BF2S Forums Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder

FEOS wrote:

Epic case of you not reading a fucking thing before you hit SUBMIT.

Try it next time.

Also epic case of confusing CIVIL law with MILITARY (ie, Geneva Convention) law. The Blackwater case is the former, GITMO is the latter. As for evidence, there's plenty enough to remand those knuckleheads to GITMO...otherwise they wouldn't be there. Hence the "butterfly farming" comment.

But don't let pesky things like facts stand in your way!

I wonder how it felt when that smarmy smirk melted off your face just now...

See, you still believe evidence doesn't matter at Gitmo, because they were arrested by the military. Yet when blackwaters founder is charged then oh it's all a beat up, disgruntled employees, we need evidence, etc.

That's so biased it's hilarious. And I'm still laughing you can make no comparison between the two and have to distinguish as best you can the differences by still claiming military and civil laws opperate completely differently.

They both require evidence, last time I checked... but by all means think that the simple fact that a Gitmo detainee was "captured" he is automatically guilty whereas this guy deserves nothing but praise for his efforts and that we need more evidence, those who brought the claims against him obviously are lying!

It's amazing your thought process can work like that.

AussieReaper wrote:

See, you still believe evidence doesn't matter at Gitmo, because they were arrested by the military. Yet when blackwaters founder is charged then oh it's all a beat up, disgruntled employees, we need evidence, etc.

That's so biased it's hilarious. And I'm still laughing you can make no comparison between the two and have to distinguish as best you can the differences by still claiming military and civil laws opperate completely differently.

They both require evidence, last time I checked... but by all means think that the simple fact that a Gitmo detainee was "captured" he is automatically guilty whereas this guy deserves nothing but praise for his efforts and that we need more evidence, those who brought the claims against him obviously are lying!

It's amazing your thought process can work like that.

You're so wrong it's hilarious.

I didn't say evidence didn't matter for GITMO. I said CIVIL LAW requirements for due process do not matter at GITMO, as GITMO detainees are held under the auspices of the Geneva Convention, which has a different standard and requirement for due process. There is plenty of evidence leading these guys to be held at GITMO, as was fairly clearly stated multiple times in the quotes from me that you provided.

GITMO detainees aren't automatically GITMO detainees when they are captured. There is an evidentiary process that ends up with them being sent to GITMO--based (normally) on classified intelligence. That is a much different situation than US CIVIL law, where evidentiary processes do not have classifications associated with them.

Additionally, US civil law has different requirements for due process than the GC. That speaks to the whole "can't be held without charge", etc. bit.

I find it more than mildly ironic that the very same people who screamed about "innocent until proven guilty" for GITMO detainees (at odds with the facts of the Geneva Convention) are not providing the same concern for this guy, who is due that under US civil law (unlike GITMO detainees).

It's not bias. It's an understanding of the differences in the situations we are discussing and the laws pertaining to those situations.

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I can't spell mercenary all that well so I just used military back up.

For the last time: they. aren't. mercenaries.

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition wrote:

A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

They aren't/weren't that. Therefore, not mercenaries.


Yes. There is.

American Heritage Dictionary?

Merriam-Webster wrote:

: one that serves merely for wages  ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

If you are looking from an absolutist point of you in regards to the morality of this all, you have to take the side that "Always innocent until proven guilty" now if we are talking relativism you could use that argument that the law says otherwise. But if you look closely in regards to the actual crimes being implied by both groups the difference only happens to be scale and point of view.

If you use the highlighted bit, then everyone who has a job is a mercenary, which is an even weaker argument than the one that was proven wrong. When you say mercenary here, you are clearly referring to the soldier-related definition...which also is not applicable.

And the differences between the two groups are the laws under which they operate. It is legally relative. There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" under the Geneva Convention unless one is being held after hostilities have ended. At that point, a trial is required or the detainee must be released. Hostilities have not ended, therefore the concept is not applicable under that law.

Fairly straightforward.

Eh not even going to get dragged into the "what defines a soldier" argument, I'll just say to myself I won and a karma myself later.

As for the second bit, what I am saying is that one a deeper level then some law passed years before modern warfare as we know came to be, that what many people at Gitmo are being locked up for such, as conspiracy to commit kill other human beings and for killing other human beings, that the difference between what this man is accused of doing and what the Gitmo kids are accused of doing is not really in anyway different other then perspective and circumstance, to say that this man is innocent until proven guilty and they are not because of some laws in a book is pretty silly.

After reading his Wikipedia page, I'd agree with the "he's a cunt" sentiment.

FEOS wrote:

There are varying levels of due process required under each. If a US citizen commits a crime in another country, do you expect them to be arrested, held and tried under that country's civil laws? Of course you do.

If someone who is not a US citizen commits a crime in another country, do you expect them to be arrested, held, and tried under the US's civil laws? Of course not.

Then why would you expect it to be any different in the case of GITMO? They are not US citizens. They were not captured/arrested, held, or tried under US laws...so why would US civil laws apply to them? They don't. The laws that apply to them are different because it is an inherently different situation with differing due process requirements.

Unless they are white Americans, then a different set of rules applies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh