Barry's ObamaNation

Our guests from Gitmo are going to be tried in New York.

The people of New York will again have to be exposed to Islamic Extremists.

Fear and paranoia will grip some New Yorkers. Some feel that by bringing these guys in will bring added threats from those who sympathize with them.
 

And for what?

Aren’t trials for people who have been charged with crimes?

If fighting against the U.S. is a crime that terrorists have to go to court over, then how much longer will it be, before this wacko politically correct attitude mandates that our boys also be charged for attempting to do them harm as well?

These guys are people who have either conspired, or have actively attempted to kill Americans in battle situations.

These guys are people who want harm done to the U.S.

If one were to follow the logic of trying the Gitmo guys for trying to hurt us then why is it ok to fire back on them? Isn’t that wrong?  In a Civil Court of law, what applies to one party, applies to the other.

Aren’t the soldiers being fired on, taking justice into their own hands by firing back? I mean after all, according to the Civil Justice System that the Gitmo terrorists will be held to, isn’t a person considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?  And if they are innocent, then what right do our guys have to fire back?

Why can’t the Gitmo guys say that two different rules of law are being used?  One used by our guys that say it is ok to shoot someone who is trying to shoot you (Rules of Engagement), but another law for those who try to kill our guys? (Right to face your Accuser)

By firing back aren’t they becoming Judge and Jury, thereby possibly doing harm to the other guy? Aren’t they denying due process to the other guys and denying them of their rights as accused terrorist?

 Keeping in mind that the whole idea of trying a combatant in a civil court is insane, why would it not be fair for each and every terrorist that has ever been harmed by an American Soldier have to right to sue the United States for bodily harm and emotional distress?

Why are people of Iraq not able to sue for losses of income,destruction of property, destruction of their environment, denial of their Human Rights?

Why can’t terrorists sue for the loss of their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, not to mention the loss of their right to make a living?

Why?  Because war is not fair.

It never has been.
To inject such an idea as fairness in a battle situation is insane. 
War is kill or be killed. Simple, harsh, and final.
Military justice is the only applicable justice due to combatants.

If they want to go to civil court, then let them refuse to pay for health insurance.

These will be politically correct issues that will be addressed during the trial and that will strangle our justice system.

If and when this comes up in a Civil Court, the line that will have to be drawn drawn between the Militarys’ view of Justice and the Civil Courts’ idea of justice will be the point of fracture that will cause either a mistrial or an acquittal.

By the way, there are two groups of people that have strong feelings on this whole idea of giving civil rights to enemy combatants.

One group is our guys fighting over there. How do you think they feel about the guys that tried to kill them having a chance to go free?

The other group, are the guys trying to destroy us. They are laughing at how we are willing to risk our soldiers, our families, and our nation over the fear of not being politically correct.

We have become weak and we are ripe for the picking.

...