Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
I didn't say that.
First, I said that it was was "my guess" that the tactics employed by the Bush administration will result in some guilty and dangerous people being set free. Since none of these cases has been adjudicated, we don't know whether that will happen.
Second, I didn't say that we should treat enemy combatants like common criminals. I said they should handle them in accordance with the law. If we've done that, then my guess will be proven wrong.
Third, I didn't blame Bush. I predicted that the tactics used by his administration will result in dangerous and guilty people being set free. Since none of this has happened yet, I don't know whether Bush himself, or anyone else, is to blame.
People talk about these cases as if the Gitmo prisoners are a homogenous group of generic suspects. Each case is different and each needs to be adjudicated individually.
|
If they are common crminals then they are indeed "cases" to be tried in court.
But if they are prisoners of war then they can legally be held as POW's until the cessation of hostilities, according to the Conventions of which we are signatories.
It looks to me like the previous and present administrations are foolish to try these people in court.
Just put them in POW camps until their confrere's give up the fight. That accords with the Geneva conventions regarding POW's.
After the cessation of hostilities they could be tried in court using the Nuremburg precedent.
Or use Lincoln's method -- summary execution on the field of battle. Who needs trials?
Or try them now using FDR's precedent established with the trial of the German saboteurs. Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it?
http://www.historynet.com/japanese-war-crime-trials.htm