"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:
stuff snipped
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.
Your words "by implication" don't mean "settled, decided and Supreme Court
tested." They just mean "some people believe."
But you've got a bigger problem. Who decides who is engaged in lawful or
unlawful combat? A LEO would surely know that an "on the street" (aka the
battlefield) pre-arrest investigation is not very deep and innocent people
are sometimes taken into custody because you just can't sort out all the
facts there on the street.
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.
Hey, they screw up so much because they're too busy *concealing* things like
the Pat Tillman incident and so many others. I have trouble with the whole
concept of our troops arresting people on a battlefield we defined and
created. Would we tolerate another country's invading the US and hauling
off for indefinite detention anyone who resisted? It was a dippy
PR stunt
in the
PR laden "War on Terror." Another instance of "security theater"
that's come back to bite our butts. Like Colin Powell almost said, "you
take them, you own them!"
Simple human decency,
Those are the three key words to live by. Lose sight of them and we're no
better than the scum we're fighting.
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.
I've concluded that the people who don't get that don't understand what's
happened in the last 50 years. We're all deeply interconnected now and a
lot of the prestige of the US is tarnishing. It's because we can't possibly
imagine another country invading us the way we invaded AfRaq. We can't put
ourselves in the shoes of some poor dopes being conned into thinking they
are fighting an invader. We can't seem to understand what our own citizens
would do if invaded.
Habeas Corpus is an idea a lot of Americans have died for and it means, in
essence, that the King (or more lately the President), can't just lock
people away without *meaningful* adjudication of some kind. It's essential
to the balance of powers that has kept this country on an even keel longer
than many.
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 relatively innocent
bystanders don't suffer for the sins of the scum.
It was the Red Cross that really got the ball rolling on Gitmo because we
refused access repeatedly. Watch the History Channel and you'll see stories
about US soldiers who break down in tears describing how the Red Cross saved
their lives when *they* had been held as POWs. Here's just one, I've seen a
dozen.
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/11144...r-freedom.html
I am sure in years to come, the "torture" crisis will turn into a great
stain on the reputation of many men. I must say, I respected McCain for his
nearly steadfast opposition to legalized torture of any kind. Perhaps as a
former POW he knew that pictures of prisoners with bags over their heads
being attacked by dogs is not what America should be about. I think in his
heart, McCain knew that, even if it was political suicide to say so.
--
Bobby G.