Varth Dader
Member
Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.
You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.
...
...
It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.
Liability,
I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.
I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.
Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.
All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.
I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.
But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.