Obama's Gitmo Policy Coming Home To Roost

[Foster Zygote]

Your ingrained distrust of the people who have the grim responsibility of hunting and capturing terrorists, is a personal problem. Your personal problems need not be society's problems.

My brother-in-law is one of the people who literally hunts and captures terrorists, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan with his Green Beret squad. He is quite upset by policies giving government agencies greater authority to invade the privacy and suspend the liberty of Americans in the name of security. Are his concerns indicative of personal problems?

 

[Toontown]

My brother-in-law is one of the people who literally hunts and captures terrorists, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan with his Green Beret squad. He is quite upset by policies giving government agencies greater authority to invade the privacy and suspend the liberty of Americans in the name of security. Are his concerns indicative of personal problems?

That's not even the same issue I was being badgered and interrogated about by Joobz.

I've never spoken with your brother-in-law. Why should I criticize his personal beliefs when he, at least, has his money where his mouth is.

Do you think your brother-in-law's word is good? If your brother-in-law brought in an enemy combatant, could we reasonably assume the captive is really an enemy combatant, and not just some random person your brother-in-law seized? How many millons of dollars, lawyers, juries, and judges do you think are necessary to reasonable verify that the enemy combatant your brother-in-law brought in is in fact an enemy combatant?

What if we were fighting a big war like WWII, and capturing tens of thousands of enemy? Do you think the legal system could deal with the task of giving all of them "due process"?

I say again: Joobz ingrained distrust of the people who have the grim task of hunting and capturing terrorists, is Joobz' personal problem, and need not become society's problem.

 

[Praktik]

What if we were fighting a big war like WWII, and capturing tens of thousands of enemy? Do you think the legal system could deal with the task of giving all of them "due process"?

Would be no confusion then, they'd be POWs under the geneva convention.

Or is the geneva convention too "quaint" to handle that?

 

[joobz]

Do you think your brother-in-law's word is good? If your brother-in-law brought in an enemy combatant, could we reasonably assume the captive is really an enemy combatant, and not just some random person your brother-in-law seized?

good people. Great people make mistakes. It's the whole reason behind due process. Why is this so troubling for you?

How many millons of dollars, lawyers, juries, and judges do you think are necessary to reasonable verify that the enemy combatant your brother-in-law brought in is in fact an enemy combatant?

Interesting question. What would be the relative cost of due process vs. indefinite detaining of individuals? Seems it would be worth our time to ensure that those we are spending money on holding them in cells and providing healthcare is actually being spent on real enemy combatants.

I say again: Joobz ingrained distrust of the people who have the grim task of hunting and capturing terrorists, is Joobz' personal problem, and need not become society's problem.

Suggesting that people and a system can be make mistakes isn't the same as inherently distrusting people. It's a realization that humans are fallible. It's the same reason why we have peer review in the scientific literature. It's the same reason why we ask for independent witnesses on contracts. Providing a verifiable, independent check or review is a time-tested method of approaching truth and honesty.

I find it extremely odd that anyone would argue against basic principles like Habeas corpus or due process.

 

[Toontown]

Would be no confusion then, they'd be POWs under the geneva convention.

Or is the geneva convention too "quaint" to handle that?

I figured you'd go for that bait. Why is there any confusions now? Does it really just come down to how many enemy there are? Do your standards change depending on the number of enemy?

BTW, you probably missed it, but I favor treating the enemy as POW's.

What if the enemy didn't wear uniforms? What if the enemy preferred dirty tactics to straight-up warfare? What if the enemy routinely hid in the civilians? What if the enemy didn't recognise the Geneva conventions?

In short, what if the enemy knew our weakness?

And even if the enemy does wear uniforms and fights straight-up (which will probably never happen again, now that they know), how would Joobz be able to content himself that the troops aren't merely grabbing civilians, putting them in uniforms, and shipping them off to POW camps, in order to swell their "capture count", or whatever it is Joobz thinks they're trying to do?

