Liability
Locked Account.
Well there you go...obviously reframing the issue to suit yourself better.
There's no problem with "the prospect of an acquittal"...either he did it or he didn't. And summary execution for someone...even an enemy...is wrong. The Founding Fathers wouldnt have wanted that in the least. You ARE one of those people who believes in the Founding Fathers, right? You can't just invoke their names when it's convenient.
I really can't stand the idea that we should just kill everyone we THINK is an enemy/terrorist with flimsy proof...just because some redneck beats his chest like a fucking gorilla.
If the proof is there...they'll get convicted. If you don't torture people to get info...perhaps your evidence will be allowed.
See, the rules of decency...even in wartime ...aren't that hard. Good generals can fight wars without stooping so low as you want them to.
No no, Vanquished. I am not the one "reframing" anything. Your idiot pal, tackylib, was the one who was trying to do that.
The issue is not now (and never was) whether the Government could obtain some conviction in any one case. Nor was the issue whether the "sentence" would be sufficient in any one case.
Those never were "issues" and your claim that they were issues is simply dishonesty on your part.
In reality (you should give reality a try someday), the issue is and has always been whether it makes any sense to treat these scumbags as mere criminals and therefore use our civilian courts of law as the venue to "try" them. Those on my side of the discussion have ALWAYS maintained that it is a stupid and dangerously stupid idea to use our civilian courts of LAW to "try" these fuckers as though they were merely "criminals" -- which is precisely what they are not.
You and tackylib can attempt to spin it any way you wish. But you fool nobody. YOU are attempting to re-frame the discussion. That effort will not succeed since it has been identified as the bullshit it it.