Will American soldiers be less likely to try to take prisoners…

June 12th, 2008

…now that the Supreme Court has decided that people who are trying to kill our troops have the same rights as the American’s they’re trying to kill?

I suspect that “finishing the job” in combat will hold more appeal for some troops than the idea of lawyers and judges back in the states deciding that a terrorist should go free because the soldiers didn’t maintain a proper chain of evidence on the battlefield.

(I’m definitely not advocating killing prisoners, viagra generic cialis but I wouldn’t be surprised if our soldiers worked a little harder to “neutralize” the enemy now during battle rather than risk capturing them and being forced to act like a cop instead of a combatant.)

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Chris  |  June 12th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Remember if you touch them they are a prisoner so shoot first touch later ;)

    The lads and lassie out on the tip of the spear are pretty bright individuals no matter what our liberal friends think. I am sure most of them figured this out a long time ago.

    The only bad thing is if they are dead you cannot beat information out of them. but that should also make our liberal friends happy. Torture is bad you know.

  • 2. Nick  |  June 13th, 2008 at 7:27 am

    Of course, not everyone at Gitmo was caught on the battlefield, and this was a solid myth that has been built. The reality is that there are a number of foreign nationals who were disappeared there, some of whom were finally released after too many years of imprisonment.

    I really don’t understand why people have such a problem with giving habeas rights to people. If you caught them on the battlefield, then you have solid proof, so a habeas hearing ought to be no problem at all. So what are they afraid of?

  • 3. elliot  |  June 13th, 2008 at 8:26 am

    1.) It’s the U.S. Constitution, not the Global Constitution. I’d like to see us try to extend other constitutional rights overseas. How well will forcing the First Amendment on Canada and the Second Amendment on Japan go over?

    2.) Soldiers aren’t cops and battlefields aren’t crime scenes. How easy will it be for captured terrorists to get off because the courts insist on acting like they are?

    3.) Should the U.S. government be able to kidnap people off the streets of other countries and then hold them prisoner indefinitely without charges? No. But neither should we treat people who attack our troops in open battle as criminals rather than combatants.

  • 4. Madrocketscientist  |  June 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am

    All the courts decision does is force the feds to decide right quick that a person is either a Prisoner of War, or a criminal, and subject to the rules for either.

    No more limbo land.

    Personally, I wish we did not take prisoners in this war, it’s not like they do.

  • 5. elliot  |  June 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am

    If that’s what it does, Mad, I’m fine with that.

    I’m not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know? ;)

  • 6. Nick  |  June 13th, 2008 at 10:28 am

    “Should the U.S. government be able to kidnap people off the streets of other countries and then hold them prisoner indefinitely without charges? No.”

    Which is precisely what the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allowed for. Someone could be “declared” an enemy combatant, no matter where they were picked up, and then there was absolutely zero opportunity for judicial review of that finding.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.