentions.
Why not give Constitutional Rights to captured enemy combatants, like those misunderstood fellers from al qaeda, and try them as though what they were doing was mere criminality, and try them IN our domestic civilian Courts of Law! We'll show them that OUR way is the superior way!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Try them in Texas where their is a death penalty.
You do realize that it was because of experts that we found out reasons why they were bad ideas (at least for the first two).
I'm not going to believe that dozens of countries and science organizations decided to lie to everyone without some extraordinary proof. Which I'm guessing you don't have.
Because not giving them any sort of trial is an even worse idea.
No. It's not. A trial is to prove guilt. We aren't trying to "prove" shit about a captured enemy combatant. We are trying, exclusively, to prevent them from returning to the field of combat. This is what we did by holding legitimate uniformed lawful enemy combatants during WWII, for example. It's terribly unclear why we would accord greater privileges to the scumbag al qaeda shitbags.
Trials, by marked contrast, are the process by which disputes get aired out and determinations can be made. If -- and only to the extent that -- there's any issue as to whether or not a detained alleged enemy combatant was actually an enemy combatant is there anything susceptible to a "trial." And there's no valid reason why this can't be done via a military tribunal rather than in our civilian courts of law.
Separate names with a comma.