leave it man, some of these people live fantasy worlds where they think none of this even exist. The real world dangers of walking right next to certain death, is not something they can understand. They think everything can be solved through persuation and diplomacy alone. The dynamics of warfare have changed since WW2 and Nam yet they continue to insist on fighting the enemy with half century old protocols.
so what would you have done in the heat of battle? in order to save american lives? were you even there to see what was really going on? i am really really reallly offended with what your saying! your pretty much telling me my conduct was shameful because we did EVERYTHING WE CAN possibly do to save hundreds of american lives! your telling me i am dishonorable?? We tried talking to the terrorist! all he said was "ALLAH AKBAR" and spat on us!! my God man... in the situation that WE WERE IN, we acted JUSTFULLY in order to save the lives of American Marines and Iraqi Civilians! with the information we got from the fedayeen! we were able to call up an AC130 Spectre Gunship to demolish a school bus filled with 5-7 fedayeen loaded with thousands of pounds of bombs which had we not "interogated roughly" 100-200 marines would have died!! Your saying again our act was disgraceful?!?! your saying again that we acted dishonorably?!?! what are you really ashamed of?!?! The fedayeen getting slapped?? or the 100-200 Marine lives that were saved?!?!
Makes sense. Yet they were not accused of treason. I don't know why. Do you? Were they to keep their rights as citizens, I wouldn't have a problem with it if that is what the law calls for. So what did we do with German Americans who went home to the Fatherland to fight for the Nazis? Did we ship them home after capture and give them civilian trials? I can't imagine we did.
No - I have no idea why they weren't charged with treason. My guess would be the other charges were just easier / more straightforward, but I don't know. In the end, both Lindh and Padilla got civilian trials though. I'm guessing not - but we did a lot of things in WWI and WWII that would now be considered illegal and/or unethical by most everyone today. I guess in that respect, morality is always evolving rather than a rigid set of rules.
I enlisted after 9/11 but a back injury kept me out of the Army. Easily one of the most disappointing life events I've ever gone through. Thank you for your service.
So is this distinction why John Walker Lindh was tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia like any other person charged with a federal crime and indicted by the US Attorney for that district?
im re-enlisting soon, hopefully by april im good to go.. i gained a few pounds so gotta lose em first... wish me luck
I am aware of this and must have misspoke or not been clear. My original point was that as US citizens, they have rights that non-citizens do not have, which a lot of people take issue with and/or want to dispute. I was using McVeigh and the DC Sniper as an example of domestic terrorism vs. al qaeda prisoners....but obviously got confused somewhere in there. Sorry for the confusion.
True, they do not have certain rights you and I have - however those rights generally don't extend to criminal justice/due process considerations.
How so do you mean? I think of criminal justice/due process as applying to crimes that are not acts of war. Am I wrong? Personally, I'd rather see the crotch bomber in the hands of the military as a foreign enemy combatant, but that's another argument.
The problem is that there is no real definition of "acts of war not covered by the constitution" - the whole "enemy combatants" thing is basically made up, which is why it gets repeatedly smacked down in the courts. The system we use has worked hundreds of times to convict terrorists. We have very clearly defined statutes and concepts of criminal jurisdiction and procedure that are used to deal with these things Look - a jury down at 500 Pearl Street just convicted a Pakistani terrorist today - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_..._siddiqui_convicted_of_attempted_murder_.html This isn't something new - it's something that's pretty routine. I work with a former head SDNY USA - he has indicted, tried and convicted dozens of terrorists - including ones who tried to blow up the WTC. What is the need or justification for setting up a parallel extra-legal system?
That's a tough call, as to what I would have done. I may have done the same thing you did. I would have been ashamed if I had tortured someone. I would have used other methods to interrogate if I could have. I'm definitely glad that lives were saved. I'm happy the school bus with all that was destroyed. You mentioned that you did worse than waterboarding. A slap is not worse than waterboarding. I don't know what you did. I know that you didn't follow field manual for interrogation. I wasn't there in the heat of battle. I can say I would have acted one way or another, but I think it's the kind of thing that unless you are really there, you don't honestly know what you would have done. You were there and I wasn't. If you feel no guilt or shame for having tortured someone then it doesn't matter what I think. I'm grateful to the troops including my only family who served in Iraq. I'm never grateful for an American who tortures, because that's the kind of thing Saddam did, and that I believe is wrong. It certainly isn't honorable.
Was it fair and proper and honorable for the colonial militia to fire from behind trees at the British Redcoats standing so honorably and properly in their formation?
By and large it is a myth that the colonial army in large part fired from behind trees at the British redcoats. The fact is that the weapons of the time did not allow for that. They used the same military handbook for strategy and formations that the Redcoats did. George Washington's copy even exists. There were certain ambush's but that wasn't really anything new. The types of muskets they used just didn't allow hiding behind trees myth that we all grew up with. Some groups of Colonials did use hit and run when they were outnumbered, but it wasn't a tactic that was widespread that really confounded the British soldiers. Both sides were using various tribes of locals to help them, and definitely the tribesmen helping the colonials would make good use of the trees, and environment in their attacks. But even if the myths were true yes it was fair and certainly not dishonorable.
The next graduating class of Al Queda soilders? LOL, ist there an al queda west point? you're all giving these guys too much credit, they walk in buildings or on planes with bombs strapped to themselves to blow themselves up. they aren't navy seals exactly. as a matter of fact, you're probably going to see more inept attempts by kids like this guy in Detroit, way more than you will see guys who had the paitience to pull off 9-11
Just trying to see how far this sense of propriety extends. While I would choose neither, I'd rather be tortured than killed.
