EastCoastNiner Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I know all of you don't have the view of many liberals, but if you do, why do you think that terrorists should be given the same right's as U.S. citizens and not tried by a military tribunal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Because it's funny and lulz will ensue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted January 13, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 We should probably just keep them in our own special prisons outside of the US, monitored by some of our own military, so they can molest them and take pictures of them, like we've seen in the past by a bunch of low-life scumbag Americans serving our country. That's an idea...just keep pissing off other countries and treating everyone like dirt, no matter what. Read: http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/tribunal.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted January 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 We should probably just keep them in our own special prisons outside of the US, monitored by some of our own military, so they can molest them and take pictures of them, like we've seen in the past by a bunch of low-life scumbag Americans serving our country. That's an idea...just keep pissing off other countries and treating everyone like dirt, no matter what. Read: http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/tribunal.html 1. That's back during World War II, which was a completely different time period. 2. You didn't really answer the question, but I'm guessing it's you're just more against military tribunals than you are about actually giving the terrorists the same right's as U.S. citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted January 13, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 1. That's back during World War II, which was a completely different time period. 2. You didn't really answer the question, but I'm guessing it's you're just more against military tribunals than you are about actually giving the terrorists the same right's as U.S. citizens.History changes the future. The entire article was also about the present, if you read near the bottom. And I'm actually more against us acting like we are still the greatest country in the world, and that we can treat anyone differently than we do our own people. It really doesn't matter to me anyways. I don't see how any of them will be found innocent to begin with (like some delusional people think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MainEv3nt Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 hasnt this question been on otr b4 lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneck Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 While I'm not technically a liberal I will try to answer this question fairly and honestly. Many of the left, and even some in the middle and on the right, believe that terrorist or enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them, need to be treated with the same dignity that we show to other captured individuals or criminals. They base this on two assumptions of law. First, the US is a partner to the Geneva convention which sets forth a series of rules for war and combat. One of these rules deals with the treatment of POW's. The article on POW's also mentioned partisans and other "insurgency" groups. Now as the US is a signor of this document it makes it law that they need to be treated in accordence with the Geneva Convention. The second assumption of law is based on the US's own legal codes, mainly the Constitution which gives anyone held in prison the writ of Habeus Corpis, Right to a speedy trial and so on. The courts have ruled time and again that these rights are granted to all Americans and cannot be abridged. The right is arguing that neither of these before mentioned laws apply because terrorist are not POW's because they are not acting in accordance to any recognized government. Domestic terrorist were held under basically the same principal until the courts ruled that they needed to either be tried or let free. So domestic terrorists are now classified as criminals. Now to my opinion. I think the US screwed up royaly when it held captured Taliban and Iraqi forces captive. Without a doubt these two are covered under the Geneva Convention. The Taliban may not have been recognized as the offical heads of state of Afghanistan, but they were the de facto rulers ergo they have protection. Saddam Hussein however was recognized as the head of the Iragi government so any soliders attempting to fight off the US invasion and who were captured are POW's in every sense of the meaning. So to torture them or subject them to humiliation is a war crime. However, since the conflict isn't technically over holding them is not. Al Qaida however is a different story. I have always thought they should be held as criminals, but tried in a military court were the burden of innocence is much higher than in US civillian court. As for the naked man pyramid. While it's technically wrong, it's not really that bad. In terms of historical punishment and humilation goes it's a slap on the wrist. Waterboarding however is banned and we should not be doing it. The US executed hundereds of Japanses officers for doing the practice during WWII. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.