Michael Ross wrote: > Didn't they try to capture him for prosecution? That failed and more > loss of life occurred. Even if they did capture him what might have > happened? Terrorists hijack something and demand his release? He > continues to control his operations in Jail through persons who > sympathize. What good does that do.
They tried to captue him, they failed. Then you do the in absence trial. And in the case of terrorism, it is either death penalty or innocent. I don't see a middle road there. > I don't think you can look at terrorists with the same logic as a > criminal in our countries. When someone here commits a murder they > know its murder, and try to cover it up hoping they don't get caught. > Those types of people can be put on trial. I don't see why you can't handle terrorists the same way. If you are so damn sure they are guilty, prove it. > However someone who believe's they are fighting a war should expect to > be killed not put on trial. Somebody who fights a war should expect to become a POW if captured and be exchanged for other POW's as soon as the conflict ends. > Thats why I have always had a hard time understanding being put on > trial for war crimes..... I don't. If you capture somebody and suspect he is a war criminal you put him on trial and prove it. If you can't prove it, he is innocent. If he is guilty, you execute the verdict. > Your almost sounding like a conspiracy theorist. However there were > more than just US forces making this decision. The point is that I don't think this decision should be made anywhere in an executive branch. Not in the US, not somewhere else. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
