Weekdays noon - 3pm et / weekends 9am - noon et

General » Saleh Ali Nabhan

Home » Forums » General » Saleh Ali Nabhan (1 post)

diverpete 2 years, 4 months ago	Now I am confused. We--our current administration--claim that torture is unlawful and violates a captured al-Qaeda fighters rights. We go as far as reading detainees from the “war on terror” their rights thus treating them as criminals to be afforded all the rights of anyone accused of a crime—due process. No, I don't believe any of that crap but we are led to believe this is the civil and correct way to deal with those captured and suspected of plotting “man-made-disasters” against the US. Now had we captured Saleh Ali Nabhan our government would have made sure he had is rights read to him and that he was not tortured. So please tell me how anyone can justify, given that rational, how we could have ordered an attack that would almost ensure the execution of this man? Just imagine if the FBI used a commando team to take out someone wanted for questioning. Then being as bold as claiming “Officials said the person killed was the target of the raid.” How can we have it both ways? If you are going to outlaw torture and require due process then I would think execution is a clearly depriving an individual of their due process and probably in and of itself criminal. What happens when we have the minor leaguers running the team.

diverpete
2 years, 4 months ago

Now I am confused. We--our current administration--claim that torture is unlawful and violates a captured al-Qaeda fighters rights. We go as far as reading detainees from the “war on terror” their rights thus treating them as criminals to be afforded all the rights of anyone accused of a crime—due process. No, I don't believe any of that crap but we are led to believe this is the civil and correct way to deal with those captured and suspected of plotting “man-made-disasters” against the US. Now had we captured Saleh Ali Nabhan our government would have made sure he had is rights read to him and that he was not tortured. So please tell me how anyone can justify, given that rational, how we could have ordered an attack that would almost ensure the execution of this man? Just imagine if the FBI used a commando team to take out someone wanted for questioning. Then being as bold as claiming “Officials said the person killed was the target of the raid.” How can we have it both ways? If you are going to outlaw torture and require due process then I would think execution is a clearly depriving an individual of their due process and probably in and of itself criminal. What happens when we have the minor leaguers running the team.

Post a Reply

Please login to post a reply.