(And ya might want to hold off on assumptions like the ones you're making about me. Are you really going to use my beliefs on this issue to paint a picture of the entirety of my political convictions? A perfect example is your non sequitur about waterboarding: I happen to think that water boarding is at the very least only marginally effective, although not the most heinous form of torture ever devised. I'm opposed to it's use in interrogations, and I prefer rapport-building techniques. But I digress.)
I don't really see the point in your arguments, since they mostly deal with motivation. I know what motivates radical Islam, thanks, but that still doesn't change the fact that setting a precedent that we will give civilian trials to enemy prisoners taken on the battlefield is a bad idea because it turns a war into a criminal investigation, with all the limitations and disadvantages that come with it. No one would seriously complain that we "undermined our values" by trying Nazi and Japanese war criminals in military tribunals instead of civilian courts, why is this different?
No, you don't understand the motivation of Radical Islam, if you did, you'd know your simply giving the jihadists what they want, and that's the point I'm trying to make. They would love nothing more than to have this as a military tribunal. Why else do you think groups like al qaeda don't want Gitmo to close down. A military installation were the vast majority of it's detainees are Muslims, and are held without due process. That's a PR boon for them, because it plays into their narrative. What's the point of killing all the terrorists when another generation will take their place? We're not going to win a war that way.
This issue is very important to me because by setting a precedent that our enemies on the battlefield are guaranteed Constitutional criminal rights if captured, it seriously damages my abilities to do my job as an Army interrogator. If I walk into a room with a Taliban fighter captured in a raid, do I have to make sure he is aware of his Miranda rights and wait for a lawyer to be present before I begin questioning him? THAT is why it's a bad idea: it has nothing to do with "our values" or showing that "we aren't scared of them". It's about doing something that severely increases the limitations and obstacles in front of our intelligence and military professionals.
Nice red herring there. If you knew anything about the Miranda rights - you'd know that with regard to those people who are captured on the battlefield, we make the determinations every day as to who should be Mirandized, and who should not. Most are not Mirandized. And the people who are involved in that decision involve not only lawyers and agents but also military personnel who make the determination as to who should be Mirandized.
No need to interrogate Osama bin Laden?
- 20/11/2009 12:48:27 AM
1159 Views
oO uhm, what?
- 20/11/2009 12:54:13 AM
643 Views
If they're tried INSIDE the US, then yes, they are entitled to due process.
- 20/11/2009 01:44:08 AM
546 Views
Yeah, a lot of people were fuzzy on that till this started.
- 20/11/2009 09:30:39 AM
666 Views
on the other hand, we're more than willing to take them out back with a confession.
- 20/11/2009 06:34:12 PM
665 Views
New York is now asking for $75 MILLION for the KSM trial
- 20/11/2009 01:43:26 AM
595 Views
If this trial were being held in any other country
- 20/11/2009 01:56:07 AM
611 Views
It's a terrible precedent no matter how you look at it.
- 20/11/2009 02:13:46 AM
637 Views
It IS a terrible precdent, hence you and others are citing it 65 years after WWII ended.
- 20/11/2009 09:23:45 AM
528 Views
Spare me the bullshit.
- 20/11/2009 01:57:16 PM
529 Views
I will if you will. 
- 20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM
631 Views
- 20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM
631 Views
No, you won't. You never will.
- 20/11/2009 06:14:30 PM
523 Views
You're putting your cart before your horse is the problem.
- 23/11/2009 05:40:46 AM
613 Views
You don't think this is a military struggle? Wow.
- 20/11/2009 02:52:26 PM
574 Views
Allow me to point out...
- 20/11/2009 03:02:33 PM
562 Views
That's the thing, they aren't a terrorist group
- 20/11/2009 04:54:31 PM
600 Views
It would help if you would offer any argument in favour of your stance.
- 20/11/2009 08:43:08 PM
538 Views
I only use the word army cause I can't think of a better one 
- 21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM
561 Views
- 21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM
561 Views
Military struggles involve militaries.
- 20/11/2009 03:23:14 PM
717 Views
Once again, bullshit.
- 20/11/2009 06:09:31 PM
680 Views
This is wrong
- 20/11/2009 07:41:35 PM
578 Views
We're a long way from the shore of Tripoli.
- 23/11/2009 05:59:19 AM
631 Views
Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad...
- 22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM
698 Views
I understand your "jihadist narrative"
- 22/11/2009 06:36:41 PM
682 Views
No you don't
- 22/11/2009 11:16:18 PM
618 Views
Oh, so you know better than Army attorneys about Miranda rights?
- 22/11/2009 11:52:00 PM
658 Views
I can explain it to you right now if you want?
- 23/11/2009 08:21:48 AM
573 Views
Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
- 23/11/2009 02:56:19 PM
633 Views
Re: Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
- 24/11/2009 04:55:12 AM
772 Views
I'm glad that you will never be in a position where a decision you make can affect my life.
- 23/11/2009 12:27:35 AM
521 Views
Actually people of my thinking are already making decisions that affect your life.
- 23/11/2009 08:29:24 AM
654 Views
Please explain to me how military tribunals compromise my principles?
- 24/11/2009 02:54:18 AM
522 Views
And your little hyperbolic rant would make more sense if it were grounded in reality.
- 22/11/2009 11:47:17 PM
545 Views
Looks like we'll get a Not Guilty plea, and a defense focusing on condeming US foreign policy
- 23/11/2009 12:36:47 AM
774 Views
They'll publicly accuse us of tyranny and brutality in front of a jury and without our censorship.
- 23/11/2009 08:27:13 AM
675 Views
My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America.
- 24/11/2009 02:57:13 AM
592 Views
"My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America. "
- 24/11/2009 06:57:34 AM
605 Views
We've had Mohammed in custody for over 6 years...
- 23/11/2009 07:56:49 AM
618 Views
I've already responded to your absurd statements, but let me reiterate a few here
- 23/11/2009 02:59:09 PM
515 Views
And I've responded to yours
- 24/11/2009 04:57:58 AM
593 Views
It's not, at least for me, that we feel the civilian courts are inadequate
- 24/11/2009 05:28:51 AM
580 Views
Good analysis of the situation.
- 23/11/2009 08:17:01 AM
687 Views
It isn't about sending a message. It's about horrible war fighting strategy.
- 24/11/2009 02:59:31 AM
641 Views
No. It's about not using a horribly ineffective strategy just to send a message to terrorists.
- 24/11/2009 09:29:06 AM
555 Views
enemy combatants and terrorists 
- 23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM
648 Views
- 23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM
648 Views
They're not different because from the Third World, but because terrorists.
- 24/11/2009 08:09:13 AM
775 Views