Posted on 01/26/2005 1:46:29 PM PST by Cornpone
The problem is that the innocents among them get caught up in the net. My only problem is if British passport holders are no given deferential treatment. As allies we should and thankfully have gotten it.
The British passport is a mark of protection ,as is the US passport, and it should be treaten like that.
I would guess that we did have evidence of their guilt, but released them to the Brits as a public relations gesture of cooperation/amity/ and to help prop up Blair.
If they didn't manage to kill anyone, but merely plotted to do so and were unlucky or dumb enough to be caught, then they aren't innocent. Now they're the UK's problem.
I'll bet they lay low in Britain for awhile so they can get their bomb making skills back up to speed.
Well, that second fellow hit the jackpot when he was sold by the Taliban to the Americans. At least he didn't end up headless, and now he's back home in the bosom of friends and family. Think of all the free dinners he'll get badmouthing America and telling of his ill treatment at Guantanamo.
Whether they were soldiers or not depends on the definition of 'is'.(A little Clinton joke, sorry.) If they wore uniforms, were part of a military type command group, etc., they were enemy combatants. If they didn't wear uniforms but did obey orders, then we could shoot them on sight, actually, without trial or paying attention to those pesky Geneva Conventions. 'It's complicated.' (Kerry, sorry.)
Yeh I mean he only lost 2 years of his life while people were screaming for him to get executed as a terrorist.
All court systems need accountability.
I suspect there's a great deal more cooperation between the US and the UK behind the scenes in this case. As someone said on this thread, they'll be followed 24/7. British passport holders caught in combat against US troops in Fallujah or Mosul or Baghdad...we could turn them over to the British armed forces in the area and see how they fare. That might be educational.
This is true, but these men were also traitors.
The point is that this isn't a civil or even a criminal matter, although many wish it so. I don't know exactly where and when the four were apprehended, caught, arrested, nabbed, but it sure wasn't in Brighton by the Sea.
If they took someone from Zambia or Pakistan then they would not have been in Afghanistan or on the battlefield.
British citizens deserve the right to a lawyer and access to the consulate. We would give the same to US citizens or indeed any other citizen.
Traitors...British traitors serving their Muslim/Islamofascist masters as seems the case? I don't know what rules the military followed during WWII, regarding prisoners, other than locking them up in camps. Various nationalities were lumped together. No pink panties on the head, though.
I dont know exactly either - I suppose because there were few if any US or UK natiionals who served with the Germans. I do know the penalty for treason is death, however. I think a drum head courtmartial should have dealt with these men.
Pakistan is an iffy proposition, what with the mountains and terrorist training camps, talk of bin Laden moving from cave to cave. If one of the four was whisked away from Pakistan, somebody fingered him. Trouble is, if this fellow, the Brit, appeared in open court, claiming the right to face his accuser, we'd have to give the defense information, names, dates, etc. i.d.'s, of those who fingered him or people who'd infiltrated the cell and knew firsthand of his guilt. Many lives would be at stake, and there goes your on the ground intelligence. One of the Clinton legacies has been our lack of on the ground intelligence...because they considered people who did such things as nasty, unPC, etc. It is complicated. Isn't the UK scrapping their post 9/11 law of incarceration without speedy trial, etc.?
Today, we wouldn't be able to execute those Nazi/Germans who landed off Long Island in a submarine in the forties, as we did. We were definitely at war, of course. I wonder if congress passed a declaration of war, if things would be different, but of course, GW doesn't want to go hat in hand to congress every ninety days for more money to wage war.
Not really. He was not on the border. As he would not have been an enemy combatant then he should have been extradited to US proper. Same with the guy from Zambia.
If they are not on the battleground then they cannot be enemy combatants surely?
What do you want to bet that these fellows have GPS chips in their duodenums?
I can't give you an intelligent discussion about Zambia, since I'm fuzzy on when and where they were caught. I joined in from the point of view that the four were caught by US forces, with a smoking gun in hand or in some way encouraging attacks on our soldiers. An interesting case, too, is Richard the Shoebomber Reid, who merely tried to blow up an airplane loaded with passengers. He's British, too, I believe. But he's languishing in a US jail, right?
The trouble with Pakistan and that area of the world is that hit and run attacks went on, do go on to this day. Our special forces are surely still in the area, with Pakistan's nod and wink. Something or somebody lit up these guys with a red laser button...they were definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time. It will be interesting to see what they get up to now. (Zambia is totally off my radar at the moment.)
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.