I am curious if the democratic presidential candidates (and Ron Paul) believe in changing the "war" on terrorism to a police action against terrorism? By that do they intend to offer terrorist all the legal rights of US Citizens, pay for their lawyers with our tax dollars, and adjudicate their positions in US Courts? Or do they follow the "Bush Doctrine" of keeping it military and keeping them off US Soil?
2007-11-20 03:09:15 · 4 answers · asked by netjr 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Let me add that I mean foreign terrorists not US Citizens who do now get US Civil rights when charged with domestic terrorism...I'm talking the foreign nationals.
2007-11-20 03:23:59 · update #1
LOL someone needs a fact checker. The Brits have about 31 foreign nationals in their court system where as the US Military has more then 3000 prisoners of the war on terror.
2007-11-20 03:37:59 · update #2
That will be a big Y E S!!
That will be a big N O on the "Bush Doctrine."
2007-11-20 04:38:23 · answer #1 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what they believe but I think changing the war on terrorism to a police action is an EXCELLENT idea and should have been done right after the strike on Afghanistan. The US president should have galvanized, and lead an international police force action.
But that's what you get when you have a clueless hapless imbecile in the White House----lots of missed opportunities.
2007-11-20 12:05:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's part of the mix. What do you suggest if someone in the US us suspected of engaging in terrorism? Summary execution?? This "war on terror" consists of police investigations, intelligence work and, if necessary, military action.
2007-11-20 11:21:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
funny how british police have caught way more "terrorists" before they commit theyre attacks than we have after the fact with our armies
which works better?
you tell me
2007-11-20 11:24:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