AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

If you read your post closely, Fox, you didn't actually provide a reason at all. Instead, you talked a lot about possible 'revenge' against those who would dare to try these people in court. This is not only not germane to the topic (we're not talking about trying them in civilian courts, but storing them in military prisons in the US), it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And there is always the risk that a terrorist would be released on a technicality or a sympathetic jury. The Mendendez brothers for instance achieved sympathy because they were orphans. (They were orphans because they brutally murdered their parents.) In a case that was 100% cut and dried two juries failed to reach a verdict--a third with a good judge did. OJ Simpson got off when there was unquestionable proof of his guilt. Again why would we want to increase the risk to the civilian population more than what we already have.

Or, in other words, the Guantanamo inmates should have a trial only if we can be sure they'll be convicted.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No, but they should be tried in military courts, not civil courts for all the reasons previously described.

2 Replies

Joe, you have a fine grasp on the subtle intricacies of foxfyre's reasoning on this subject.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, but they should be tried in military courts, not civil courts for all the reasons previously described.

Who told you they would be tried in civilian courts?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, but they should be tried in military courts, not civil courts for all the reasons previously described.

.... and what exactly does that have to do with where they are being detained?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Joe, you have a fine grasp on the subtle intricacies of foxfyre's reasoning on this subject.

It's a dark, scary place, but someone has to take a look into it.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Because once they are in the US, they have access to the civil court system, and if they are released on a technicality or any other reason, they are released here. And even if they are in prison in the USA, they have infinitely more freedom to make mischief too.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-464#post-3656371

1 Reply

be thou not afraid.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-464#post-3656371

I missed that earlier McG but it does pretty well support my argument, huh.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

snood wrote:

Joe, you have a fine grasp on the subtle intricacies of foxfyre's reasoning on this subject.

It's a dark, scary place, but someone has to take a look into it.

More from the nonjudgmental, accepting, tolerant, compassionate, and accepting world of liberalism. You gentlemen of course will continue to assume moral justification for taking unkind and self righteous personal shots at me as do many who are threatened by thoughts and ideas. But I bet you can't rebut my argument.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Because once they are in the US, they have access to the civil court system, and if they are released on a technicality or any other reason, they are released here. And even if they are in prison in the USA, they have infinitely more freedom to make mischief too.

Why would they gain access to the civil court system merely by being transferred to the US? There have been military tribunals for foreign nationals within the United States before, right? And those people didn't gain access to the civil court system merely by being in the United States either, right? And there's nothing in the Military Commissions Act that says it only applies outside of the United States, right?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But I bet you can't rebut my argument.

It is somewhat difficult, as long as you refuse to actually make an argument.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Because once they are in the US, they have access to the civil court system, and if they are released on a technicality or any other reason, they are released here. And even if they are in prison in the USA, they have infinitely more freedom to make mischief too.

Why would they gain access to the civil court system merely by being transferred to the US? There have been military tribunals for foreign nationals within the United States before, right? And those people didn't gain access to the civil court system merely by being in the United States either, right? And there's nothing in the Military Commissions Act that says it only applies outside of the United States, right?

Ok, so you are fine with the military tribunals then, right? Then, I must ask what difference does it make where the prisoners are held until they come to trial?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

]More from the nonjudgmental, accepting, tolerant, compassionate, and accepting world of liberalism. You gentlemen of course will continue to assume moral justification for taking unkind and self righteous personal shots at me as do many who are threatened by thoughts and ideas. But I bet you can't rebut my argument.

You made an argument?

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But I bet you can't rebut my argument.

It is somewhat difficult, as long as you refuse to actually make an argument.

I thought I made a damn good argument while you have done nothing but your usual M.O. of just asking question after question while refusing to answer any or make a counter argument.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I've answered your questions a couple of times now. Like here and here, for example.

But hey, I'm really feeling generous today, so here is my argument again: the United States have facilities that are very well suited for detaining even the most dangerous criminals. If those facilities are apt to detain the most dangerous criminals, then the same or similar facilities would certainly be capable of housing Guantanamo detainees without endangering the American public.

So what was your "damn good argument" again? Your allegation that the Guantanamo inmates would somehow magically gain access to the American civil justice system if they were transferred to the US?

2 Replies

@old europe,

You can go back and reread what I said OE including my rebuttal to your argument. If there is any part that is unclear to you, point it out. Otherwise your question has already been asnwered.

0 Replies

@old europe,

If i am not mistaken, the habeas corpus right of those detained in Cuba has been established. What, exactly, do they lack now in the way of legal rights which they would be granted if they were transferred to the United States? They are currently held on American soil (the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo, Cuba is functionally American soil for all purposes)--what sort of difference would arise from transferring them to the lower 48?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know