So We Can Blow Up Terrorists With Cruise Missiles, But If We Capture Them They Get A Lawyer?
Today’s news about an airstrike in Yemen killing al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki and Guantanamo Bay alumnus Saeed Ali al-Shehri casts Obama’s decision to put terrorists on trial in American civilian courts in a rather absurd light.
We can kill these terrorists with air strikes, but if we capture them they get a lawyer and standing in our civilian courts?
If these terrorists do have standing in our courts, and Obama’s actions have given them that standing, then how can we justify killing them with air strikes? Melissa Clouthier jokes on Twitter about these terrorists being read their rights before they’re blown up, but her snark has a serious question as its basis.
Obama has bestowed due process rights on these enemy combatants. The 5th amendment which governs due process reads, in part: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Well we just denied these two terrorists their lives without due process despite their comrades in arms filing motions with their lawyers in US courts.
Obama and his apologists like to talk about how the detention of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay made America look bad. Well, how does this hypocrisy make us look good?
That is also a bunch of BULLS#!T
If Dino would have served any time in a uniform (other than some sick role playing of one of the singers in The Village People), he would know that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in time of war are not the same as criminals. They do not face trial in our court system nor are they entitled to counsel like accused criminals. They are subject to military tribunals for war crimes and are entitled to JAG representation in that regard.
Unfortunatetly this reflects Dear Leaders philosophy of treating terrorism as a criminal act vs an act of war.
Can we launch lawyer/explosive tipped cruise missiles at them? We could kill two birds with one stone.
It would be nice if you showed us a quote where Geo. Washington advocated giving lawyers to POW’s. No one is saying we shouldn’t be inhumane but we aren’t sticking them on prison ships and have a 65% death rate as a result.
That is bunch of BULLS#!T, this animals cut our heads off and we give them a resort to stay at in Cuba.
Dino.. here I am after a long absence from being in the comment mix of this blog, and I am still wondering what planet you are from.
If we did this in WWII, then we would be a National Socialist nation, ya know… NAZI… but wait.. you would like that wouldn’t you.
How’s that for civilization?
What DINO is saying is “Kill em all and let their imaginary friend in the sky sort them out”
We can blow up your momma, don’t you forget it.
That works for me.
You’re one of the biggest morons that ever lived and your a sock puppet. They are enemy combatants.
Hell yes we blow them up.
They did not appreciate the gift America gave the first time, maybe they will aprreciate the 72 virgins we gave them this time.
Take no prisoners would be the easy way out. But then we need to beat information out of them. And that’s what the do gooders have a problem with. Shoot them on the battle field, coddle them when they are taken prisoner.
It’s called civilization and the rules that civilized people live under.
Yes, Poodle, thanks for the always insightful drug ramblings.
Answer: use lots of cruise missiles.
probably the same reason we don’t execute all prisoners. It is called civility. It makes us the good guys.
Unless the courts selectively apply our laws to these terrorists (something that should scare us more than the terrorists do) they will win. Because their capture and detainment and interrogation hardly meant any of the standards required by our courts.
I don’t want them to go free, but this is the door we opened.
We should have had military tribunals. And if “kill them all” is the standard, why do we care if they get into the courts at all?
You guys are so incoherent on this I don’t think even you as apologists for Obama know what points you’re trying to make.
I think I’m actually dumber for having just read that.
Since some of you aren’t getting it, here’s the problem.
We’ve given these terrorists standing in US courts. Now you guys just want to pick and choose which rights apply and when they apply?
That’s not how it works.
They should never have gotten standing in US courts.
LOL. You are the funniest person I read on the internet.
Seriously. I have never seen anyone argue such nonsense so hard. Your argument is anyone we ever caught on the battlefield is treated as a criminal.
If that is the case we need trials for every single POW from every war (or conflict / police action) we have ever fought in.
I don’t know how you can write thsi with a straight face. You are the equivilent of yelling “No it isn’t,” while someone else yells, “Yes it is.”
I suggest that is how everyone here deals with you is to just reply to you with “No it isn’t” to whatever you say.
The solution obviously is not to capture anyone. Kill them all. Rob you are trying to make sense of war? Why do we have rules of engagement, Rules of War? Now thats an absurdity. If you don’t think it is absurd to have rules of war, meaning there should be rules, then you should be for the trial of enemy combatants. The trial is in open court, law rules. They haven’t won. We aren’t afraid of them. Take it to heart that they are probably getting treated worse in a max security prison then at Guantanomo. If they let the terrorists out in general population you probably won’t have a trial. That would satisfy many vengeful hearts.
I don’t think he actually means that, but he is a bit to dense to understand that such is the effective end of this approach.
Once people are captured, humanity says we treat them as criminals.
That’s how it’s been for some time.
So you’re saying its civilized to blow up some terrorists while giving
others lawyers?
That’s not civilized. That’s incoherent. And stupid.
Enjoy it when they are let loose on a technicality that their lawyer finds.
I dont really understand the confusion here. If someone draws a weapon on a police officer, even on a routine traffic stop, the officer is allowed to shoot them dead. Likewize, on a battle field, until they throw down their weapons and are captured, they would have no more rights than someone firing at officers. Even under Obama’s plan.