Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Your mistake is you keep thinking of these terrorists as criminals, they are not, they are illegal combatants and as such do not have to be charged with a crime. The Dems are the ones who want to make it a matter of the police and acting as if they are common criminals and should have a trial. They are not due a trial except as war criminals or spies, since they were not in uniform when fighting. As far as some of them being innocent of anything, this is BS. They were captured fighting against US troops. Keep them as long as we like and tell the left to go pi** up a rope.

If the left is going to try to take our freedoms, and they are already trying, they don't need Gitmo to do it, they will do it the way they have going for the last 40 years, a little every day, slinging the BS and lying through their teeth.

105 posted on 06/15/2005 5:47:10 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: calex59

No, I don't think of them as criminals. I am quite aware that they are terrorists. However, I am not comfortable with keeping people imprisoned without appeal for an indeterminate period of time. For example, even if they are a threat and a source of information, both are limited. Their usefulness as a source of current information lasts, at best, only a few years. What justification do you then have to hold them indefinitely. Suppose they really weren't a member of the terrorist cell as you originally thought? Do you suppose that the military is going to be eager to admit such a mistake? They don't ever have to if there is no avenue for periodic review. If, after the terrorist's value as an information source becomes non-existent, you still consider him a threat, fine, then keep him locked up or execute him. But again, he should have the right for periodic review. Situations change. Someone who is a threat now, may not be in 25 years. I'm not arguing for leniency, but no one is infallible. And you also might want to look at exactly what qualifies as a terrorist in some of the statutes passed and considered. In the same way that RICO statutes have been expanded beyond any of their original intent, the definition of who qualifies as a terrorist is sadly not nearly well defined enough.


137 posted on 06/15/2005 7:51:29 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson