Nonsense. That waas never said by myself
Actually, you made the connection by responding to this
Yup! And it is the COURT that should decide the punishment, at the time of conviction, not some random soldier who wants to get their rocks off by torturing a terrorist.
That's how civilized people do things, anyway. Through evidence, in a lawful, and orderly manner.
with this
So, every gun-toting dude/dudette that our soldiers run across out there must be captured and held for trial? Even if he's shooting at our people?
No wonder we aren't winning the war on terror--our bleeding hearts value the lives of the enemy more than they do our soldiers.
THAT was the basis of my post (which was pretty easily discernible by remembering or re-reading your own words).
But some folk seem to think that once captured, we should give combatants a tril. Bull stuff!
1. If they are common soldiers or officers, they have violated no laws, but must be held away from the combat zone. They cannot be set free to continue their duties.
2. If they are the general staff and higher, they can be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In other words, you yourself are stating that they're entitled to trials and, potentially, eventual release - you're just quibbling about the timing.
What's going on now, however, has nothing to do with true "trials" but with attempting to determine the status of our current detainees. It's certainly possible that, amongst the true terrorists, there are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were misidentified as "combatants." In that case, we
do have a responsibility to verify that the people we're holding are not innocent civilians. Even if we proceed from the assumption that they ARE all being held for good reason, it's still useful to have documentation of it.
Keep in mind, too, that President Bush has said that this war will take a long time. We're holding these people on an indefinite basis (given the lack of definitive criteria as to when the "war" will be over), which makes it that much more important that we make sure we're not holding people without just cause.
Never said that torture was of ny use, desirable, or legal,. I destest it myself.
And I didn't say that you were in favor of torture, hence my use of the conditional "if." I'm glad to hear you say it in any case.
But being well-fed, dry, warm (or cool), and safe from getting shot at is not mistreatment, even if the TV is black and white, you have to do as you're told, and you can't leave.
Now, come on. While I thought it was blown out of proportion, there was well-publicized documentation of mistreatment of prisoners by the military at Abu Ghraib, for which people are now serving time (maybe the wrong people or maybe they shouldn't be alone - I don't know). And, if you read
this and can't find anything that qualifies as
at least "mistreatment" at Guantanamo then I don't know what else to say...
