• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

apdst said:
Not when those laws are over-used to the point that an American soldiers is afraid to pull the trigger on a bag guy, because he might be charged with some chicken **** war crime.

It's a war, people get killed, people get hurt, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Then you change the rules, plain and simple.
 
the makeout hobo said:
If siding with Rule of Law is "siding with the terrorists", so be it. Rule of Law is the foundation this country was founded on, more than any other factor. I hope that they get off for something like this, but if it violates the USMJ, so be it. Those are the rules. I'm sorry, but you're arguing against the basis of all republicanism if you argue against Rule of Law in all situations.
Click to expand...

The USMJ isn't the authority on how American troops should treat unlawful combatants, AKA, Jihadist terrorists; that is reserved to the Geneva Conventions.
 
Ethereal said:
The USMJ isn't the authority on how American troops should treat unlawful combatants, AKA, Jihadist terrorists; that is reserved to the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...

I thought it was not the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
 
the makeout hobo said:
Then you change the rules, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Or, stop over-interpreting the rules. An even better idea would be to start interpreting the rules as they are written rather than what you want them to be. Or, even better than that, stop inventing war crimes and using our servicemen as pawns, just so you can try to convict the sitting president of some BS war crime. Ball's in your court, now.
 
apdst said:
Or, stop over-interpreting the rules. An even better idea would be to start interpreting the rules as they are written rather than what you want them to be. Or, even better than that, stop inventing war crimes and using our servicemen as pawns, just so you can try to convict the sitting president of some BS war crime. Ball's in your court, now.
Click to expand...

Umm... when have I done any of this?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I thought it was not the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
Click to expand...

International law governs the conduct of "civilized" warfare, and is the basis for the UCMJ in terms of conduct. Anyone in flagrant violation of these rules should not be afforded their protection, otherwise, what incentive would there be to follow the rules?

We shouldn't let America's enemies hamstring us with our own laws, especially when they'd nuke one of our cities without hesitation.

Capture, exploit, and execute. That will send them a message...one they understand perfectly well.
 
Ethereal said:
International law governs the conduct of "civilized" warfare, and is the basis for the UCMJ in terms of conduct. Anyone in flagrant violation of these rules should not be afforded their protection, otherwise, what incentive would there be to follow the rules?

We shouldn't let America's enemies hamstring us with our own laws, especially when they'd nuke one of our cities without hesitation.

Capture, exploit, and execute. That will send them a message...one they understand perfectly well.
Click to expand...

Why should their actions have any effect on how we conduct ourselves? We treated the Nazis fairly well most of the time.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Why should their actions have any effect on how we conduct ourselves?
Click to expand...

Because it benefits us, and is lawful. Ultitarian and legal. Those are the only valid arguments I'm aware of anymore.

We treated the Nazis fairly well most of the time.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?
 
Last edited:
Double post
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Let's actually quote from one of your sources:



Guess which are the serious charges, and which are simply piling on. Let me quote further from the same source:
Click to expand...

Thank you Redress for once again proving your dishonesty by refusing to answer a direct question.

I asked you one simple question. No tricks, no spin, just a simple question.

Who is accusing them of punching the terrorist?

Thats the question. Please answer it this time.
 
texmaster said:
Thank you Redress for once again proving your dishonesty by refusing to answer a direct question.

I asked you one simple question. No tricks, no spin, just a simple question.

Who is accusing them of punching the terrorist?

Thats the question. Please answer it this time.
Click to expand...

You did your homework. I am so proud of you. To answer your question, the same people who are charging them with lying to the investigation, and in at least one case obstructing justice.

Now let's see if you will answer a question: Do you really think that if they had not lied, they would be in the situation they are in? If they had said "yup, it was a mess, we had to rough him up a bit for our own safety", do you think any one would have prosecuted them? What always happens is the coverup is worse than the actual event.

Something else to keep in mind. All the information we have on specifics beyond the charges is from the guys themselves and their families. The military is not, and cannot, comment on the case.
 
Redress said:
You did your homework. I am so proud of you. To answer your question, the same people who are charging them with lying to the investigation, and in at least one case obstructing justice.
Click to expand...

