Posted on 10/27/2004 5:21:45 AM PDT by SJackson
So why listen to them?
The GOP are morons sometimes.
Not unlike liberals who give them comfort in their words and actions.
The lawyers who helped let them out should be taken to Gitmo to fill their cage.
OK, no more prisoners.
What did we expect of Islamic terrorists? A pledge made to an Infidel is meaningless; indeed, lying to us is to be praised.
No prisoners would be an efficient solution, but not acceptable as we are too damned civilized.
I've been saying this for well over 2 years: Torture for intel, then KILL THEM ALL!
Eff the left-wing wacko, hate-America scum.
I've never understood our "Catch-n-Release" policy.
THIS AIN'T FISHING DANGIT.
There is nothing wrong with the ACLU's policy of catch and release.........we just need to adjust the way our military releases the prisoners.......perferably at 35,000 feet over their "holy cities"!
"There is nothing wrong with the ACLU's policy of catch and release.........we just need to adjust the way our military releases the prisoners.......perferably at 35,000 feet over their "holy cities"!"
I like catch and release. In the process they should be put to sleep, weighed and tagged. This way we can track their migration patterns over the course of their short lives.
Give them the same treatment they would give us. Simple.
Give them the same treatment they would give us. Simple.
I like your idea...
If we're forced to release them, we should put them to sleep and give them an obvious incision on their scalp at the back of their head.
Then when they wake up, tell them a GPS transponder has been placed inside their skull. Tell them it can't be detected by x-ray, and attempted removal will release a toxic poison. With the enbedded GPS, we can observe their movements via satellite, using it to track down other terrorists, or use it to explode their brain at any time via remote control.
If word got out, their old comrades might not want them around, even if they were willing... :)
Fletcher J
How many German or Japanese soldiers were given "due process" during WW2 prior to being held as POWs? In that case, if the person was wearing the uniform of an enemy combatent, then they were presumed to be the enemy, whether they were actively fighting or not.
In this case, there is no formal uniform - that makes it more difficult on us. We can't necessarily identify the enemy on sight. But, if the person is carrying a weapon and fighting US forces, then they are presumed to be the enemy. God help us if the lawyers have to become involved to pass judgement on who the enemy is.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck. In this case, if the person is shooting at our soldiers, maybe the simplest answer is the correct one - he's an enemy soldier, and if captured, a POW.
Fletcher J
"200 terrorist suspects held in the U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been released from custody after signing pledges renouncing violence and promising not to bear arms against U.S. forces or its allies."
Hmmmm...here have I heard this before?
"In my view the strongest force of all...was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made." -- Neville Chamberlain, 1938
Difficult questions, to be sure.
Based on what I've read, prisoners being held by the US are being treated far better than the Geneva Convention requires. Pretty nice of us since the terrorists haven't signed the Geneva Convention anyway.
In fact, if we don't saw their heads off with a dull butcher knife, then I think we're treating their prisoners much better than they are ours.
One thing I do know - if we put our military in a situation where the taking of prisoners is counter-productive to their safety, and a no-win situation for them, the individual soldier will soon logically decide that taking prisoners is not a good idea. If these terrorists are as innocent as you imply, I don't think that is an improvement for any of them.
Fletcher J
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.