Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
Thought about that for a second Davros. First off, [img]smile.gif[/img] we differ on wether we agree that the US Constitutional rights apply to captured terrorists/combatants/whatever
|
Well if you are looking to play the same semantics game as GDubbya then I think you lose your rights to use that first term without conveying hypocrisy. If you want to call some of them terrorists (and hey, I have no doubt that some are) then show proof against them, stand them up in a court of law, condemn them as such, and punish them. I have no problem at all with that happening. If you don't have anything on them and want to call them enemy combatants to prevent them facing a court of law then I think you forfiet the right to make pronounced judgements like "terrorist".
It is odd to me that it is the "vengeful right" side of politics that tends to favour the "eye for an eye" / capital punishment approach that is shrinking away from condemning the guilty to just punishment. Maybe it is the thought of seeing one guilty man walk free among the innocent that can't be stomached. Makes a ceft stick for your diplomatic corp to work with when next they want to argue for one of their nationals stuck in some tiny country jail somewhere that Americans believe in the presumption of innocence and that their guy deserves a fairer go. These sort of things tend to come back and haunt one now and then.
I reiterate again - I am all for seeing the guilty punished. It just seems to me that when you go fishing with a net to catch salmon it is invariable that you collect a few tuna and bream that weren't really the point of the whole exercise. Sooner or later that legal process of sorting in the courts needs to get underway.