John Adams defended the British soldiers who ahd fired on a crowd of Americans. It was called the Boston Massacre. He got acquittals for 7 of the Redcoats, and lower charges than murder for 2. He later wrote that it was "one of the msot gallant, generous, manly, and disinterest actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
John Adams stood up for justice, feeling it was essential to his country.
So why don't we allow the alleged (ALLEGED!) terrorist detainees at Gitmo to have a fair and vigorous defense based on the rule of law? Are we so afraid of them that we can countenance abandoning all notion of justice?
Is "Abdul" a Terrorist? PROVE IT or release him.
2007-07-05
07:58:23
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
Hey people! What's wrong with proving it? Some of you are happy to assume that they are all terrorists. They're not! Give them a fair trial! How would YOU like to be falsely accused and denied a chance to clear yourself, locked away forever? This is unworthy of us!|
2007-07-05
08:24:33 ·
update #1
John Adams was no traitor but if he existed in our time he would be branded as such by the fearmongers.
The US offered Afghan warlords bounties ranging from $3,000 to $25,000 for any supposed enemy fighter. This is why so many of them have been freed from Gitmo and NEVER CHARGED.
When I saw someone write that prisoners of war from WW2 did not have trials, that was like having a brain cramp
I guess the captured leaders of the Nazi regime, who were prisoners of war did not go on trial at Numerberg, Germany. This is a figment of imagination and revisionist history. This is why people believe garbarge. Justice is a cornerstone of what made this country great. If as GWB, loves to parrot that " They hate us for our freedoms", why are we supposedly behaving like them? You continue to do what made this country great, truth and justice, let them hate us some more, not degenerate to their level.
2007-07-05 11:36:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by thequeenreigns 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because men like Adams are few and far between now. We have replaced the founding fathers, with the faltering fathers (And I mean both parties) and the Sons of Liberty with the Sons of Bravado. We are not the same nation, though I must believe in my heart that it still beats some where in us, we are instead a nation obsessed with Bill Clinton's sex life and George Bush's IQ.
We neither know nor understand that Adams was the kind of man we should strive to be. Instead we go back though our history and crumble our heroes, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, T and F Roosevelt and all the rest are re-written as the same faltering cowards we now have. A man's personal life, or the way he pronounces a word now means more then where he STANDS.
We have nothing to lose as a nation by putting the people held at Gitmo on trial. Nothing but our fear. Nothing but our ability to hide behind the nonsense that passes for political discourse.
Would that Adams were here now. But I am afraid he would be shouted down by the wild yells of the uninformed
2007-07-05 09:07:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Thomas G 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Adams was not a traitor. Criminal defendants are allowed to have attorneys in America.
The Boston Massacre was a criminal matter. The detainees at Gitmo are a matter of war/terrorism. We don't give them trials for the same reason that we have never given prisoners of war from any war (like World War 2) trials. It'd be a waste of resources, it might reveal intelligence to the enemy and get our troops killed, they aren't citizens so they aren't subject to constitutional protection, and they don't deserve a presumption of innocence.
2007-07-05 09:29:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
He signed the Alien and Sedition Acts (aka the "Gag Law"). It was widely considered treasonous at the time, and cost the Federalists the election of 1800, and ultimately led to the demise of the party altogether. "that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction... then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" -- Thomas Jefferson; from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 It is shameful that people didn't react as strongly to the orwellianly named USAPATRIOT Act, which was at least as great of an imposition to the liberties of Americans
2016-05-19 00:05:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
With your help, John Adams is still leading us in the path of Justice.
If we gut our legal system to lynch terrorists, the terrorists win.
2007-07-05 08:28:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ray Eston Smith Jr 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Adams was a true patriot, and a moral and ethical man. Once again I have to ask why there were so many like him two centuries ago and so few (at least in national politics) today.
2007-07-05 08:03:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by gunplumber_462 7
·
9⤊
0⤋
If you can't tell the difference between British soldiers, in uniform, non-anonymous, with equally non-anonymous leadership involved in a riot, and terrorists who are part of no army, no nation-state, who kill women and children anonymously and deliberately to force an oppressive political agenda upon the world, then you are a sad, sad person. Wake up and spell what you're shoveling.
2007-07-05 08:11:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by joustingwindmills 3
·
1⤊
4⤋
Should be beheaded by Gullitine with George Washington. You supposed to live by God and King at the time. And, I squat and piss on our founding traitors graves. For I am a British Loyalist and I call home the British States of England. For I still live in Coilonial Times. And, all who lead us are traitors to England. And, Bush Jr should hang for not abiding by God and Queen of England.
2007-07-05 08:07:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Noctiluae 2
·
1⤊
4⤋
He felt the officers who ordered the shooting deserved the punishment, and ultimately the head of state for his policies. He was no traitor!!!
2007-07-05 08:01:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Steve C 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
I'm gonna guess Adams wouldn't have defended the British soldiers if they had hidden a barrel of explosives and blown up a market full of men women and children because they didn't worship in the Anglican church.
Nice try though.
2007-07-05 08:03:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by John L 5
·
3⤊
5⤋