your stirring line about “america” aside, i’m afraid that’s not how it’s gonna be for hassan the mighty; nidal the brave. he was a military officer committing a crime against military personnel on a military installation.

that makes him subject to military justice, IIRC. with any luck, they’ll find him guilty of murder *and* treason, and have him shot or hung – whichever hurts the most. i’m personally hoping for an all-female firing squad, but that’s just me. maybe they could all yell “jesus saves!” as they fire. maybe obama could give a “shout out” to the execution unit.

still, i’ll give the guy credit: as opposed to the oppressed innocents at guantanamo, nidal the warrior at least wore an identifiable uniform when he opened fire upon unsuspecting innocents.

Well that’s the general idea here in America.

well, i’m sure this is all just a matter for the courts to decide, as *clearly* there are no other issues in play here.

still, it *was* pleasant to see that he was gunned down by a **girl**. i hear that’s kind of a burn in some cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

By the way, you might wanna check out the Military Order of November 13, 2001. Particularly the bit that says:

Any individual subject to this order shall be –

“…treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria”

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm

Some interesting reading can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

Now before you start calling me a soft-cock liberal that should be thankful that other people are protecting my freedom you should know that I have served honourably in the military of my own country (and may re-enlist sometime in the future).

I’m not making the case either way but when you ask:

“Why weren’t they tried? Why were they held for years and systematically tortured?”

… my understanding is they weren’t tried because they were treated as enemy combatants and prisoners of war. And to some extent, interrogation methods can be employed. I’m not going to step into the fracas and make the case for either side – but that is my understanding of the Fed Gov’s position. To some degree, the interrogation process was assisted by the Executive branch which only exacerbates the problem.

In my opinion the government has straddled the enemy combatant divide by essentially crafting a new class of combatant which is essentially a terrorist with no formal army. By playing on the razors edge of classification, they’ve fallen on both sides in order to protect their method of reasoning and justification for their actions.

If there was sufficient evidence then why weren’t they formally tried? One of the biggest issues here is not the detaining it’s the detaining WITHOUT trial.

Why weren’t they tried? Why were they held for years and systematically tortured?

Exactly. Under the eyes of the law. It seems you are missing that rather large piece of the puzzle.

We’re obviously going to disagree on what we think the needed level of “proof” is in order to detain someone. The way I read the geneva conventions all we have to do is believe they are a threat in order to hold them and we’re allowed to hold them as long as we continue to believe they’re a threat. Our constitution gives our elected officials, not judges, sole responsibility in these matters. I take that to mean our founders understood war is not only a military issue but a political one as well. It’s up to the voters to determine if we approve of the handling of detainees, not anyone else.

I’m not making any other judgments in this argument other than the situation of the first 3 men on this video. In all of their cases I think the evidence is more than enough to believe they’re a danger, you obviously disagree.

Here’s what you said, James.

“Having talked to many soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan, all this kind of stuff has just made them feel like they are better off just killing the combatants in the field rather than capture them and deal with all this crap.”

Okay, well, what is “the field?” Is it anywhere these guys were captured? Because it certainly wasn’t during a battle.

I’ll ask you what I asked Tokin. What crimes did these guys commit?

As far as your “insiders” go, there are plenty of folks in the military who have gone on record denouncing waterboarding as torture and opposing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. “I know this guy in the army who says…” is not a valid argument for violating the Constitution.

If you think we need to torture folks and hold them without charges to prevent a nuclear attack, then I’m afraid your opinion is not only un-American, but cowardly, as well.

*raises hand*
Um, where did I or Tokin say “kill em all!” I missed that part. I also missed where I said “cut off their arms/legs/appendages and torture them at will!”. You guys sure put words in someone’s mouth when you want to.

I’m pretty sure our basic point is that unlike what your ‘sources’ would have you believe, some of use have heard from ‘insiders’ that: a) most people at Gitmo deserve(d) to be there and b) we’ve gotten some invaluable intelligence and you don’t even know what’s been prevented by ‘enhanced interogation’ because when something is prevented it isn’t always reported.

And yes, some of us think there IS a cut-off point between torture (the kind most other countries have done to our soldiers) and something like waterboarding. Just like abortion, some will never agree what is ‘too far’. Sorry.

I’m sure some of you on your moral high horses have no problem when a fetus’s brain is crushed and sucked out of a woman’s body. That’s the kind of innocent death that keeps me up at night … not most of these asshats.

we all know the Saudi government is, in all phases, corrupt. Their ideology remains the same regardless of the government they happen to be fighting against

Replace Saudi with USA and you have equivalence. It’s all about whose empire is going to rule and who kills the most. Sometimes I wonder if religious fighters or whatever you want to label them are being more honest in their actions compared to the USA government.

…pointing out religious zealots are dangerous isn’t a strawman argument.

If all religious zealots were the same, maybe it wouldn’t be. But they aren’t. And it doesn’t matter if these three were or weren’t religious zealots, because it’s not illegal to be a religious zealot. What matters is what crimes they committed and why the government released them if there was sufficient evidence to charge them with crimes.

Prove that they are:

“violent, misogynist, homophobic to the point of murder, anti-liberty foreign asshats who have declared war on the rest of the planet”

I suggest checking out Blackstone’s formulation: “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. If the US government doesn’t have proof then they have absolutely NO right to detain anyone.

Another thing to ponder: Bad thoughts are not illegal, you cannot be tried for thinking illegal things. If you act on these thoughts then yes, you can be tried.

If you came to my country (yes, it is a western nation – not that it matters) and committed a crime then you would tried by lawful legal process.

If you came to my country and simply thought your murderous, violent, liberty-hating thoughts then we wouldn’t do a damn thing.

I put liberty-hating in there for a reason. You should take a closer look at the US Constitution, more specifically the Fifth Amendment. Your nation is based on that document yet you seem to have little regard for the bits you don’t like.