Keep in mind that by criminalizing these people, the sources used that led to their arrests will be released in the discovery process, rendering these sources useless.
Do we want our government to have more tools to protect us or fewer tools?
2007-06-14 05:04:28 · 17 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The enemy combatant scenario you are describing allows people to be falsley accused and imprsoned indefinetly based on the words of possibly dubious informants.
Treating them as criminals would require more proof than heresay "evidence" and prevents the innocent from false accusations -- justice that is a basic element of the constitution. In a trial the "sources" do not necessarily need to be exposed and other evidence would be provided.
Personally I don''t think it is a good idea to give the government the power to imprison people without trial based on hearsay -- and the Circut Court in Virginia agrees with me.
2007-06-14 05:15:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The sources won't necessarily be released. There are legal ways to deal with that problem. On the other hand, just because someone is classified as an enemy combatant doesn't mean he should lose all procedural rights. This may be a moot point though, because the U.S. Constitution says nothing about opting out of the criminal justice system and calling certain people "enemy combatants."
2007-06-14 05:20:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
this a point I've been trying to understand; why can't the US just keep their big mouths shut? someone always has to get GLORY for leaking things to the press, our fearless leader has to let the world know how he caught "the bad guy" and we are the most powerful.
we would have more tools to fight with if we would just either, keep our mouths shut or not trying to solve every one else's problems.. they should just take a good look around and see the mess our country is in and find a way to clean it up.`````
we elect a leader to lead our country; so why does he lead our people into another country to possibly be killed in the process?
2007-06-14 05:40:21 · answer #3 · answered by chercinbob 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is a crime and suspects should be subject to due process of the law. If due process in cases of terrorism has a detrimental effect on intelligence gathering, for example, then the law needs to be amended. It would appear that calling somebody a terrorist renders them liable to torture, something disallowed once a person is convicted and what the legislators fail to realise, is that this therefore renders themselves liable to torture. A tortured suspect would only have to name George Bush as a co-conspirator.
On a philosophical level, if a country kills people because of what it believes, this is called war. If a person or group does the same thing it is called terrorism.
We should all be aware of the things that are done by governments in our name and make said governments aware of our opinions on every issue. They are after all supposed to be our servants. You can make your opinion known, on all issues, from local to international by visiting myverdict.net
2007-06-14 05:40:08 · answer #4 · answered by Taffd 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They should be treated as criminals, and due legal process should be followed.
The alternative is to permit the government bureaucracies or informants of any ilk to have the person(s) so labeled taken before a judge who is not answerable to the public or to congress, then put into a confinement without trial or even having charges brought against them, have them removed from the conventional legal system, out of public scrutiny, and to have them effectively disappear.
The problem is that literally anyone can be labeled and treated this way without even the slightest justification brought before a public authority, and their supposed rights as an American are instantly forfeit.
Welcome to USA, 2007, where this is already in practice, and fear is being continually spread by governmental agencies in order to terrify the public into allowing it to continue.
2007-06-14 05:22:59 · answer #5 · answered by Ef Ervescence 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
i do no longer think of the term "soldier" could nicely be utilized... We define a soldier as "a member of the land area of the national defense force"... The shoe bomber and underclothes bomber are mercenaries, expert squaddies employed by capacity of a protection stress... some are promised to be paid monetarily and others spiritually... Mercenaries dedicate crimes of wanton cruelty... Extremist mercenaries, or terrorists, generally objective unsuspecting communities of any human beings inspite of age, creed, or intercourse... those are planned, aggressive, and planned crimes and each and each criminal could desire to be dropped at justice...
2016-10-07 12:15:26 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
habeas corpus, speedy trial and being able to face your accusers are hallmarks and cornerstones on which this country was founded. Denying these to anyone in our custody diminishes us as a nation and insults all the men that died in wars protecting those freedoms over the last 231 years.
By calling them criminals we reduce their status from noble holy warriors to thugs, it strips them of power and diminishes their cause.
2007-06-14 05:16:58 · answer #7 · answered by Alan S 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
they are "criminals".... charge them, give them a trial, and put them in prison. Why would the sources be released??? If the sources are not terrorists, they should be released. If they are not, they should be charged also.
2007-06-14 05:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Criminal Records Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Help
2015-09-08 17:03:15 · answer #9 · answered by Bryce 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War criminals.
2007-06-14 05:06:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