I can tell you how the situation would have been handled in WWII. Large areas would have been saturated with bombs and artillery. When the advancing allies came to an enemy-occupied town, they would have gone in shooting. They would have kicked ass, took names, and asked questions later.

But that was back when it wasn't illegal to win a war.

 

[joobz]

I figured you'd go for that bait. Why is there any confusions now? Does it really just come down to how many enemy there are? Do your standards change depending on the number of enemy?

BTW, you probably missed it, but I favor treating the enemy as POW's.

it's a different war, requiring different rules. Remember that we did (in america) detain large numbers of Japanese citizens. that wasn't a bright spot in our history. Perhaps you feel otherwise.

In short, what if the enemy knew our weakness?

Holding ourselves to the standards of basic human rights that the country was founded on is our weakness?

Your view sounds awfully close to Lenin's indictment against capitalism.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

And even if the enemy does wear uniforms and fights straight-up (which will probably never happen again, now that they know), how would Joobz be able to content himself that the troops aren't merely grabbing civilians, putting them in uniforms, and shipping them off to POW camps, in order to swell their "capture count", or whatever it is Joobz thinks they're trying to do?

strawman.

I can tell you how the situation would have been handled in WWII. Large areas would have been saturated with bombs and artillery. When the advancing allies came to an enemy-occupied town, they would have gone in shooting. They would have kicked ass, took names, and asked questions later.

different kind of war.

But that was back when it wasn't illegal to win a war.

How does one win a war on terror?

 

[Toontown]

good people. Great people make mistakes. It's the whole reason behind due process. Why is this so troubling for you?

For a couple of reasons. The Geneva conventions do not require the kind of "due process" you're talking about for POW's. Second, what information do you think the armies of ambulance chasers would have, other than the testimony of the troops who captured the prisoners?

So what good are the ambulance chasers? All they know is what the troops tell them.

Interesting question. What would be the relative cost of due process vs. indefinite detaining of individuals? Seems it would be worth our time to ensure that those we are spending money on holding them in cells and providing healthcare is actually being spent on real enemy combatants.

That would depend entirely on the ratio of actual enemy to innocents in the prisoner population.

As soon as you do an exhaustive study and cost-benefit analysis on that, you might have a point.

Suggesting that people and a system can be make mistakes isn't the same as inherently distrusting people. It's a realization that humans are fallible. It's the same reason why we have peer review in the scientific literature. It's the same reason why we ask for independent witnesses on contracts. Providing a verifiable, independent check or review is a time-tested method of approaching truth and honesty.

So, what information would you have to "review", exactly? You would have the troops' testimony that the prisoner is in fact an enemy combatant. In the vast majority of cases, that would be all you would have.

If, by chance, some other reliable information should arise, then of course a review would be in order.

I find it extremely odd that anyone would argue against basic principles like Habeas corpus or due process.

I find it extremely odd that the mere expedient of fighting without a uniform, fighting dirty, and hiding in the civilians should grant me special rights that no prisoner of war has ever had, should I be captured.

But then, this is the Age of Leftitis. Everything is "odd" in the Age of Leftitis.

 

[Toontown]

it's a different war, requiring different rules. Remember that we did (in america) detain large numbers of Japanese citizens. that wasn't a bright spot in our history. Perhaps you feel otherwise.

Strawman.

Holding ourselves to the standards of basic human rights that the country was founded on is our weakness?

Strawman.

There are no "standards" that require us to have armies of ambulance chasers reviewing the "cases" of every captured enemy.

Your view sounds awfully close to Lenin's indictment against capitalism.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Strawman.

strawman.

Strawman.

I had been quietly enduring your incessant strawmen. Now look what you've done.

different kind of war.

Strawman.

They're all different. A "different kind of war" does not automatically mean your prescriptions for it's prosecution are not entirely bogus. And certainly doesn't mean you give every captured enemy his very own ambulance chaser.

How does one win a war on terror?

