09-21-2004, 21:56
|
#1
|
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shilo, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 89
|
Should the GWOT be meet with clinical justice or barbarism
Should the (major players like Zarqawi ) terrorists be dealt with extreme prejudice quickly or should the enemy be granted the same rights to a fair and impartial trial. What are the pros and cons of these methods in the elimination of terrorism (or at the very least reduction)? Will non-conventional methods to combat terrorism (such as feeding these punks to hungry pigs to trial by way of the gun) serve to relate to the Islamic-fascists (and dissuade them from their goals) or only entice more recruits? If the later is the true, would the only way to end terrorism be to send every extremest to Allah for judgment.
__________________
Sometimes when you pray for rain you get mud.
Last edited by 2VP; 09-21-2004 at 22:09.
|
|
2VP is offline
|
|
|
09-21-2004, 22:11
|
#2
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
My personal opinion is that the question should never arise in the fog of war.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
09-21-2004, 23:08
|
#3
|
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shilo, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 89
|
I would tend to agree with you. That said we live in a part of the world where rules are valued and justice prevails (more or less). Just curious as to what the members he think taken that into consideration.
Are you of the mindset of a bullet to the head or sending a message to any future recruits?
__________________
Sometimes when you pray for rain you get mud.
|
|
2VP is offline
|
|
|
09-21-2004, 23:12
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
I am of the mindset that this individual is a very hands on terrorist. Nobody should be surprised if he had a weapon on him and went down fighting when he is found.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
09-22-2004, 11:50
|
#5
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,947
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2VP
Should the (major players like Zarqawi ) terrorists be dealt with extreme prejudice quickly or should the enemy be granted the same rights to a fair and impartial trial.
|
What right to a "fair and impartial trial"? This is a war. Enemies in wartime are not criminal defendants.
|
|
Airbornelawyer is offline
|
|
|
09-22-2004, 15:44
|
#6
|
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shilo, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 89
|
Then why the Nuremberg trials, Milosovic (sp) and Saddam? Not trying to be a smart ass at all but it seems that these people were at war and are still being put on trial.
__________________
Sometimes when you pray for rain you get mud.
Last edited by 2VP; 09-22-2004 at 15:46.
|
|
2VP is offline
|
|
|
09-22-2004, 15:51
|
#7
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,390
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2VP
Then why the Nuremberg trials, Milosovic (sp) and Saddam? Not trying to be a smart ass at all but it seems that these people were at war and are still being put on trial.
|
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the "Wars" that those two were engaged in were waged against their own People.
|
|
Air.177 is offline
|
|
|
09-22-2004, 15:55
|
#8
|
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shilo, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 89
|
Mil I could say against his neighbours but Saddam was at war with the US as well as his own people. I would just hope Airbornelawyer might be able to tell me how the examples I listed are different the trying Bin Laden or any other high profile terrorist.
__________________
Sometimes when you pray for rain you get mud.
|
|
2VP is offline
|
|
|
09-22-2004, 19:47
|
#9
|
|
Guerrilla Chief
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver (Not BC), Washington (Not DC)
Posts: 505
|
Because the Nuremberg trials started after the war formally ended. We'd have gladly killed any of the defendents given the chance in a gunfight. Same goes for Milosevic, had he been killed during the Kosovo Campaign, we'd have been just as happy (eventually*).
We give the bad guys 2 options: Surrender or Die. Fortunately, not too many of them surrender.
*As unlikely as that was considering who was in office at the time, and his penchant for putting genocidal dictators and terrorists on some kind of pedistal.
|
|
Bravo1-3 is offline
|
|
|
09-23-2004, 11:03
|
#10
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,947
|
Again, I ask, what "right to a fair and impartial trial"? What is the source of this right? Nuremberg and ICTY are tribunals to try criminals for violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian law. They were/are part of a well-meaning effort to craft an international legal regime, but they created no right for a combatant to avail himself of any legal system. We took hundreds of thousands, millions, of enemy prisoners in WW2. None had any criminal rights until and unless charged with a crime separate from their status as combatants. Their treatment was governed by international conventions, not criminal law.
You create a false dichotomy that we either treat the enemy as criminals and act in accordance with criminal law, or we act extrajudicially and assassinate them (or whatever you think "dealt with extreme prejudice" or meet... with barbarism" means). We act judicially, i.e., in accordance with the laws of war, and take the battle to our enemies, killing or capturing them as the circumstances require or allow. If we capture them, it is our choice, again in accordance with the law of war, whether to further treat them as criminals. Then, and only then, do the rights of criminal defendants attach.
|
|
Airbornelawyer is offline
|
|
|
09-23-2004, 17:58
|
#11
|
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shilo, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 89
|
Roger that.
__________________
Sometimes when you pray for rain you get mud.
|
|
2VP is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:05.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
