* * * *
WWII involved NATIONS declaring WAR on each other...with open field combat and open acts of massive troop aggression. Combatants CAPTURED were SOLDIERS, thus they fell under the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Ghailani was wanted by the FBI in connection to the bombing of an embassy that killed US personnel that was suspected of being an Al Qaeda connected operation. The current "war on terror" is actually an attempt to stop organizations that use terror tactics....these organizations are NOT a nation, NOT a massive army, navy or air force....which is why a federal court would be more suited to try the case....as with any other similar act that would fall under FBI jurisdiction.
BIG DIFFERENCE
* * * *
As I asked someone with your similar mindset before on this thread....is it customary for the Military tribunals to use testimony born of torture to get a conviction? If so, that sort of throws the whole truth, justice and the American way out the window, right?
The Shrub's ability to deem anyone an "enemy combatant" and toss them into Gitmo wasn't working out well....releasing 500 people after years of detainment and interrogation without explanation wasn't a positive thing...and holding others indefinitely without some definitive end game and being highly secretive wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do.
So instead, we have Ghailani tried in federal court...convicted and sentenced. America is secure, NYC wasn't ground to a halt and a conspirator with terrorists is off the streets in jail LEGALLY.
Had Ghailani been caught with a group of Al Qaeda in a firefight with US soldiers in Afghanistan, then your comparison to WWII would have been much closer (but no cigar).
So again, YOU WERE WRONG.....GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.
Tackylib's infantile analysis is precisely what's wrong with the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal" on the topic of fighting the terrorists.
Tackylib will never be able to grasp just how wrong he is. He is a modern American uber lib and thus his mind is rigidly incapable of grasping obviously valid rejoinders to his silly notions.
Notice how Liability, who has NO ability to critically think for himself and cannot logically refute what he doesn't like always preambles with personal attacks based on NOTHING but opinion.
If a NATION declares war on us (think Germany or think Japan which didn't bother with the declaration before their sneak attack), then obviously we will be at war as soon as we authorize the use of our military to engage the enemy. The fighting, historically, has indeed been done on battlefields between uniformed combatants. Tackylib recognizes this as "war" and this is ALL he is capable of recognizing as war.
Note how Liability tries to pose a moot point as if he's teaching me something...even thought the chronology of the post clearly shows how I initially used WWII as an example....and he throws in yet another accusation based solely on his personal opinion. Another testament to the intellectual bankruptcy that is Liability.
But if an organized non-governmental operation of international scope whose combatants do not wear identifying uniforms declares war on us (sneak attacks ring a bell, anyone?) and WE reciprocate by authorizing the use of our military to fight them, and then proceed to do just that, according to idiots like Tackylib, we are "not" at "war." Instead, jerk-offs like Tackylib, who are incapable of rational thinking, insist that the actions of the groups like al qaeda are merely criminal actions and should be treated as such by law enforcement (like the FBI and local police departments) and not by the military and intelligence agencies.
Again, another dishonest revision of the previous conversation by Liability. Liability is ignorant of American history when dealing with terrorist organizations....it's done with intelligence and police actions along with surgical military strikes....which is why Clinton was able to take down, prosecute, convict and sentence so many terrorists who are doing time in jail today. Again, Liability LIES about what I wrote, as I NEVER said the USA wasn't at war with Al Qaeda (it was the Shrub who coined the idiotic phrase "war on terror", as you can't have a war with a military tactic)...which is a constant with neocon parrots who cannot logically and factually defend their beliefs....especially in the face of real life events that contradict them.
Federal Courts, say the idiots like Tackylib, are better suited to deal with these asshole al qaeda types. Why? Because (using his circular "reasoning") Courts deal with "crimes." When confronted with the fact that the information used to capture such scumbags may have been derived from our military/intelligence efforts, and that the information must not be permitted to get to the hands of our enemies for a wide variety of reasons, douche bags like Tackylib dismiss the objection. Yet, if we treat these captured enemies as mere criminals, then they would be entitled to "criminal" trials, and this entails giving them "discovery." For a failure to share such "discovery" the penalty could be dismissal of the case.
Why would we CHOOSE to place OURSELVES in the position of having to confront the dilemma of
either sharing military/intelligence secrets WITH the very fucking enemy we are fighting
or being ordered by our own legal system to let the captured enemy go?
No. When the faux "logic" of idiot uber libs like Tackylib reveals that we are creating such completely avoidable (false) dilemmas for ourselves, we have an obligation in logic to reject the original mistaken premise. Terrorists are
not mere criminals. They are enemy warriors. Illegal combatants are still combatants.
Tackylib, where the result of your would-be "logic" is so perverse and untenable, it is your would-be "logic" that is mistaken.
But as I said, you will never be able to admit this or even grasp it. Thankfully, your extremely shallow thinking is the thinking of a distinct minority.
