Since the left thinks we’re being mean to them, and the SC narrowly ruled that they can be treated as other than the war criminals they are, a reader at NRO’s The Corner comes up with a solution to the entire problem:
"Let’s free all Gitmo detainees—on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start."
After all, we picked them up on the battlefields of the War on Terrorism, so no objection to putting them back on to the battlefield, and then dealing with them as one deals with any enemy who has not surrendered.
Harsh joking aside, all this SC ruling does it make it less and less worthwhile for us to even take prisoners in this struggle - we’re dealing with people who strap bombs on autistic children and send them off on suicide missions—and the ivory tower types wish to treat this as an episode of “Law and Order”! The world isn’t a theory, good people; it is a very real place where very real people do very real things - and when someone opts to become part of a terrorist outfit, one takes the risk of a horrific
death and rough treatment if captured.
31 comments
Actually, the Supreme Court ruling said that the "enemy combatants" are either prisoners of war or civilians, and have to be treated in accord with the treaties the US has signed for each, rather than some third category Bush pulled out of his ass to justify circumventing the law.
Further, good treatment of captives is a wise idea from a tactical standpoint.
Though I don't see any fundieness here, just right wing douchebaggery.
Wait...wait...must take in all the horrible that is this man's opinion...
Alright.
1. We should not curb rights of people, even in wartime, even if they are, supposedly, our enemy.
2. The "war" that we are in now is hardly a conventional war, and thus the conventions of taking POWs, and just plain fighting in general, are slightly different from rank-and-file military operations. Have you learned nothing from Vietnam?
3. The people that we deal with are probably not involved with terrorists outfits, as far as we can tell. We are not capturing suicide bombers, we are capturing people who we think might have connections with the people sending out the suicide bombers. Far less just, and far more questionable than the world that you are assuming to exist.
So, basically, things are more complicated than you think they are. Not an ideal position to criticize people from.
Way to not understand anything about the war, the ruling, or "enemy combatants."
All this ruling says is that we have to give them SOME due process. Why is that such a problem? If they're guilty, they'll be found guilty. What's so hard to accept about this?
*We shouldn't give these guys trials because they're guilty. If they weren't guilty, we wouldn't have captured them. If we gave them trials, they might be found not guilty, which would be wrong because we know they're guilty.*
He's absolutely right. This is the real world. In a perfect world, you'd be able to merely throw people in jail without trial- because you'd be able to trust youir government, and because it would be cheaper and faster, and so on.
In the real world, however, the government is not nearly trustworthy enoght to be given the right to imprison someone without trial. There is no guaruntee that the very same governmnet that is imprisoning people for supposed crimes (like blowing up soldiers who have invaded the 'terrorists' country, not a crime at all, under any law) will not also either screw up and imprison people who are innocent but have the cosmetic appearance of guilt, or deliberately imprison dissentors and opponenents.
In the real world, if those imprisoned in Guantanemo are so obviously guilty, let that be proven in a fair court, as is required by the most important law in the United States of America. And if they are not sufficiently proven guilty to have this shown in a fair and open trial, then they should be released forthwith.
They have such pathetic respect for the very institution that's only problem is that it has been stacked by and heavily in favor of them.
1. The left is right... Mean is not the word. Cruel is...
2. You know, people are still alive from the Japanese POW camps during WW2. The "similarity" of treatment is astounding.
3. The "Battlefields" are places where people live. Its home to some people. And the problem with innocent people is that they deny that they have commited crimes. And they have surrendered. So you have to treat them as an enemy that "has" surrendered.
4. If you treat them as criminals, they will become criminals. Thats what killed the IRA. They were treated as criminals. They lost a lot of their support. And if you respond "with your madness". They will respond with some of their own. Think LTTE...
Mark Noonan, I can categorically state that you are a clueless idiot.
Aside from the fact that you are advocating murder, do you know how long a gunship circling a contested battlefield would last before it gets blown out of the sky?
Have we forgotten that a small, 3rd world country called Vietnam kicked our ass so badly a few years ago?
Noonan, you are correct. The world is populated by real people who do very real things. You don't seem to be part of it, tough guy.
John Wayne much?
The world isn’t a theory, good people; it is a very real place where very real people do very real things
What the fuck do you know about it, Internet Tough Guy?
You believe a government is trustworthy enough (and prescient enough) to not only know guilty people from innocent just by looking at them, but also to have the power to imprison people without trial or sentence.
You believe there is such thing as a civilian-free battlefield, as if the old buys simply set aside a piece of contested land for their scrimmage lines.
You believe that war criminals can exist only on the "other side"; and that they would be wrong for 'disappearing' soldiers from our side merely because...hey....we're the good guys! (Just what the fuck do you think makes you a good guy, anyway, you pathetic, sniveling, traitorous little wiener? You're no different than the guys you hate.)
You believe real freedom should take a back seat to imagined security, just so you can save your own skin.
You're a monster, and an enabler of criminals.
Better idea, take you and your faux-christian fundie Nazi friends and stick them on an island with all the nutcase muslim extremist fundies, let you kill each other off, and let the rest of us live in peace without you thugs.PS We are America, we were built on the concept of justice(not that a extremist religio-gangster like you would understand that) and if we behave like Nazi war criminals, then how are we any better than the monsters that we judged at Nuremburg?
he SC narrowly ruled that they can be treated as other than the war criminals they are
If only they were war criminals, they would at least fall under either civilian law, or the geneva convention.
Instead, Bush created an illegal category, where they're being treated, without a trial, as sub-human.
Now lets switch it around and put you in their position. You fucker.
Not really fundie in the religious sense, but it sure is in the "willing to do anything -yes, anything- to win" category.
How about we lock up a few americans without charge?
How about we torture a few of them to find out where George is going to send his little private army next?
How long do you think it would be before the americans would start baying for blood?
If they were war criminals they would be tried at the Hague.
@ TMR. In 2004 there was an incident at the Palestian border with a mentally retarted boy of 14 who was strapped with a bomb. So if you would equalize the Palestian conflict with the war in Afghanistan (like saying British soldiers are American) it is not so ridiculous.
@ Mr. Smith. No they wouldn't be tried in the Hague. The US does not recognize the court, so bringing there prisoners into that court would be unlikely. And even then, the court has limited resources, they won't try any petty war criminal.
Oh by the way: Any US Service member held in the Hague would be forcibly freed by the US according to some US law. Basically it was Bush's way of saying that he has no problem invading my country, which is one of its allies. (gee I wonder why people don't like America)
Back on topic.
It is not so much fundie as just idiotic. There are basic human rights, but if you can't see a human as being human then they don't really count. Yes it is difficult to see an enemy as an equal, but once you stop seeing them as human you have lost your own humanity. And then you become a bastard like Mark Noonan
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.