Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Why was it ok to try Nazis and Japanese for war crimes, but not muslim terrorists?

Just wondering if a democrat can let me know what they think about this. How come it was fair and acceptable to have the Nazis and Japanese stand trial for war crimes, but when we try to do the same military war crimes trials today with islamic terrorists somehow that's now wrong. What changed? Or were FDR and Truman racist, bigot, warmonger, neocons also?


yutsnark, nobody is against a trial? Why did Obama today put a 160 day freeze on the trial of a man accused of murdering an american soldier in afghanistan?

41 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    And what number is bush

  • Leo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You question is completely backwards. Why are you asking the democrats that question when it is the previous republican administration that denied trials to suspected terrorists? The Dem's have been insisting that there be trials and the supreme court agrees. A military court where the defendant is not able to see the evidence against them is not the kind of trial the Germans and Japanese had. They were permitted to mount more than a token defense.

    BTW, why is it that so many on the right insist that water boarding is not torture when some of the trials of Japanese pows you reference involved charges of water boarding?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because we invaded THEM and we killed plenty of civilians in the process. We really can't charge the enemy if we can't find them. That's like charging drugs with war crimes when we don't know where it is coming from or who is the main ring leader. Right know the extremist are hiding among the civilians and the people aren't going to sell them out because they have guns and are not afraid to use them. The government feels that cowboy diplomacy does the trick but all we are doing are killing innocent people. We have a 90% casualty rate among the people in the middle east. We're killing more civilians than islamic extremist. Then people actually are stupid enough to wonder why they hate us so much.

    What we need to do is go over there and offer some diplomatic solutions that can't be solved by the barrel of a gun. The taliban have guns aimed at the head of the civilians if they rat them out so its kind of hard for them to tell the US where they are and how to find the taliban. The people need more than guns and boots. They need a stable government to prevent more extremist from getting recruited.

    You can thank the Reaganator for this debacle. Yeah, he did end the cold war and fixed the economy but at what cost to us now? Maybe if he didn't have Alzheimer's then we wouldn't have forgot that he needed to protect the future as well as the present at that time. Considering how much he hated the youth and spoke down to them, It wouldn't surpise me that he made sure they got what was coming to them in the future. Just make sure you thank Ronny for selling weapons to the taliban that they are using now to blow our soldier's heads off. Reagan, we will always miss your "act now, do not look out for the future of children" politics...

    Source(s): Democrat
  • 1 decade ago

    The war was over when the japanese and nazis were on trial. Putting captured terrorists on trial for wa crimes will only infuriate other terrorists. I am speaking basically about the stereotypical muslim terrorist. From what the media tells me, I see that they are trying to start a religious guerrilla war. Prosecuting these muslim terrorists will cost us more of our own citizen's lives. We neeed to just wait until we aren't dependant on their oil, then they will be easy to deal with.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Great Question -- I apologize to you for those liberal democrats who got their panties in such a bunch over your question that they were incapable or answering your question and could only hurl juvenile insults at you.

    You are correct in that even Obama disguised the term " terrorists " by referring to them as " extremists ". The difference is that in the past true patriots recognized and confronted attacks against America instead of wanting to take terrorists to IHOP to discuss their unruly behavior like Obama wants to do.

    BTW - the fact that a prolonged civilian trial was granted to the '93 WTC Bombers instead of a quick military trial resulted in the fact that we did not learn about the true nature of Bin Laden until AFTER that fateful day when Clinton passed on the opportunity to eliminate Bin Laden. Had we known these facts about Bin Laden then it is more than likely that we would have eliminated Bin Laden and there would NOT have been a 9/11.

  • Fred K
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    what are you talking about there being tried what the Democrats where saying is it shouldn't take 7 years to do that and with out a push Bush would still not have started the Trials look at how many they had to let go Because they weren't Terrorists after 6 years in Prison.and what took us too War in Iraq WMD that they didn't have is a war crime all by its self don't see you whinning about charges there and that dicision Killed 4,000 Americans

  • 1 decade ago

    From my perspective, it seems to me, that in the backward fringes of the democrat party, there are some extremely dogmatic members who foam at the mouth regarding anything that has to do with George W. Bush. In their rabid, shark-like frenzy to harm the man in anyway they can, no matter how low they have to sink in order to do it, they are going after terrorists that were incarcerated under George W.'s watch. Basically, in their frenzied zeal, they don't really care that they are throwing the baby out the window along with the bathwater. That's what lower level, neanderthal, emotions do to people. They become like rabid animals rather than the higher thinking, rational human beings they're supposed to be. They're not right, they're just loud.

  • 1 decade ago

    If you are referring to Gitmo, it's not the trials that people are protesting. We all want them tried on war crimes. It's the torture. Do you know that we tried Vietnamese soldiers and generals for some of the same techniques that were used at Gitmo? As despicable as terrorists are, we can't abandon our own standards when it's convenient.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nobody is opposed to trials. We're against detaining somebody indefinitely without a trial. And of course, we're against torture.

    EDIT: A fair question. Here's your answer:

    "The suspension had been expected because, as a candidate, Mr. Obama described the military commissions as a failure and suggested that he may decide to prosecute detainees in existing courts. The military commissions have been criticized as lacking in the basic protections of the American justice system and have been plagued by legal and practical difficulties since the Bush administration first announced its plan for prosecution in the months after the 2001 attacks."

    Source(s): New York Times
  • 4 years ago

    Nobody's promoting anything. Now, go to Mexico where the Catholic church preaches to be "fruitful and multiply", but those poor people can't even afford to feed their children, so they must flee to the U.S.A. in order to find work and you and you want to crucify them for that too. Do you really think you are so important that you are the only person in the country that has any rights? Are RepubliNazis the only ones who have the right to live? .

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Umm, the USA previously prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding prisoners. Then Dick Cheney decided it was acceptable behavior.

    Should we now prosecute Dick Cheney as a war criminal? I'm certain that there are other activities which he approved which would be considered unlawful and cruel under international treaties which the USA has signed.

    Please read a biography of Cheney titled "Angler."

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.