By changing the game. That's why the game change in Iraq was and seems destined to remain the sole bright spot in this "war on terror".

At any rate, a "war on terror" will certainly not be won by adhering to the leftists' prescriptions for paralysis. All leftists have ever done is lose wars. Or jack up the world and then collapse into a heap like the Soviets did.

 

[joobz]

Strawman.

Strawman.

There are no "standards" that require us to have armies of ambulance chasers reviewing the "cases" of every captured enemy.

Strawman.

Strawman.

Your wanton use of that word suggests you don't understand the term.
I encourage you to read up on logical fallacies so that you can avoid using them in the future.

Strawman.

Case in point.

They're all different. A "different kind of war" does not automatically mean your prescriptions for it's prosecution are not entirely bogus. And certainly doesn't mean you give every captured enemy his very own ambulance chaser.

But it is a different war. We aren't battling a centralized state with land to lose. We are battling a series of disconnected, decentralized loosely associated groups. It is a different war at an extremely fundamental level.

By changing the game.

What is that supposed to mean?
Winning requires the definition of win criteria. For a traditional war, it usually means the seizing and stabilization of the enemy's home land or leaders. In a war on terror which lacks any home land or leader, these win criteria are meaningless.
So I ask again, How does one win a war on terror? What is the win criteria?

That's why the game change in Iraq was and seems destined to remain the sole bright spot in this "war on terror".

Actually, you just helped prove my point. You only say that it was a bright spot because it was the closest thing to a traditional war. We had land to seize and a leader to eject.

At any rate, a "war on terror" will certainly not be won by adhering to the leftists' prescriptions for paralysis. All leftists have ever done is lose wars. Or jack up the world and then collapse into a heap like the Soviets did.

Until you can actually define what a win will look like, your statements on who or what can win the war are meaningless.

 

[joobz]

For a couple of reasons. The Geneva conventions do not require the kind of "due process" you're talking about for POW's. Second, what information do you think the armies of ambulance chasers would have, other than the testimony of the troops who captured the prisoners?

Are you claiming people were captured only during battle skirmishes and not actions that pattern police raids?
People were singled out on a variety of intelligence reasons. Why shouldn't we review that intelligence with due process?

So what good are the ambulance chasers? All they know is what the troops tell them.

not true.
Also, I believe the word you wish to use is "lawyer". Ambulance chaser implies lawyers out to make money by seeking insurance lawsuits. Many of the lawyers who do work on civil liberty cases do it pro bono, with out pay. Hardly the kind of disreputable individual you would wish to portray them as.


However, in fairness, I am sure there are lawyers who would work on the cases who are despicable. such is the case with people.

That would depend entirely on the ratio of actual enemy to innocents in the prisoner population.

As soon as you do an exhaustive study and cost-benefit analysis on that, you might have a point.

Your cost argument was your's originally. You seem to believe the costs are too exorbitant. Prove it. I don't see "It's too costly" as a rational argument against upholding the basic human rights america was founded upon.

So, what information would you have to "review", exactly? You would have the troops' testimony that the prisoner is in fact an enemy combatant. In the vast majority of cases, that would be all you would have.

Troops have video camers, digital cameras, the ability to seize evidence. Often times they used some to find the people in the first place. All of this info would be re-viewable.

If, by chance, some other reliable information should arise, then of course a review would be in order.

I agree. But you seem to be against this.

I find it extremely odd that the mere expedient of fighting without a uniform, fighting dirty, and hiding in the civilians should grant me special rights that no prisoner of war has ever had, should I be captured.

I find it extremely odd that the mere expedient of fighting without a uniform, fighting dirty, and hiding in the civilians should take away the rights to the civilians who may have been captured at the wrong place wrong time.

But then, this is the Age of Leftitis. Everything is "odd" in the Age of Leftitis.

This is the first I have heard of such an age. Perhaps you can tell me more about it. Who are these leftists and how long have they been in control?
What is their doctrine? Should I be worried about them?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you think your brother-in-law's word is good?

