Posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:53 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 06/29/2006 7:41:43 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Agreed. Look at those poor people - I would think every one of them died that day, and their last hour was hell on Earth. THEY ARE US, OR COULD BE.
But trashing Bush and proving to the world that the US will not fight back are more important than American's safety, or protecting Western Civilization from savages.
It's not clear to me what Bush is doing that hasn't been done before, and why the USSC is changing the rules now. It seems a political decision to me. Of course, many libs will criticize Bush for doing - in a much smaller fashion - what their hero FDR did extravagently.
I was thinking the same thing.
Sure it does apply. The Geneva Conventions stipulate that we treat our prisoners humanely and that each country that has prisoners need to give the prisoners a chance or FAIR process (not a closed, military tribunal beyond the reach of SCOTUS) to prove they are NOT combatants. If found guilty of extra-state terrorism (Al-Qaeda), they can be tried by the "violated" country (the U.S.) for the crimes they committed and imprisoned here in the USA. If found guilty of participating in a legitimate war against us, they should be accorded POW status and held an appropriate, HUMANE facility on our territory, that is overseen by our Congress and Supreme Court UNTIL the end of our conflicts with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why is this hard to do?
You talk like a DU'er. Begone.
I agree....
We'll get to hear the Lib Press jump up and down for joy for about 24 hours, until thier attorneys explain to them what just happened.....
[Iraqi Insurgents or taliban Resistance fighters]
I was wondering how long it would take someone to call them "resistance fighters", gag me.
[This is not a conservative or liberal position or issue...it's a question of what is legally mandated that we do.]
Well, the Nazis did everything "legally mandated" through a hijacked court system too, so your argument is really meaningless.
Good! Gooooooooooooooood!! /Palpatine
Ya mean like PFC Tommy Tucker was?????
I say lets give them the same rights they gave our two soldiers in Iraq.
The Libs and Rats are going to look really dumb when all is said and done.
That's not a position or argument...that's an admission that you have no argument.
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
If legitimate POW, hold in appropriate facility humanely with oversight from Congress and SCOTUS, and release after end of our wars.
Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.
God help us...
So if I sign up to Free Republic today...I'm automatically Al-Qaeda and 9/11 supporting?
your logic is weak there, friend.
Non-uniformed combatants cannot be termed "prisoners of war."
yes
"This is not a conservative or liberal position or issue...it's a question of what is legally mandated that we do"
No, it is a question of our nation's survival.
Then why did the USSC approve of military tribunals in WWII for acts occurring on U.S. soil?
DU'ER in disguise. Zot this 6/29 joined RAT
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.