I'm talking about military members in things like DUIs. If it's off base, technically they can be tried in town if the prosecution chooses. (I don't know how that law happens, but it does). Normally, though (at least with my command), the defense has fought to have the trial done in town, rather than a military punishment.
It is an outrageous statement to say we hire the troops to fight and die for us? How so? Ok, to be honest I wasn't imaginative enough to figure out what the proper parallel phrase was w.r.t. Katrina. We didn't hire the Katrina refugees to fight and die for us. I'm not sure what the equivalent is. If you've got something in mind (remember, these are your examples, not mine) then feel free to spit out the desired sentence and let's see if it is offensive. Well, I asked you to explain why you found my statement offensive, and you haven't done so. barfo
This is the big difference in ideology here, folks. There's a difference between ordinary criminals and terrorists. Terrorists are enemies of the nation, criminals commit ordinary crimes within the US. The guys who treat the terrorists like they're at war with us have prevented another attack on our soil. Dude, they're not criminals, they're lucky to have not been shot on sight since they're basically soldiers.
Your statement struck me the same way as it did many others. Likely because you were too brief in what you were trying to say.
And how did it strike you? I've asked three people now and haven't gotten an answer. Edit: being too brief I am frequently guilty of, no doubt in this case too. barfo
BrianWA, How on earth could you assert anything different? Maybe if we withdrew all of our troops from overseas and gave them carrots instead of guns you could have an argument. You also seem to confuse truth for blasphemy. Might what to get that checked out as it's clearly a sign of psychosis.
That's interesting, but nothing to do with what I said. I was simply explaining what I perceive to be the reason why people prefer civil courts to military courts. My comments had nothing to do with terrorists and what rights they have.
Pontius...I'm not sure what you're asking....can you say it a different way? I don't recall saying that military members weren't paid to fight and die for the citizenry. I'm certainly not disputing it now. Am I missing something?
Must've been someone else who claimed this to be "outrageous". Sorry if I confused you with the other BrianFromWA.
It struck me as you dissing the troops, even to the point their votes shouldn't count. Kinda like Al Gore wanting to throw out the overseas ballots in 2000. But he said he wanted to count all the votes.
Quite. And there's a reason why we have a right, as non-military citizens, not to be hauled in front of military courts, which is that (from what I've read), there's much less public transparency.
There's good reasons that Tribunals should not be so transparent, nor should those on trial be afforded all the benefits of our court system since they're not arrested by the police after a police investigation or arraigned.
You're a bad guesser, and you rambled immediately away from my point. I was talking about individual responsibility for your actions, regardless of your position of employment. Killing Iraqis in Iraq is inexusable, and no person of good conscience would behave that way.
My point was simply that this is the reason defense lawyers would prefer their client get tried in a civil court.
I'm sorry. I thought I spoke to the point you were trying to make. I'm confused on how you make the blanket statement at the end that "killing Iraqis in Iraq and no person of good conscience would behave that way". Is that using your system of moral/religious beliefs to denounce things you don't agree with? What "good conscience" is exhibited by letting yourself or the people you are responsible for get killed? Do policemen not have good conscience because they kill Americans in America? Do bad guys get to do what they want since removing life from them forcibly makes you squeamish?
OK. The rules of evidence would allow for information that SHOULD BE secret to be made public. Like location of our troops in overseas combat situations, or the identities of undercover operatives who are both valuable assets in the field and whose lives would be forfeit if found out. Then there's the whole concept of freeing these POW types when the combat is over. You know, like McCain was released after 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton without a trial or anything. So a traditional criminal sentence isn't applicable. Finally (for now), since these people are captured on the field of battle, they are a real threat to our troops if we simply release them - like due to some legal technicality. You know, how like Ayers got off scott free. We do support the troops, right? Or is that just talk?
