Can Koolchicki count to 9?
Mark
"Alex of Alexandria" writes:
1) KSM is not a POW, subject to the protections of the Geneva
Conventions. In fact he is specifically denied them. He is an unlawful
enemy combatant according to the international conventions of war and,
quite frankly, we can do with him as we please. (According to the
Geneva Conventions, to be afforded their protections a combatant must
be fighting in an organized military structure, under a traditional
command structure, and fight in a uniform. He must also abide by the
laws of war, including, for instance, observing protections of
civilians.
2) Nor is he a civilian criminal. He is not a US citizen nor has he
has never been on US soil. He was not even arrested by US forces,
having been turned over to us by the Pakistanis. The defense lawyers
are going to have a field day with the jurisdictional issues.
3) Almost all of the evidence against KSM and his fellow terrorists is
generated from classified means. I can’t see that any of it will be
let into the public light. Odds are that the CIA would rather release
KSM than reveal its sources and methods.
4) Soldiers on the battle field don’t follow civilian police
procedures. Prisoners aren’t read their Miranda rights, for one thing,
and they aren’t exactly afforded a speedy trial. In addition, captured
combatants are often subjected to “intensive interrogation techniques”
in order to speedily extract information necessary to prosecute the
war. The emphasis here is on protecting one’s fellow soldiers and
citizens; the rights of the prisoner fall a distant second.
5) Civilian criminals threaten individuals; they are subject to one’s
own laws and traditions and a criminal knows that he has done
something wrong by his own society.
However, enemy combatants like KSM are not a part of our society, and
in fact are acting in accordance with their own morals and laws. By
his own society’s rules, KSM had done nothing wrong! This, BTW, is why
techniques like water-boarding are necessary to extract information –
there is no guilt which an interrogator may use for leverage. Also, of
course, combatants are usually trained to resist conventional
interrogation techniques (whereas criminals are not).
6) Warfare doesn’t just threaten individuals, it threatens the entire
society. Furthermore, because warfare involves large organizations,
trying individuals is useless. The entire organization must be
neutralized or disrupted; removing an individual soldier or even a
general may inconvenience the opponent, but will not stop them
entirely. Trying KSM will have absolutely no effect on terrorist
activity per se.
7) Ok, so we’ve got KSM and company in New York for a trial. We’ll
ignore the issue of legal authority for a while; also ignore the
issues related to military vs civilian arrest, imprisonment, and
interrogation; and assume that enough non-classified evidence is
available. What is the probability that they can find a non-biased
jury in the very city that suffered the attacks planned by KSM?
8) Senator Reid said, during a TV interview yesterday, that (I
paraphrase): regardless of the outcome of the trial we’ll keep KSM in
prison based on [Bush's] doctrine of pre-emptive detention. Excuse me?
The whole idea of this trial is to show the fairness of the U.S. legal
system to the world and we have a congressman announcing ahead of time
that regardless of the outcome we’re going to keep the prisoner in
jail anyways? The lawyers will have fun with that one!
9) In addition, New York is going to be Target 1 for terrorists
seeking to free KSM. I predict that the judge and jury in the case
will receive notes to the effect of: “we know where you live and how
many kids you have”.
Of course, there is also the possibility of direct attack. New York
SWAT teams are fine against armed criminals, but they may have a
problem with trained soldiers using RPG’s and military-grade
explosives.
---
Mark
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I'm not sure of what you want to argue here. Please explain.
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
No need to argue since we're in agreement.
In other words, there should be no trial for these
scumbags, nor should they be allowed on our soil.
If anything, a quick military trial and firing squad,
followed by an invoice sent to the families for
compensation to the military for it's cost of the
execution, iincluding food and bullets.
---
Mark
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I can't say that I'm in the same room or building with you on your
take of the situation, given that my mother was a partisan fighting an
oppressor during WW2.
To try a 15 year old ( age at the time ) for a "War Crime" that was
alleged to hav been committed in the heat of battle, when under the
direction of a parent, who was in defense of his homeland from an
intruding enemy, is simple a non starter to begin with. To then lock
up same without trial for years is simply the most illogical thing any
power could do.
$Zero
[...snip unAmerican fascist bullshit...]
> > I'm not sure of what you want to argue here. Please explain.
>
> No need to argue since we're in agreement.
>
> In other words, there should be no trial for these
> scumbags, nor should they be allowed on our soil.
methinks you're unwittingly arguing for the defense there, genius.
i'll bet that was much the same "reasoning" that the scumbag
terrorists had when they took out the WTC.
> If anything, a quick military trial and firing squad,
> followed by an invoice sent to the families for
> compensation to the military for it's cost of the
> execution, iincluding food and bullets.
you'd make an excellent terrorist, no?
yes.
indeed you would.
and people wonder why there's so many terrorists running loose.
they feed on each other, obviously.
and on the innocent.
which keeps them in business forever.
it's called: scumbagism.
-$Zero...
truth requires no proof. whatsoever.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/10befcf2f5c44729
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I predict that this will be in the subject line of your next post:
"scumbagism. "
Mark
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I can't say that I'm in the same room or building with you on your
> take of the situation, given that my mother was a partisan fighting an
> oppressor during WW2.
Well...
Ok, nevermind then.
---
Mark
G.E., making imagination work
Mark
good news, I almost read your post.
maybe some other time.
$Zero
(was: Re: Can Koolchicki count to 9?)
oh lucky moi.
> maybe some other time.
i realize that i challenge you much more than you're used to be
challenged, but that's no reason to avoid my posts, Dude.
just the opposite.
but i doubt you'd understand why, being such a genius and all.
so, _can_ Mark count to 2?
let's test this out and see:
how would you describe the difference between war and peace?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/aad38632c4e88059
BONUS points:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
after all...
it's quite entertaining to watch
you avoid the pertinent questions
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd
-$Zero...
"You can call yourself a creative genius when you've
done what I've done. My walls are covered with the
first run editions of intricate valuable artwork."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a67b2dedbb462dcd