Yes, I do.

If your brother-in-law brought in an enemy combatant, could we reasonably assume the captive is really an enemy combatant, and not just some random person your brother-in-law seized? How many millons of dollars, lawyers, juries, and judges do you think are necessary to reasonable verify that the enemy combatant your brother-in-law brought in is in fact an enemy combatant?

It's interesting that you bring this up as I had a conversation with him about this prior to his last deployment. He talked about the huge problem they've had with people in Afghanistan claiming that some guy is a member of Al Qaeda simply because he has some dispute with him and would like to get rid of him. My brother-in-law is a soldier and he follows orders. If he is ordered to pick someone up then he does. Unless he catches someone in the act of shooting at him (in which case he isn't very likely to arrest said individual so much as kill him) or stockpiling weapons he can't really speak to the veracity of the claims regarding his affiliation with the enemy. Given this problem, does it not strike you as reasonable that we should make every effort to ensure that we aren't depriving innocent people of their liberty?

What if we were fighting a big war like WWII, and capturing tens of thousands of enemy? Do you think the legal system could deal with the task of giving all of them "due process"?

You mean an enemy that is wearing the uniform of their nation's military? And they did, for the most part, receive due process under the rules established by the Geneva convention.

I say again: Joobz ingrained distrust of the people who have the grim task of hunting and capturing terrorists, is Joobz' personal problem, and need not become society's problem.

I see more of a problem with your apparent ingrained trust of said officials to the point that you are willing to let them simply round people up without any checks designed to reduce the chance that injustice is done to the innocent.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I would like to add another comment related to this subject: A friend of mine is an FBI polygrapher. He has made a number of trips overseas in the last few years to interview various subjects. Most of the time he isn't interviewing prisoners, but rather informants who claim to have information to sell. His job is to determine the reliability of the informant. In other words, he is there to make sure that some lying weasel isn't selling them a load of ****.

 

[Toontown]

Your wanton use of that word suggests you don't understand the term.
I encourage you to read up on logical fallacies so that you can avoid them in the future.

Strawman.

A strawman is a substitute, often a re-framing of an opponent's argument, put up for the purpose of avoiding or obfuscating the actual argument.

You do it often.

Case in point.

Strawman.

But it is a different war. We aren't battling a centralized state with land to lose. We are battling a series of disconnected, decentralized loosely associated groups. It is a different war at an extremely fundamental level.

None of which means we need to give every captured enemy his very own ambulance chaser, to hold him, and squeeze him, and love him, and....and...well...you know.

What is that supposed to mean?.

That is an encapsulization of a complex issue. "What that is supposed to mean" is beyond the scope of this discussion, and well beyond the scope of my desire to humor your ridiculous, ludicrously persistent interrogation fantasy.

Winning requires the definition of win criteria.

Does it now. In that case, I suggest that you all surrender, and stop wasting your time and my time arguing with me. Because you obviously ain't got one of them definitions of win criteria. And if I had one, and laboriously offered it up, you would only turn your nose up at it. Because that is what you do. This is not a think-tank. This is a political argue-hole.

Hey, I have an idea. How about we define "surrender" as the "win criteria". Would that mean we win if we surrender?

Might as well. Because you people don't stand a chance. You're too busy arguing with me and fighting each other over politics to win a war. Even if you knew how.

And, just for your information, this is not a war college, and I am not your war instructor. And I have been able to surmise that, even if I were to try to school you, everything I might say would simply go in one ear and out the other. Exept the parts you think you can make strawmen out of.

For a traditional war, it usually means the seizing and stabilization of the enemy's home land or leaders. In a war on terror which lacks any home land or leader, these win criteria are meaningless.
So I ask again, How does one win a war on terror? What is the win criteria?.

Just what do you think you're doing? Do you imagine yourself as the prosecutor making the "neocon" sweat bullets with your relentless interrogation?

Go away. You bother me.

