Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Jury made a 'fair' decision.

28 (21.5%)

Jury could have been less 'lenient'.

9 (6.9%)

Jury was way too 'lenient'.

6 (4.6%)

I do not agree with the decision made by the Jury, but still respect it.

8 (6.2%)

Jury should be hung.

6 (4.6%)

Evidence obtained via torture should have been used.

8 (6.2%)

The US should use Special Courts for Terrorists.

10 (7.7%)

Special exceptions to the law should be given for Terrorists.

1 (0.8%)

Special exceptions to how justice is handled should be given for Terrorists.

3 (2.3%)

I don't care.... or something...

7 (5.4%)

Jury has been too harsh.

3 (2.3%)

Terrorists are soldiers and you can't judge them in court.

11 (8.5%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have their own special classification.

5 (3.8%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have same rights as any other basic human.

25 (19.2%)

Total Members Voted: 61

[Soadreqm]

I'm also missing the point why there needs to be different courts for soldiers and civilians. Is it just because one is less reliable and cheaper?

I think that's because most of the time, soldiers aren't committing any crimes. They are fully authorized to kill people. Kill enough people and they give you a medal. And the way it's supposed to work is that you agree to treat prisoners of war well, because otherwise the other side won't treat YOUR prisoners well.

As to whether this bloke is one, I know neither the details of this case, not the legal classification of "soldier". I don't think any governments have claimed him, have they? Some people may have expressed support for bombing the crap out of the US, but I don't think any country has officially taken responsibility for it.

[DJ]

IMO, if you attack military targets you're a guerilla fighter, and if you attack civilian targets you're a terrorist.

[Sowelu]

IMO, if you attack military targets you're a guerilla fighter, and if you attack civilian targets you're a terrorist.

That.  I don't know anything about this particular case, but there was a case recently with some kid who was like, fourteen or something, and chucked a grenade at some US soldiers.  Oh, he wasn't wearing a uniform, so he's a terrorist instead of a soldier...Um, whatever. 

[IronyOwl]

IMO, if you attack military targets you're a guerilla fighter, and if you attack civilian targets you're a terrorist.

That.  I don't know anything about this particular case, but there was a case recently with some kid who was like, fourteen or something, and chucked a grenade at some US soldiers.  Oh, he wasn't wearing a uniform, so he's a terrorist instead of a soldier...Um, whatever. 

This would make an alarming number of soldiers terrorists, especially since attacking war-related infrastructure (factories, etc.) is a fairly standard practice in war.

[Cthulhu]

I think "terrorist" is a loaded word, but going without a uniform or obvious weapons so you can sneak attack enemies I'm pretty sure is considered a war crime, as it puts civilians at risk and turns the situation into a mess where no one's sure who the real bad guys are and innocent people get killed.

[Leafsnail]

I dunno... if "putting civilians at risk" is a warcrime, then...

[Sowelu]

Well it's tricky to define "war" exactly.  I mean technically the US hasn't been at war this entire time, and we're not at war with any specific government (mostly because they're either A) not organized, or B) the Taliban who we don't want to recognize as legitimate).

Considering all the firebombing that went on during WW2, I think the definition of a "civilian target" is something that doesn't directly hurt military capability.  IE, people figured that burning down a whole city that built tanks was okay, and blowing up houses was fine if you expected that it was just troops quartered in them, but you didn't blow up a house with civilians in it, you chase them out first.  Transport networks are fair game because they move materiel, but you don't, like...blow up a school bus factory regardless of if there's civvies in the building at the time or not, because that's kind of a dick move.  If you're aiming for a strategic target like a rail depot and there happens to be a school next door, well, they'd better hope they were smart enough to evacuate before the bombs start dropping because despite your best efforts one might go off target and that's too bad but not your fault.  If your enemies don't like collateral damage, that's why they sue for peace.

A guy who sneaks into your country and blows up a mall is a terrorist, a guy who sneaks into your country and blows up an ammo factory is by definition not, even if people get hurt either way.  Enemy soldier yes, shoot on sight yes, but terrorist no.

[DJ]

Yeah, intention is the key. Of course, proving intention is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Cthulhu]

I dunno... if "putting civilians at risk" is a warcrime, then...

Obviously going to war is putting civilians at risk.  I'm talking about unduly risking the lives of innocent people by putting armed soldiers in a crowd of civilians because you know the enemy is following rules you don't follow.

[Neonivek]

I am going to ignore everything said and say that for the most part...

Warcrimes arn't really "Crimes" so to speak. They are what I call "Punishing the losers".

[Leafsnail]

Obviously going to war is putting civilians at risk.  I'm talking about unduly risking the lives of innocent people by putting armed soldiers in a crowd of civilians because you know the enemy is following rules you don't follow.

Kindof makes sense, but isn't bombing areas where you know civilians are in order to try and hit a "target" about the same in terms of putting lives at risk?

[Sowelu]

And that's why war is hell.

[Phmcw]

That's all ww2 standart. Now you can't freely bomb area with civilian and such...
But it was not respected in the last war, along with the restrictions on torture, and that's pretty much why we're loosing.

[Realmfighter]

In my opinion, there is no difference between someone killing for his country and someone killing for his beliefs, or whatever. Both are murderers, period.

What if your killing a serial killer with a lethal injection? Who is the murderer there? The person who stuck the needle in his arm? The people who made the poison? The jury? The Government? His victims, who if had not been in a situation enabling him to kill them would not have been killed making him a murderer?

[Phmcw]

The voters, the jury, the guys who makes the injection and the government the allowed it.