Thats another LIE. There is only one person as a witness.

WHO IS THAT PERSON? Answer the question.

Now let's see if you will answer a question: Do you really think that if they had not lied, they would be in the situation they are in? If they had said "yup, it was a mess, we had to rough him up a bit for our own safety", do you think any one would have prosecuted them? What always happens is the coverup is worse than the actual event.
Click to expand...

Show me where they lied.

Go ahead. Produce the evidence.

Now I'll watch you run away as usual.

Something else to keep in mind. All the information we have on specifics beyond the charges is from the guys themselves and their families. The military is not, and cannot, comment on the case.
Click to expand...

Yes you claim they lied. LOL Welcome to the world of Redress.
 
Redress said:
You did your homework. I am so proud of you. To answer your question, the same people who are charging them with lying to the investigation, and in at least one case obstructing justice.
Click to expand...

Who are these people?
 
texmaster said:
Thats another LIE. There is only one person as a witness.

WHO IS THAT PERSON? Answer the question.



Show me where they lied.

Go ahead. Produce the evidence.

Now I'll watch you run away as usual.



Yes you claim they lied. LOL Welcome to the world of Redress.
Click to expand...

So much for the hope of a reasonable discussion. Get back to me when you can do more than call names and avoid questions.
 
Redress said:
So much for the hope of a reasonable discussion. Get back to me when you can do more than call names and avoid questions.
Click to expand...

LOL I asked you the original question. You once again dishonestly refused to answer it and then lied about who the witness actually is.

Then you claim the Seals are the ones who are lying once again without evidence. I challenged you to prove that and on cue, you run away.

Thanks for staying predictable Redress.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So much for the hope of a reasonable discussion. Get back to me when you can do more than call names and avoid questions.
Click to expand...

You'll be back. I just know it. :)

Hey Tex, who is the witness against the Seals? Isn't that the terrorist they caught?
 
Last edited:
Politics101 said:
You'll be back. I just know it. :)

Hey Tex, who is the witness against the Seals? Isn't that the terrorist they caught?
Click to expand...

Why yes it is Politics!

Funny how hard it was for Redress to actually answer that basic question.

So its the word of a terrorist who murdered Americans already over our Navy Seals. But according to Redress, the Seals are the liars :roll:
 
texmaster said:
Why yes it is Politics!

Funny how hard it was for Redress to actually answer that basic question.

So its the word of a terrorist who murdered Americans already over our Navy Seals. But according to Redress, the Seals are the liars :roll:
Click to expand...

I have a very simple test for our terrorist sympathizer, anti-American friend.

In which picture do you see the enemy? The top one or the bottom picture? Whose word do you trust more, the top or the bottom picture?

0_21_112409_fallujah.jpg


navy-seal-4.jpg
 
texmaster said:
Why yes it is Politics!

Funny how hard it was for Redress to actually answer that basic question.

So its the word of a terrorist who murdered Americans already over our Navy Seals. But according to Redress, the Seals are the liars :roll:
Click to expand...

See, this is where you go wrong. It's not the terrorist making the charges, but the US Navy, bases upon their investigation. So sorry, but once again, you are wrong.
 
Politics101 said:
I have a very simple test for our terrorist sympathizer, anti-American friend.

In which picture do you see the enemy? The top one or the bottom picture? Whose word do you trust more, the top or the bottom picture?

0_21_112409_fallujah.jpg


navy-seal-4.jpg
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question...what where you doing when I was over in the gulf? You want to call me a terrorist sympathizer, you better have some proof. You got none, and all you can do is call names. You proved ignorant of the facts, you made wild assed comments, you brought this up in two different inappropriate places, and you still won't realize why you are wrong.
 
Redress said:
Let me ask you a question...what where you doing when I was over in the gulf? You want to call me a terrorist sympathizer, you better have some proof. You got none, and all you can do is call names. You proved ignorant of the facts, you made wild assed comments, you brought this up in two different inappropriate places, and you still won't realize why you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You're back! :2wave:

Did you choose the top picture or the bottom picture as a most trusted source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom