aemeijers wrote:
By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those
engaged in warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are,
by implication, UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.


And like most people, you make the assumption that because they got
scooped up, they are guilty. News flash- the military screws up, a
lot. And they aren't real efficient at going back and correcting their
errors. Simple human decency, and the enlightened self interest of
showing the world that we are better than the other countries that
just lock people up and throw away the key, dictates that SOME sort of
investigation be done for the people they collect. If people
world-wide had not bitched about Gitmo, do you think they would have
finally started looking at the cases, and sending some of the people
home? Mind you, I agree that some are scum, and need to be locked
away. But we need to make sure the the relatively innocent bystanders
don't suffer for the sins of the scum.

Ah, but we don't know whether they were just "scooped up" or whether there
were 27 eyeball witnesses to their alleged outrages including the Imam of
Baghdad, the Archbishop of Tikrit, 12 Holy Sisters, twelve high-ranking
military officers from three different countries, and a partridge in a pear
tree.

As for sending the "relatively innocent" bystanders home, I remind you there
are three reasons for punishment:

1. To rehabilitate the offender,
2. To protect society from further depredations of the accused, and
3. To serve as a deterrent to those similarily inclined.

I suggest that just lining them up and shooting their skanky asses at least
fulfills reason number 3.