Prove that - at court, under monitoring and witnessing of the public.

That's what courts are for, you see. ;)

the problem you outline, btw, is not so much - or not only - a problem with the Geneva Convention, but the Hague Conventions from 1899 and 1907. In a conflict where one side does not apply to the rule of having it'S combatants in uniform, the side following the Hague Conventions unilaterally always is at a disadvantage that could decidce the outcome of the military fight. This affects practically all so-called asymmetrical conflicts (and may explain why we find it so very tough to win such wars, and only rarely, if ever, do). It makes little sense indeed to obey moral rules basing on the Geneva or Hague Convention, if these conventions get ignored and ridiculed by the other side, so that our morals get turned against us and kill our fighters. In that situation, the protection of innocents can be the only valid argument - to some certain degree - to still follow the conventions. wehre you declare that an imperative for acting, you probably have already decided your own defeat. But there you have to make a loss-gain-calculation, in other words you need to calculate how much risk to your soldiers or limitations of options or how many innocent lives saved you can justify in the face of either accepting even higher losses in innocent lifes in the long run, or allowing the enemy combat advantages. at present, public opinion tends to always favour the small short term wins in protecting lives even at the cost of much greater losses of life in the future. The debate imo is very irrational, and dominated by dangerous illusions about the nature and essence of war.

That can easily be done without making a big public fuss. Have a military tribunal decide if the evidence gathered is enough to merit action. Why a military tribunal? Because terrorists are (most of the time), foreign enemies to the country. It's the military's job to defend the country against all enemies foriegn and domestic. Terrorists do fall into this category, and it is not a civil matter. What's more, allowing terrorists a civil trial which they are not entitled to (where the hell would you find a jury of their peers in the US anyway?!?), is giving them a public acknowledgement and PR that they should not have. If the indications are clear, we should have done away with them a long time ago in a manner which befits their deeds.

Excellent point! :up:

The same way its done in every other instance of a foreign national being tried in U.S. courts every day. It doesn't seem to be an issue.

:doh:

I'll just let this thread roll.

You don't understand the words you are using.

errrrr...those war crimes trials took two approaches, the major trials were done under international law, the minor ones were done under international law or local law depending on the location of the suspects and the location of the crimes, crimes which crossed jurisdictions were done under international law not local law.
So for America they had the American trials at Nuremburg where America had jurisdiction over territory as the mandated occupying authority with american judges and american lawyers , then they had the Dachau trials which were American judges and American lawyers but the difference was that they had jurisdiction because the crimes dealt with there had been commited against Americans.

He is correct and your links are completely irrelevant.

The damage was done when the idiots in power followed Gonzales crap legal advice, the problems that dumb advice caused are the reason why you are now stuck with the trials.
So Sea Demon you are very very wrong in just about every aspect of your arguement.
A simple question though, can you identify any of the many things that give them legal protection under the US constitution?
It may help if you look at your irrelevant links and work the dates out.




Wrong, either they are covered as fighters under one convention or they are covered as civilians under another.

In exactly the same way as you do with any murderer

Then Pennsylvania and Washington DC would be equally suitable.

I'm wondering what the odds are that someone out of this whole ordeal receives a presidential pardon. :doh:

probably not as impossible as you might think

Since we seem to live in a world governed by the idiocy known as "political correctness" brought to you by liberal lunacy, allow me to serve up a potential scenario. Actually it's quite likely in light of the circumstances we've seen in emotional trials such as OJ, the cop killer Mumia, and others. My guess is that the politically correct mafia is going to come out swinging. And they're going to have their eyes on one thing.........jury selection.

These leftwing PC hacks are going to demand that there be Muslims on the jury as "peers". What if they succeed? What if one of the Muslim jurors decides that there is no way he can vote to convict a fellow adherent to Islam in an "infidel" courtroom. Won't matter what the evidence says. Oh sure, he can lie during jury selection and say the right things about reaching a fair verdict, of course all the while knowing that he is going to do what any good Muslim would do..... protect a fellow Muslim from the wrath of the non-believers of Islam. Result? Hung jury. No conviction. And then where do we go?



BTW, For you young Americans (who care about your country) who are trying to figure out who is on your side and who is not, the Republicans did try to prevent this damaging and expensive move from happening.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57140

House Republicans introduced legislation that would have prevented terrorists (detainees?:O:) from coming to the United States. But because Democrats have a majority, they didn't even allow the legislation to move out of committee. I'm just saying.....

Wasn't the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega tried in a US federal court after being overthrown and captured in 1989?

Well, yes. But other than drug and racketeering charges, I don't think Noriega attacked the US by force of terrorism or military action. We invaded Panama. After the invasion, I'm sure military tribunal could have been used, but they deemed a trial in Federal court appropriate due to the civil nature of drug movements as a federal offense, and money laundering. You'll recall we didn't try Saddam Hussein either in military tribunal. We served him up to Iraqi civilian court justice. In the case of International terrorism, and mass murder as an act of war, I would say that a military tribunal would have been the most appropriate forum for the Islamist "detainees". Especially in light of what we face bringing them to US soil for what is to become an admitted show trial by KSM's own defense team.

Wow , koolaid anyone?

You have already demonstrated that you don't understand the terms you use, but can you understand why that proposed legislation was rejected by the commitee that initially deals with the legality of proposed legislation under its jurisdiction?
Have a clue ...it couldn't have been legal.

Noriega was arrested as a POW, he faced a trial on civil charges for civil crimes in a federal court. He is imprisoned with the status of a POW because that is what the law requires.

What a venom.

Do you know hate can kill you Seademon?:-?

I don't thing Pennsylvania, but perhaps Mass, Virginia, and New Jeresy? as that is where the hijackings started.

Ah, yes. The ever present "dissent is hate" nonsense.

No Fish. I don't hate liberals. In fact I had to deal with many at Thanksgiving dinner tonight. I have a few in my family, God help me. :DL What you read is not hate. Ever been to a liberal demonstration/march out here in California?(Bay Area). If you did, you may understand where I'm coming from. Perhaps your advice would be more fitting for that crowd. I've never seen more raw hatred in my life than from those at liberal "gatherings" directed at Bush, conservatives, religious people, and people of the military. There's actually no comparison.

Don't talk to me about name-calling as venom. I, as a conservative, have been called much worse than what I've seen here. I chalk it up as it being a part of the American political reality.

And yes, I guess, you haven't been exposed to some of the nuts that have been or are now inside the Obama administration and things they espouse. People like Van Jones, Cass Sunnstein, Anita Dunn, Reverand Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.....It's like a circus side show. You telling me I'm being hateful simply won't stop me from expressing myself. It simply has no impact whatsoever. There is nothing here but opinion about the Obama administration and liberalism as a philosophy. No "hate" whatsoever.

With all due respect, sir, I heard nothing but silence from you regarding liberal "hate" when Mr. Bush was President.

Therefore you'll have to pardon me for being unimpressed by this posting of yours.