a free country is one thing. It's military is another. I think there has to be a distinction there. But what do you recommend is done to someone captured on a battlefield, with suspicions of being a terrorist?
Hold them as a POW or charge them with terrorism. It actually has a track record of working. Just asked those that are rotting in prison because the planned and attacked the WTC the first time. They were brought to justice and we did it all according to the rule of law. It was something we could feel good about and should be proud of.
the DonkeyMagic vision of the u.s. military=terrorists. i believe, in my heart of hearts, that we are better than that.
My point? Survival is not for sissies. All of that is good and well but most of it is just your opinion and interpretation of things. The so-called people's attorney is nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. He's not elected by the people. Gonzales' watch extends back... what... 2 years. This war has been going on for more than 4. I reckon about every AG has fired subordinates. Clinton's administration fired a bunch. Isn't that their prerogative?
My intent was to point out the naivete of the idealism that people like mcmark espouse. It's hard to mock idealism, but it is likewise dangerous to be too idealistic. One of my liberal friends who despises GWB's administration, however, has no problem in the main with the treatment of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo. They fight immorally and dirty. They have no rights in our justice system because, for one, they are not citizens of the US. They are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they do not respect it themselves.
and thats another problem. battlefields are not clearly drawn anymore. actually its not. Did i call for intentionally targeting non-military targets? did i call for blowing up of market places where civilians are? Look, disagree with me, fine. But dont put words into my mouth to help you prove your point. Yes, i hope america is better than that. That being said, you have to accept the fact that war (in whatever shape or form is fought) will not always be the nicest and most PC thing. its freaking war! somewhere people forgot this. There are a lot of grey areas and trying to never get into that area will ulitimately restrict capabilities...which they already have
well said! people too often fight for idealism, utopia, perfectionism...well welcome to the real world. I'd rather deal with realism...then things can actually get accomplished.
That's your trickery; you insinuate the same without out and out saying it. The point is that I didn't make the comparison you tried in assert that I did. I pointed up the contrast of the hugely different positions held by the two entities (Enemy Combatants vs. Attorney General) being overlooked by those who are calling for equal treatment. The irony is that they don't offer the equal treatment in their opinions expressed of the AG that they do for the ECs. They are freaking ECs! At least half of them still have the dust of Iraq or Afghanistan in their shoes. The other half were either detained by some means of surveillance or just plucked from the lunch counter at James Coney Island. If Gonzales gets charged, fine. I'm not here to quibble abot what actually happens because it's not happened yet. My gripe is over the desktop conviction when very little is known. The article merely says that some reports of wrong-doing were delivered to the AG's office. The story even says that it is not known if he ever read them. There is no confirmation of that, yet he is labeled guilty and treasonous. ECs don't get due process. They are not citizens. Their acts are not criminal but they are acts of war. All I'm really doing is comparing the passion for the proper treatment of our enemy to the vicious belittlement of the AG of the US. I find it ironic and sad and dangerous.
i dont remember very well all the details of how the first bombing all panned out. i agree with you to a certain point, but when if someone is captured overseas and charged with terrorism would you expect them to be sent back to america and face the public system? or go through a military trial?
what a surprise. We are having a conversation and someone brings up GW for no real reason other than to make a political statement, plus you doesnt even add anything relevant to the topic. well done
again, you and your friend are arguing from the position that you know they are guilty. that's the problem, you don't know that. you know what, you seem like a right wing nut who would bomb an abortion clinic. I think we should lock your kind up because that's fighting dirty.
just answer the question. you responded to the post saying that this accomplishes something, what has it accomplished. don't attack the messanger oh partisan one.
who said GW was being realistic? I didnt. If you tried half as hard to actually have a legit conversation as you tried to read into a simple statement then i think we could get somewhere. steering into GW bashing...very clever. You must be taking great notes from the other politicians...who also happen to get nothing done.
Let me look up the word e-n-e-m-y in the dictionary.. .okay. Page 264. You're reduced to insult now. Congratulations, it only took rhadamanthus less time to get there. The rest of you keep holding up. I await your apology. You should be ashamed to write something like that about someone here.
