|
|
| Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 (789993) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 15:40:19 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed May 27 14:54:21 2009.  I am not on a battlefield...Are you so sure? Bush, Cheney, and the collective right wing have declared that the US itself is, in fact, a battlefield. I am not engaged in combat with military troops. If you get abducted and taken to Guantanamo, how do you expect to prove this? Or would you thank your captors for not shooting you, as you claim they have a right to? They were on a battlefield, and they were engaged in combat with our troops. How do you know? Or do you consider every Iraqi civilian who just wishes the shooting would stop to be a "combatant?" Afghan civilians who are just trying to stay alive? Canadians on vacation? So, Canadian citizens are "engaged in combat with our troops" and JFK airport is a "battlefield." And you're absolutely certain that everyone who is being imprisoned without charges or oversight was "engaged in combat with our troops" on a "battlefield." Not one of them might possibly be falsely imprisoned due to mistaken identity or because he was fingered by a false confession produced through torture or just through ordinary mistakes and slip-ups. The reason that a fair trial is considered a fundamental right (and is spelled out in the constitution) is because mistakes happen. and everyone accused of wrongdoing should be entitled to a chance to prove the allegations false. Yet you, some guy living in North Dakota with no experience with any of them, are completely certain that every person imprisoned in Guantanamo and around the world is guilty of "engaging in combat with our troops;" so certain that you're willing to deny them any chance to prove that they weren't— so certain, in fact, that you believe, apparently, that anyone imprisoned by the US at any future point must necessarily be guilty. On the few occasions that anyone imprisoned at Guantanamo or elsewhere was allowed a hearing, they were acquitted. Offered the chance to prove their case only in kangaroo courts stacked against them, they were found not guilty. And yet, you still insist that anyone arrested/captured/abducted by US forces is guilty of "combat with our troops." I suppose we've abandoned the idea of "innocent until proven guilty;" our new principle is "guilty by definition." |
|
|
|