If Guantanamo prisoners are tried in American courts, will they be accused of hate crimes? They hate Westerners, Americans, and non-Muslims. You would think that would qualify as hate crime, but it does not, because Westerners, Americans, and non-Muslims are not defined as protected groups. They are considered the privileged, or perhaps the protector groups, if you will.
Prisoners of war committed hate crimes against non-protected groups
Daily Deal for Los Angeles
72% off
Four Kids' Dance Classes
Parenthood is a delicate ballet -- especially when the dance floor is covered in Lego pieces. Offer your kids some building...
Join Examiner.com on Facebook
Comments
The title of this post states, as though it were a fact, that "Prisoners of war committed hate crimes against non-protected groups".
Hmmmm… Which specific prisoners have been convicted of a crime, Rhonda? Do you know?
Or are you one of those who confuses being incarcerated with guilt?
You are correct, Meatbrain. They have not been tried and convicted. The idea that prisoners of war should be tried in civil court is new in the world and in history and I haven't gotten used to it. The main point, however, still stands. If they are tried, will their (alleged) victims be privileged as victims of hate crimes? If not, why not? The intention would clearly be hatred for certain extremely large populations. Equality before the civil law should apply to crime.
I can't help but notice that you didn't even attempt to answer the questions I asked you, Rhonda. Gotta wonder why.
Here's another for you to evade, if you choose: Why do you assume that the detainees are being held because they have committed crimes?
I think you might first answer my questions, stated and implied: If the prisoners were to be judged guilty according to civil law, why can't they be tried for hate crimes? But why should they be tried in civil courts in the first place? War is not civil crime and the procedures have always been different, for good reasons. If a POW is captured on the battlefield, it's not that he's "guilty" of civil crime, he's doing what he's supposed to do, but he is an enemy combatant and is just lucky not to have been killed. If American prisoners are captured and incarcerated in Afghanistan, for instance, are they guilty of being soldiers? (Leaving aside the few cases of actual crime.) What is the purpose of changing this age-old legal stance toward POWs?
I think you might ask yourself why you refuse to answer simple questions that are put to you, Rhonda.
Which specific prisoners have been convicted of a crime, Rhonda? Do you know?
Are you one of those who confuses being incarcerated with proof of guilt?
Why do you assume that the detainees are being held because they have committed crimes?
Oh, and a new one: Do you believe that you are somehow lending credibility to your arguments by constantly evading inconvenient questions?
I asked the first question. The rules of conversation don't permit you to leapfrog my question with yours and then get mad because I didn't answer your questions.
"I asked the first question."
You're lying, Rhonda. I asked you two questions in the very first comment on this post, on Oct 24.
Here, again, are the questions you have worked so hard to dodge. And again, I fully expect you will demonstrate the quality that defines you: pure, abject intellectual cowardice.
Which specific prisoners have been convicted of a crime, Rhonda? Do you know?
Are you one of those who confuses being incarcerated with proof of guilt?
Why do you assume that the detainees are being held because they have committed crimes?
Do you believe that you are somehow lending credibility to your arguments by constantly evading inconvenient questions?
Well, Meatbrain (is that a pork chop I smell burning?), my opening to my post was "If Guantanamo prisoners are tried in American courts, will they be accused of hate crimes?" First question. Later I asked why POWs should be treated differently now than they ever have been in the past, in any war, in any country, by any other country (and we treat them better than most). These are the inconvenient questions. Who wants them tried as civilians, and why?
Okay, Rhonda. Since you insist on playing the juvenile I ASKED YOU FIRST!!!!! game, here's the answer to the one question you asked in your post: I don't know. I'm not a prosecutor, nor do I have a crystal ball.
Now I'll ask my questions again, and you'll show us just how huge an intellectual coward you are by again refusing to answer:
Which specific prisoners have been convicted of a crime, Rhonda? Do you know?
Are you one of those who confuses being incarcerated with proof of guilt?
Why do you assume that the detainees are being held because they have committed crimes?
Do you believe that you are somehow lending credibility to your arguments by constantly evading inconvenient questions?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!