Actually, you just helped prove my point. You only say that it was a bright spot because it was the closest thing to a traditional war. We had land to seize and a leader to eject.

Until you can actually define what a win will look like, your statements on who or what can win the war are meaningless.

And until you can grasp the very simple fact that it is not my job to define the world to you, at the cost of a great deal of pro bono time and labor on my part, I will continue to embarrass you by pointing out the ludicrousness of your interrogation fantasy. You ain't interrogating nothing, boy. You're just playing silly little frack-frack games.

And where, precisely, did I say I was out to win any "war on terror"? It was you who tried to foist that desire off on me, so you would have a pretext to invoke your clever little bromides about what a win would look like.

Oh well. I'll humor you one more time. If you really want to know what I think a "win" in the "war on terror" would look like - it would look like we are not being significantly attacked by terrorists and are unlikely to be significantly attacked by terrorists in the future.

And of course, being an atheist, I would have approached the propaganda aspect of the "war on terror" differently. Since nearly all terrorists are muslims, I would first begin to relentlessly hammer the truth at them about the godless universe they live in. I would strive to disabuse them of the idiotic notion that there is an invisible sky-monkey up there who will reward them with mansions full of virgins for committing intentional, wanton mass murder. Taking away the source of their false courage should be Job 1. Force them to look into the Void for the first time in their lives, and they will collapse into a puddle of quivering jelly, terrified at the Truth they have glimpsed, unable to comprehend what it was they saw. Because they have no experience of the Void. They have spent their lives insuring that they have no clue that the Void even exists. The initial shock of pseudo-recognition would be too much for them. All their false courage would evaporate in an instant, under the harsh glare of the deadlights.

As for the current incarnation of the "war on terrorism" that you were so eager to pin on me: I have, in this forum, bluntly predicted utter defeat for NATO in Afghanistan, mainly because they're trying to fight a pussified little "war on terrorism" instead of the real war, which is primarily in Pakistan, which is the Taliban's and al Qaeda's base of supply and operations.

I'm not saying they should fight the real war - especially since winning a real war would be widely viewed across monkeyworld as a war crime. But if big, bad NATO is afraid to go there, then they need to just go away and leave the tribal jackasses alone. They're already hopelessly bogged down by a mere 15,000 Taliban. And I'm not seeing the Afghans getting off their asses. At this point, the Afghans look to me like a dead bust. Any further investment in them would be throwing good money after bad.

Unless someone has a plan to somehow get the Afghanis to step up to the plate as the Iraqis did, then they better just get out. With the understanding that, should another attack on our persons emanate from Afghanistan or Pakistan, there won't be enough left of them to scrape up after we're finished bombing them. Which would definitely include naping their poppy fields. Maybe they want some of that. But I would want to find out if they really do want some of that. At least now we've shown them we are capable of doing some serious bombing in the wake of a major terrorist attack.

We so horny. We bomb them long time. They know that now. We should take advantage of the fact that they know that now. Why should we care if Afghanistan stays in the dark ages, as long as they don't bother us? They either like it or don't have the guts to do anything about it. Either way, they're bad prospects.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Toontown, you should look deeper into the strawman fallacy. You are not applying it correctly. Joobz has not made any strawman arguments in this exchange of views.

 

[Shalamar]

Toontown, you should look deeper into the strawman fallacy. You are not applying it correctly. Joobz has not made any strawman arguments in this exchange of views.

Strawman.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Strawman.

I'll have you know that I am made of meat, thank you very much.

 

[Toontown]

Are you claiming people were captured only during battle skirmishes and not actions that pattern police raids?
People were singled out on a variety of intelligence reasons. Why shouldn't we review that intelligence with due process?

Have you forgotten that I have already provided you with the criteria by which I would consider prisoners as subject to POW treatment?

I'm thoroughly tired of your constant lapses of memory and repetitive revisiting of issues, Joobz.

