Friday, October 13, 2006

Daniel Pearl's killer identified...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Just remember, this is one of the slimeballs who Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other groups who have filed suit against the DOD have been sticking up for.

Give him a trial, then give him the death penalty that he so richly deserves.

2 comments:

salvage said...

Wait sec, give him a trial but no due process (that's what AI and other rights groups are fighting for, y'know the Constitution? Rule of law etc?)?

Well why a trial? Why not just shoot them upon capture? They're guilty right? Who needs procedure?

Or are only American criminals worthy of a fair trial? Tell me what’s worse an American baby rapist or a foreign terrorist?

Ken Prescott said...

Wait sec, give him a trial but no due process (that's what AI and other rights groups are fighting for, y'know the Constitution? Rule of law etc?)?

The Constitution does not prescribe a specific level of due process. That is determined legislatively. If you are unable to understand that much about the US Constitution, please refrain from commenting on it. Amnesty International is not interested in upholding the US Constitution; they are interested in upholding their own vision of what is and isn't permissible.

As someone who was subject to the UCMJ, I can tell you this much: if you are innocent, you would prefer to be tried by a military tribunal than by an American civilian court. If you are guilty, you don't want to be anywhere near a military tribunal.

Well why a trial? Why not just shoot them upon capture? They're guilty right? Who needs procedure?

Under international law, we would be perfectly within our rights to do so. Terrorists are not uniformed military forces, nor do they conform to the "other forces" clause in Article 4.1.2. In short, they are legally considered to be in the same category as spies and saboteurs--and may be executed out of hand upon capture.

The only reason for holding terrorists prisoner under these circumstances is to extract whatever useful information they have. Once that's done, they should be humanely disposed of. (Beheading them and distributing the videotape is a no-no.)

Or are only American criminals worthy of a fair trial? Tell me what’s worse an American baby rapist or a foreign terrorist?

And this bit exposes the problem: terrorists are not criminals in the classic sense. They are engaged in making war on the United States and other countries. They willfully violate multiple international covenants that regulate the conduct of war, forbid torture, and so on, and so forth.

Frankly, those who reject international law as a limitation on their own conduct don't deserve its protections when they are held to account. That we afford then any protection at all is a testament to America's greatness. And I know that last sentence just grates on you, salvage.