"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in
:

>
> "DTJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:21:51 -0700, "Bernard Farquart"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps we're following the letter of the law, but just barely,
>>>> with respect to the Guantanemo prisoners.
>>>
>>>Even if we are following the "letter of the law" (and there is some
>>>disagreement on that one) I think that the United States should be
>>>beyond reproach when it comes to human rights, not in a grey fuzzy
>>>area but absolutely, unquestionably no questions asked beyond any
>>>doubt.
>>
>> OK, Bernard, you have a decent debate here. So tell me, in the world
>> we live in right now, with them trying to kill us using terror
>> tactics, and us following the law, any law you wish, what exactly
>> would you do with...
>>
>> Known terrorists in a known location where we have enough time to act
>> in any way we see fit?
>
> If they are in a "war zone" then we level the camp, or whatever.
> If they are in an urban area, perhaps some sneaky Speacial Ops fellas
> have a nice satchel they can put in the living room.
> War is for killing the enemy.

Suppose we want to get information from them,like maybe where their leaders
are,or upcoming plans? Dead men tell no tales.
And wouldn't it be nice to actually CAPTURE the terrorists with their
plans,papers,and other intelligence data intact,instead of blowing
everything up?
(especially if they might have bio/chem materials you do not want spread by
an explosion,or a quantity of high explosives that might detonate.)
>
>>
>> Known terrorists who have been captured unharmed by our troops?
>
> This is the problem, they are either POW's, or they are crimainals.
> Both status' carry certain responsibilities for our people.

Uh,POWs must be in UNIFORM to be accorded Geneva Convention treatment.
Those not in uniform are terrorists and do not fall under the Convention.
Nor are they common criminals,thus no civil legalities..
>>
>> Known criminals (NOT involved in any terrorist activities at all), in
>> Iraq for example?
>
> Sounds like we need to hold them until the Iraqi courts can deal with
> them. Giving someone over to be placed in an Iraqi jail hardly sounds
> like being "soft on crime" I think.

Unless the Iraqi jail is not secure.

>
>>
>> Assume that you (whoever) can honestly tell the difference, and that
>> there is no question as to what category they fall into.
>
> There may well be questions as to what category some people will fall
> into, but it is incumbant upon us to make a choice, and move forward.
>
> I also would assume that errors will be made, but that is sort of
> built in to the problem.
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net