Your cost argument was your's originally. You seem to believe the costs are too exorbitant. Prove it. I don't see "It's too costly" as a rational argument against upholding the basic human rights america was founded upon.

And how many hours should I invest in this cost-benefit analysis? And when I ask you "How much should I give?" will you only answer "More! More! More!"?

Well, it ain't me. I ain't your step-and-fetch-it boy.

Troops have video camers, digital cameras, the ability to seize evidence. Often times they used some to find the people in the first place. All of this info would be re-viewable.

And such evidence is reviewed, at the field command level. What's your problem? Isn't a field officer's review good enough for you? How many lawyers do you want to stick in there to gum up the works?

I agree. But you seem to be against this.

That statement is almost psycho in it's sheer stubborn obtuseness. How can I be against what I say?

I find it extremely odd that the mere expedient of fighting without a uniform, fighting dirty, and hiding in the civilians should take away the rights to the civilians who may have been captured at the wrong place wrong time.

I find it extremely odd that you claim that's what I'm advocating. Do you actually believe your own strawmen?

Are you an example of these highly ethical "lawyers" you were talking about who would be interrogating...er, I mean "reviewing" the troops, every move they make, and every report they submit?

I think, with enough "lawyers" like you, soon there won't be any troops. And your work will be done.

 

[joobz]

Strawman.

A strawman is a substitute, often a re-framing of an opponent's argument, put up for the purpose of avoiding or obfuscating the actual argument.

You do it often.

If I do, it is entirely unintentional. I attempt to argue against what is your strongest point. If I have ever mis-characterized your arguments, I would be happy to admit it and debate the points you are making. Please feel free to present such examples, so that they can be corrected.

Strawman.

This is clearly false.
You related the current war to WWII. I stated it is a different kind of war and explained why.

That can't possibly be considered a strawman argument. As I said, I do not think you understand what a straw man is. It would be to your benefit to learn more about the logical fallacies.

None of which means we need to give every captured enemy his very own ambulance chaser, to hold him, and squeeze him, and love him, and....and...well...you know.

so people don't deserve a defense?
Isn't that part of the Geneva Convention?
In particular part 4 article 3 of the 4th Geneva convention?
That people should be "afford[ed] all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Does it now. In that case, I suggest that you all surrender, and stop wasting your time and my time arguing with me. Because you obviously ain't got one of them definitions of win criteria. And if I had one, and laboriously offered it up, you would only turn your nose up at it. Because that is what you do. This is not a think-tank. This is a political argue-hole.

What does this even mean?
I'm asking how won wins an ideological war. You are so convinced about win win win, it would only make sense you'd be able to describe what a win would look like. Thankfully, below you did provide win criteria.

Hey, I have an idea. How about we define "surrender" as the "win criteria". Would that mean we win if we surrender?

Of course not, as it would represent a clear contradiction in terms.

Just what do you think you're doing? Do you imagine yourself as the prosecutor making the "neocon" sweat bullets with your relentless interrogation?

As I have continually said, I am simply trying to have a discussion. no more, no less.

Go away. You bother me.

Why do you wish to shut me up?

And until you can grasp the very simple fact that it is not my job to define the world to you, at the cost of a great deal of pro bono time and labor on my part, I will continue to embarrass you by pointing out the ludicrousness of your interrogation fantasy. You ain't interrogating nothing, boy. You're just playing silly little frack-frack games.

Defending your support for indefinite detainment is "playing silly games"?

I'm not asking you to "define the world", only what a win in a war on terror would be.

And where, precisely, did I say I was out to win any "war on terror"? It was you who tried to foist that desire off on me, so you would have a pretext to invoke your clever little bromides about what a win would look like.

I used the phrase "war on terror" to define the war we currently have with terrorists. I assumed that was what you were referring to when you have continuously said we are at war. If this is wrong, please correct me.
When you say we are at war, With whom are we at war?

Oh well. I'll humor you one more time. If you really want to know what I think a "win" in the "war on terror" would look like - it would look like we are not being significantly attacked by terrorists and are unlikely to be significantly attacked by terrorists in the future.

