I will ask you also. Why would giving them a trial be so difficult/objectionable that you would prefer to kill innocent people? Organised crime in the U.S has killed far more people, and yet even during the 1930s they where still even trials before being killed. Christ even Eichmann got a fair trial, why don't these people deserve one?
OK lets assume for the sake of argument that its inevitable that innocent people get caught up, why not give them a trial to determine those who are innocent from those who are not? I can't for the life of me understand what is so objectionable about such a common sense procedure.
These detainees are prisoners of war.
The war must be settled and the prisoners returned to their native land.
No trials.
I have to agree with
earthworm__I'm no authority on US and international laws regarding war, but I don't believe POWs normally receive a trial
unless they are charged with a war crime.
They may be de facto prisoners of war, but they aren't called that. The government made up a new name, "enemy combatants", meaning that they aren't covered by the Geneva Accords.
The dynamics of
the war on terror is like nothing the US military has ever had to deal with__They're literally writing the manual as they go.
Though the point that everyone seems to be missing is that alot of them are neither, because they are in fact completely innocent
Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian
Sorry Red, but you and your source are blinded by an extremely anti-America, liberal bias.
We've bragged and pride ourselves on "the rule of law" and when push came to shove, we ignored our base principles. The war began with lies, fed on lies, and what survives is lies. OBL is dead. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? How could we have sunk so low as to ally with Pakistan, the financiers behind Mohammmed Atta? I'm afraid I view the war on terrorists as a big corporate money grab for connected (politically) contractors. The enemy should have been the Pakistani ISI from step one.
"Pride ourselves on the rule of law"???__Surely you must be joking Dave!
We have a congress that makes policy in violation of the Constitution and ratified by a President who also refuses to enforce federal immigration laws and punishes states that attempt to enforce them locally and a populace that doesn't appear to know what to do about an out of control runaway government.
And yet you still manage to put people on trial............
I don't believe we can compare the war on drugs to the war on terror, at least not with a straight face__
peaches and pears.
I have to disagree with you. He was murdered. Collateral damage is an explanation for what happens when a legitimate military target is struck by military weapons. Sometimes those who have no part in the war are injured or killed. We regret it.
Delawar was murdered. Murders are not collateral damage. Now had he died of a heart attack during questioning I would agree with collateral damage. But he was beaten, essentially to death. And that is murder. Even in war.
I agree with your disagreement
MrV, but only on a technicality__We should endeavor to give our warriors the benefit of the doubt, especially when judging them from the safety of our homes.
As I stated above, we are literally writing the manual on how to fight a war on terror as we go along and we must have faith in our military who deal with the extreme emotions and dangers of a very stressful mission.
To be quite frank, we should be very cautious about demonizing those on the front lines in times of war concerning issues of morality__Demanding morality of war is as futile as attempting to marry oil and water.
I think this is naive. The UN is a tool. It is nothing more. When it is useful we use it. When it is not we do what must be done. It is mostly a collection of tyrants and thugs.
I can't imagine how the United States could ever benefit from an evil corrupt organization such as the United Nations which views western civilization as an obstacle to it's global agenda.