Posted on 08/10/2008 12:15:44 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim
I am a former soldier, not a lawyer. I view the recent majority rulings of our Supreme Court concerning unlawful combatants such as in Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, and Boumediene as adding, not detracting, to the bloody chaos of war. In addition, the entire debate about using intelligence as evidence against the unlawful combatants, even that which was derived by coercive techniques, is flawed. Perhaps we should not pull the wings off flies like Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during this War on Terror but misery should be an unlawful combatants only lot in life.
Beyond extending our Constitution protections to non-citizens outside our borders and territories, we have ceded legal protections to unlawful combatants that wholly operate outside modern civilization's Laws of Wars. Lawyers, including many who have worn military uniforms for decades, seem to have lost all sight of why those laws evolved and deliberately left unlawful combatants unprotected.
(Excerpt) Read more at 911familiesforamerica.org ...
Ping!
Combatants found with arms and not in a recognized uniform are shot on the spot as spy's and saboteurs.
On the contrary, we should quarter them. They just need to be drawn before they’re quartered.
That’s for sure, no quarter at all
In fact, stop on a dime and their lives shouldn’t be worth a plugged nickle, I wouldn’t even give them a penny for their thoughts.
That’s my 2 cents...
I second your thoughts and am mad as all heck.
I just have a gut feel that the warriors capturing these perps in combat might now have a different view of alive if possible. Why risk your life to capture someone in your sights that may get off in a dubious court and then get rich writing a book for hollyweird. I know two in this gun fight and the slip between dead and alive is very narrow.
The traitor left will not be pleased with you even though you are nonpartisan.
But how does one determine who the legitmate “unlawful enemy combatants” are versus the “goatherd who was turned over to the Americans by his cousin after they quarreled and two poetry-writing members of the Pakistani opposition, who were turned in by their political rivals.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/books/review/Rosen-t.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin
This is a very serious question that needs an answer. We cannot be in the business of taking down the wrong people. There is no faster way to lose the local populace than indiscriminant actions like that.
Ahmed Qusai al-Taie
Here I MUST disagree with you.
Immediate death and/or dismemberment on the battlefield fighting the infidels (or Crusaders) is the preferred form of death for these people. According to their belief system this immediately grants them everything they have lusted for but can not get. Death becomes a reward.
I much prefer to follow John Pershing’s tactics from the early 20th century in the Philippines. The Muslim’s death must be in such a manner as to preclude any possibility of rewards post mortem. If their deaths occur as the result of exposure to unclean animals or acts then their deaths aren’t rewarded in the afterlife. More importantly, their deaths in that manner will actively discourage new recruits.
It worked for almost 100 years in the Philippines why won’t it work again, today?
P.S. Been working on this issue since 1977 when it became a mission statement of my unit.
His last name has been spelled several ways in different publications.
And sketch them while they're being drawn.
Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie (en,pt)
Ahmed Qusai al-Taie (en,fr)
Ahmed Qusai al Taayie (es)
Ahmed Qousai al-Taie (fr)
Ahmed Qusay al-Taayie (en)
You should see what George Clooney is doing. He bought the rights to the book about Hamdan’s defense attorney for a movie.
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-supporter-george-clooney-anti.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.