Thank you. was that so hard?

And of course, being an atheist, I would have approached the propaganda aspect of the "war on terror" differently. Since nearly all terrorists are muslims, I would first begin to relentlessly hammer the truth at them about the godless universe they live in. I would strive to disabuse them of the idiotic notion that there is an invisible sky-monkey up there who will reward them with mansions full of virgins for committing intentional, wanton mass murder.

What effect do you think such a policy would have? Create terrorists or eliminate terrorists?

Taking away the source of their false courage should be Job 1. Force them to look into the Void for the first time in their lives, and they will collapse into a puddle of quivering jelly, terrified at the Truth they have glimpsed, unable to comprehend what it was they saw. Because they have no experience of the Void. They have spent their lives insuring that they have no clue that the Void even exists. The initial shock of pseudo-recognition would be too much for them. All their false courage would evaporate in an instant, under the harsh glare of the deadlights.

I have no clue what any of this means.

As for the current incarnation of the "war on terrorism" that you were so eager to pin on me: I have, in this forum, bluntly predicted utter defeat for NATO in Afghanistan, mainly because they're trying to fight a pussified little "war on terrorism" instead of the real war, which is primarily in Pakistan, which is the Taliban's and al Qaeda's base of supply and operations.

I actually mostly agree with you here. I think Pakistan is of huge concern. from what I understand, they are harboring both organizations and should be pursued.

 

[Shalamar]

I'll have you know that I am made of meat, thank you very much.

Mmmmm. Meat.

 

[Toontown]

Yes, I do.
It's interesting that you bring this up as I had a conversation with him about this prior to his last deployment. He talked about the huge problem they've had with people in Afghanistan claiming that some guy is a member of Al Qaeda simply because he has some dispute with him and would like to get rid of him. My brother-in-law is a soldier and he follows orders. If he is ordered to pick someone up then he does. Unless he catches someone in the act of shooting at him (in which case he isn't very likely to arrest said individual so much as kill him) or stockpiling weapons he can't really speak to the veracity of the claims regarding his affiliation with the enemy. Given this problem, does it not strike you as reasonable that we should make every effort to ensure that we aren't depriving innocent people of their liberty?

I only offered my opinion that enemy combatants should be treated as POW's.

And what did I say about the criteria for classifying prisoners as POW's?

And how would those criteria apply to people who were rounded up in raids and offered no resistance?

You mean an enemy that is wearing the uniform of their nation's military? And they did, for the most part, receive due process under the rules established by the Geneva convention.

No, I mean enemies, in uniform or not. Should enemies get special treatment if they are not wearing uniforms? Do your vaunted standards vary according to number of enemy and their dress code?

No, they did not receive "due process" under the Geneva conventions in WWII, because there were no Geneva conventions during WWII.

POW's do not get lawyers unless they are charged with a crime. They typically are not charged with crimes. They are simply held until the end of hostilities. Basically, all I've advocated in this thread is that enemies should not be brought to trial, but should simply be held as POW's. At the end of hostilities, those deemed guilty of war crimes could be tried, just as at the end of WWII.

I see more of a problem with your apparent ingrained trust of said officials to the point that you are willing to let them simply round people up without any checks designed to reduce the chance that injustice is done to the innocent.

Well, I don't trust lawyers more than I trust the people who, by now, should be experts at rounding up, questioning, identifying, and classifying enemies. The only thing I would expect lawyers to do is cost a shipload of money and turn loose a lot more guilty ones than innocent ones.

I do not stupidly and stubbornly demand absolute, perfect justice, because I know that is unattainable. I am frankly suspicious of people who make careers out of crying for absolute, perfect justice, when they know damn well it is unattainable.

Our enemies are not trying to defeat us militarily. They know they can't do that. They're just trying to be the straw that breaks our backs. I'm not interested in obliging them any more than is necessary.