You kill them.
When you're facing people with weapons is not the time to contemplate
their trial -- the trial comes much later. If they're dead, then their
relatives can sue for reparations if they feel like it was unjust.
When you're trying to help hostages in a volatile situation with
weapons, you focus on the situation and kill the enemy.
> I think the original gist was do you try to capture
> terrorists in a raid or do you just write them off and try
> to kill them in order to save hostages.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: S. Isaac Dealey
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Russia vs Terrorism
> Why is it you'd rather these people not get a trial? ...
> It seems like
> these are conditions in which no jury would ever allow
> them to slide,
> so ... it doesn't seem as though the jury system would
> fail in these
> cases. The problem is that once you make the decision
> that these acts
> don't require a jury you've created a precedent which
> allows the
> lawyers to decide that any given thing doesn't require a
> jury and then
> you'll have no juries for repeat offenders after long,
> and then
> because they're happy with that, no jury for people
> accused of murder,
> etc...
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
