Salim Hamdan decision

SecDef

New member
Well, what are the thoughts on this board regarding the conviction of Salim Hamdan for providing support for al-Qaeda which is NOT a war crime and not found guilty of conspiracy to attack civilians?

A) Was this decision good? Was the sentence handed out appropriate to the decision?

B) What do you make of the White House policy of continuing to detain him after his sentence is served on grounds of being an "enemy combatant"?

For a) I am a believer in some kind of trial (criminal or military tribunal). We either have evidence of wrongdoing or we don't. I think we have to accept the decision as it stands. We are a nation of laws.

For b) I don't think this is a good path for the United States to go down. If we are going to put him on trial, we do it. What this does is to undermine our legal system and will severely impair our ability to wage wars in the future with international support. We are showing massive weakness to our own American principles if we do this. We do not have a dictatorship.

What would be the best path for America to go down?
 

nemoaz

Moderator
I find it amazing that anyone would think it appropriate to put admitted enemy combatants back on the battle field to kill our troops.

The cowardice and lack of will of the American left is ridiculous. Try Nazis in 1941 and send them back to kill us? Of course not. The only time we have ever freed captured enemy is during a prisoner exchange. Since Al Queda cuts the heads off of any of our troops they capture, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

There is no legal precedent for any of this crap. We are at war. Those we capture stay captured (unless Egypt, Iraq, or Jordan wishes to execute them).
 

SecDef

New member
I find it amazing that anyone would think it appropriate to put admitted enemy combatants back on the battle field to kill our troops.

The cowardice and lack of will of the American left is ridiculous. Try Nazis in 1941 and send them back to kill us? Of course not. The only time we have ever freed captured enemy is during a prisoner exchange. Since Al Queda cuts the heads off of any of our troops they capture, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Part of this is that we didn't try Nazis and find them innocent. (that I know of, I could be wrong)

Cowardice? American left? What does that have to do with this? Besides, cowardice better characterizes the side that would rather put the bogey man in a cell until the end of the "war" (i.e. forever) rather than determine if he was actually dangerous or not.

In any event, just like the Iraq war, we are where we are.

There is no legal precedent for any of this crap. We are at war. Those we capture stay captured (unless Egypt, Iraq, or Jordan wishes to execute them).

Execute them for what? We Americans just found him not guilty of war crimes. It sounds like you are promoting the methodologies used by al-Queda.
 
Top