Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfetus
Its not a open conflict thats why. The government is not carrying on a conflict with a nation, group, or individual. It is a war against a concept, just like the war on drugs and we've all seen the ludicris steps our government has taken in that fight.
|
This is false. You seem intelligent, so I have to assume that you're willingly turning a blind eye to the facts. Here are the facts, and they are indisputable:
1) al Qaeda has executed attacks against United States citizens and interests
2) al Qaeda has all but formally admitted responsibility for the September 11 attacks
3) Soldiers are on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting to eliminate the enemy element
4) The enemy element is not defined as "terrorists" but as al Qaeda and Taliban, with an emphasis on al Qaeda
Those are <b>facts</b>. We can draw from those that we are engaged in armed (weapons) and prolonged (since October 7) conflict against a party or parties (Taliban and al Qaeda). There is no ambiguity here - men who are better than you or I are half way around the world fighting a clearly defined enemy whose goal is to wipe out our country.
Likening it to the War on Drugs (which <b>isn't</b> a war) is an attempt to further emotionally charge an already emotional issue. I'm not going to take your bait. The "war" against drugs is, very simply, not an armed conflict. Pot users are not flying planes into the DEA headquarters.
Quote:
|
This guy is an American citizen; if we wish to claim the moral high ground in this fight we must stick to our morals. Hell, even the Rosenbergs got an open trial. It might not have been fair, but people could have stuck up for him. The point of the military tribunal is that the public doen't get to make any sort of judgements of its own regarding the evidence hell we don't even get to see the evidence, this makes me suspect that there isn't any.
|
I'm glad that's what you suspect, but your "intuition" isn't going to make it so. If there is solid evidence, there is. If there isn't, there isn't. The government doesn't need to show it to you - you're not on the jury. Furthermore, it doesn't need to be released to <b>anyone</b> until they move further ahead on the timeline for a trial, whatever trial type that may be. Just because you feel there may not be evidence does not mean that there isn't any, and it doesn't mean that we should dismiss the notion that he's guilty. There will be a time and a place for review of the evidence. You and I do not make that call; those gathering the evidence against him do, and they're obviously not finished yet.
Quote:
|
Mc Veih, and Kazinsky both got public trials and they actually blew things up. I'm hesitant to bring it up but notice that Walker who was fighting with the Taliban was white and this guy is not? Coincidence? Who the fuck knows cause we aren't being shown any proof. If this guy is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a Military Tribunal we have become the Taliban, period.
|
Again, you're trying to emotionally load your argument. <b>If</b> he's tried in a military tribunal... <b>If</b> he's sentenced to death... <b>then</b> we have become the Taliban.
Okay. How about... <b>If</b> he gets off and explodes a dirty bomb in Binghamton, we have aided and abetted terrorists, period.
See how I can garner support from the simpleminded just by adding some emotionally charged buzzwords to my argument? All of a sudden those same people that were agreeing with you are going "hmmm, he's got a good point... I don't want a dirty bomb going off."
The main problem in your final remarks is that you're using <b>if</b>. If this and if that. It doesn't really matter because that hasn't happened, and the other side can play that game too. No one wins that argument, and it's not worth going there. So let's argue this based upon facts instead, mmmmkay?