Michael Lawson wrote:

What, you've never heard of military tribunals for
military personnel?

I'm a pessimist. Remember Calley taking the fall? There seem to be
'justice' only when someone is trying to save face in front of the
media. A soldier also knows what the deal is when signing up.
Prisoners are treated differently and rightfully so.


My question stands, because the two are different
types. A member of the US military convicted of a
capital crime can be sentenced to death. Quite different
than executing prisoners of war or mass murder.

We were talking about killing captured enemy combatants...or in the US
case, captured enemy non combatants. Killing a captured unarmed enemy
soldier is plain wrong. You know it.


Does that make Nuremberg a "Death Camp"?? Hardly.
But the inference is there, because people were executed
there, that I because I think that the trials at Nuremberg
were justified as were the outcome, that I must be one
sick puppy.

Nuremberg wasn't done unilaterally by the US. It was decided there
that the chain of command, up to the top was guilty. Why does this
same decision then NOT apply to the US military? Why was Bush trying
to get immunity from the UN even BEFORE the atrocities started? If we
now apply what was decided at Nuremberg, half the US military would be
either hung or in prison, along with Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney,
Bush..etc..

Using Nuremberg in context to the middle East, is counterproductive.
Russian camps in Siberia were evil. Why are the US camps in Cuba and
everywhere else not?


Or that because I feel that a guy by the
name of Dahmer should have been executed, I am a sick
puppy.

I should not have used that phrase. The death penalty is nothing more
than revenge killing. If the Arabs are looked upon so badly for doing
revenge killings, why do it here? If you want legalize revenge
killings, fine, let the families deal with the perpetrators as their
consciences allow. The state has no business in the death trade.

The death sentence isn't even a deterrent. Look at Texas. If the death
penalty worked as a deterrent, that would be the state with the best
behaved and courteous people in your country. It isn't.

If someone does get a life sentence, then it should mean that. They
work on a State run farm (NOT Halliburton) growing food and making
clothes. They get paid minimum wage, which is immediately sent to any
family they have left behind. That cuts down on the welfare rolls.

A REAL life sentence is a bigger deterrent to crime than some death
penalty that may or may not be carried out..in five or ten or twenty
years. Not forgetting all those tried on faulty evidence or just
framed to get convictions.


mike