Re: Guantanamo revisited
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trovan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maggot,
The reason they don't have trials is because the battlefield is not a crime scene. What would you have our military do? Wrap each battle in crime tape, get statements from witnesses, collect forensic evidence, etc.
The position of the previous administration was that if are caught on the battlefield participating in any way in the attempt to kill troops, you are a POW. When the conflict is over and when these POW's can be released into a culture where they won't be recycled into killers, they will be sent home. This administration proclaimed the same arguments as you but apparently when they got into power and had to make real decisions, they somehow figured out the previous admin. wasn't so F'ed up.
I think the current system works. Somebody is caught participating in battle. Instead of shooting the bastard they pack them up and ship them to a prison. Seems pretty moral to me.
We are above the enemy. Our enemy executes POW's. When we can kill them and nobody would know the difference we don't. Instead, we capture them, take them to a prison where they are fed 3 squares a day, provide reading materials and exercise along with state of the art medical care. I don't see how that is beneath us.
Sounds very moral to say they should have trials. Trials for battlefield combatants would be a circus and you know it.
Maybe we should give all world citizens the same rights as the despised american constitution. I know, put cameras in every HUMVEE and broadcast miranda rights before each shooting. Then we can send in forensic teams to assess the crime scene. Hey, that would be job creation as a bonus.
Go back to your tent at the local Occupy protest and take a dump in public to show us what you really are. I am sorry that I participated in this BS thread. I have liked this forum because it has avoided these types of arguments. Can we talk more about the craft of marksmanship or are you going to tell me that I should put a daisy in my muzzle?
Out.</div></div>
First part of your post is great. Explains exactly why we cant do regular trials with the same standards we enjoy as American citizens under the Constitution. In the past we held military tribunals for enemy combatants. Certainly a US citizen is entitled to regular Constitutional protections.
Then, your post becomes an emotional rant where you project typical strawman arguments by making anyone who disagrees with you sound like some liberal panty waist appeaser. I dont know maggot from adam. Perhaps he is what you accuse him of. But there isn't enough in his post for you to know that either.
I have killed many of our nation's enemies, and others here have done far more. I am all about taking the fight to the enemy. You can believe that or not I could care less. My point is that even with that experience some of our responses to the war on terror give me pause. Should those of us entrusted with the awesome responsibility of defending a nation give no thought to our orders? We when consider how to defeat our enemies we must be careful not to win the battle but lose the war. I think of it just like I did CAS, the only thing I care about more than destroying our enemies is not destroying ourselves in the process. If we damage our liberties while defending them do you think these islamic fanatics care by what method we lose them?
Besides, as men we ought to be able to have discussions on these issues without turning it into a second grade level series of insults. This IS a great site full of those who have and are serving their country. It is primarily dedicated to the technical art of shooting, but it is also full of thoughtful people who have perspective based on real world experience and dedication to principles that will preserve our liberty including the right to bear arms. I am glad that some discussion is allowed in the interest of preserving those liberties. I am also glad that LL doesn't allow political advocacy or the usual democrat vs republican stuff, as that is what has led to a lot of the problems we face. These are higher level discussions (or should be) about current issues facing our military and our country. I saw no political advocacy here, and the mods here are quite capable of policing the site. Discussions on Constitutional issues, especially those related to to military members, seem well within the guidelines especially in the non-technical forums on the site. </div></div>
This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this forum.
I don't want to get too deep into the discussions here other than to say that the battlefield CAN become a crime scene, that, as other people have mentioned, there is a historical record as to how to deal with these people, and that process is, in my opinion, the proper method.
Ultimately, this is, however, a political question. Many people think that applying the historical laws of war to the current conflicts is unfair, unethical, and ill-suited. I am among them, because we have laws of war that are/were created for conventional warfare, which is a dinosaur.
When I say that this is a political question, what I mean is that we've elected people to take care of this problem for us. Ultimately, it'll be them who decide. And we may choose to elect different people, for reasons unrelated to how they handle unlawful combatants. Ultimately, what that means is that our views may not be as well represented as we'd like for them to be. And that's a shame, because the laws of war need serious work right now, for a lot of reasons, among them, because the wrong parties are driving the debate. But in the end, courts aren't going to decide this--Congress will.
) those there but not a stomach to put 9mm through their skull. I wonder why is that? 
