Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf
I agree that they shouldn't be killed on sight, if possible. "Swift justice" in my mind means not letting them sit in jail for three years, two years of trial, ten years of appeal, another ten on death row. And since 9/11, terror suspects are treated different, IIRC.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf
These men need the strongest, swiftest justice this world has ever seen. I get disgusted when the news reports that the police need to read these jagoffs their Miranda rights. If you cause a terror event, whether you are foreign or domestic, you have NO rights.
|
Swift justice seems to mean street justice to you. Have you ever put a gun to someone's head knowing that he hadn't done anything wrong, but that was the only way you had of communicating with him? If you haven't then stay away from that kind of stuff. It sucks.
On the subject of rights, I am a human being, a citizen and fairly educated. I disagree with the idea that my rights change according to what I may be charged (or simply suspected) with. I dare to propose that the Constitution, being the document that constitutes the government, does not grant the power to exceed the powers it grants (kind of a backwards Catch 22). If you would act for the government, you should act within the framework of the government: try or free everyone in Guantanamo, and try the surviving bomber according to our rules. If we're going to kill him, do you want it to be a bullet in the street, a fall down the stairs at police headquarters, or do you want us as a people to do it according to the rules we've established?
We have rules for killing people. If you want to bypass them, you're really no better than those two guys. Worse, really, because they didn't pretend they were doing it on our behalf.