English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

After a trial if found guilty I say hang the bastards,

thats just me,

I just feel we should extend the guy a trial and a lawyer.

2007-08-28 04:07:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

I'm referring to when the enemy combatant is picked up, not shot in a battle.

I would think shooting the guy in a battle wouldn't neccessarily be all that bad an outcome.

2007-08-28 04:08:45 · update #1

11 answers

A US citizen that takes up arms against the US if detained should be tried in a court of law. and if he is convicted his punishment should be given by his peers just like anyother case.
but picking up a US citizen on a battle field creates a stituation that you cant bring back every witness of his acts on that field while in battle. this is a right of the defendant to have his witness in trial. Not giving him this right would also be grounds for dismissal of the charges at which point he would be released and has the ability to rejoin the opposing force on the battle field.

2007-08-28 04:17:45 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1 1

i think you're spot on.

a person who takes up arms against the united states is absolutely a combatant. the fact that you want to give the individual a trial means that you're awarding him at least some privileges under the geneva conventions.

as i said earlier, i think both of those points are right on, and i'll explain why.

it's very difficult to see how a person could be anything but an enemy combatant. fighting against the united states certainly does not make one neutral, nor an ally. similarly, taking up arms is the definition of being a "combatant". i can understand some people thinking that such a person is an illegal combatant. but that's a type of enemy combatant, so there is no disagreement.

i would argue that a trial is a better idea than not having one. even suspected illegal combatants are given temporary POW status under the gc. an enemy combatant retains that until a competent tribunal rules otherwise.

so someone who takes up arms against the united states should definitely be considered an enemy combatant and given a trial if captured.

2007-08-28 11:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by brian 4 · 0 0

Has a Nazi ring to it. You don't like him and he is declared an enemy combatant so no trial just hang him. Where is the Constitution? I know Bush says it is a goddamn piece of paper and gone gone Gonzo said it is obsolete but it is there somewhere isn't it? I would be very careful in supporting such things. While one may be crystal clear in their intent to harm our government they still are entitled to at trial. If found guilty than do with them what you must.

2007-08-28 11:28:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Now why waste good time with a trial? Shoot him and put the people that caught him on trial for not taking care of business in the first place. The clothes he is wearing at the time is irrelevant.

2007-08-28 11:16:26 · answer #4 · answered by 3DDD 5 · 0 1

I agree.

But you have to keep in mind that the entire reason for an armed populace (eg: 2nd amendment) is for the citizenry to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

The question being is who makes the determination that the govt. has become tyrannical?

Obviously the voice of a single person does not carry much weight. But what if they captured 1,000 Americans? Or 100,000,000 Americans (1/3 of the population)? At what point is that line crossed?

2007-08-28 11:14:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I agree, 100%. There's something wrong about passing judgment without having a fair trial.

2007-08-28 11:13:49 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1 0

if you are a citizen and you take up arms (fighting with a foreign army or terrorist) against the US you have commited treason and should be executed in my book. John Lind (i think is his name) is a prime example.

ADDITION: To the person who said they deserve a trial in a court of law becuase they are a citizen has never read their passport. It clearly states that joining a foriegn military or army revokes your citizenship. Read page 4 of your passport

2007-08-28 11:13:32 · answer #7 · answered by Geoff C 6 · 1 1

I agree...this is testament to treason. If you take up arms against the US, you are effectively forfeiting your citizenship and should be treated as an enemy combatant.

2007-08-28 11:13:13 · answer #8 · answered by mustagme 7 · 2 0

Uh-huh,

What about, let's say, US mercenaries who may be waging combat against one of our allies (or not). How should they be treated when they get caught?

Please remember how aghast everyone was at the 4 mercenaries that were killed and strung up on a bridge near Fallujah. Those folks were NOT wearing any official uniform.

2007-08-28 11:22:37 · answer #9 · answered by outcrop 5 · 0 2

What if the US government is illegally invading a sovereign country?

Will you defend your country even when it commits genocide? (Viet Nam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia...) Millions dead in US illegal invasions and covert operations. Are you in support?

2007-08-28 11:19:51 · answer #10 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers