If they are "murderous, psychopathic, mean little pissants" (which I agree with), why then should they simply "return to their former environments" (which I don't agree with at all)? Because of "international law"? I'm no scholar of international law or the Geneva Convention but it looks to me like it's not adequate
for nor was it framed for the kind of situation we are currently dealing with: renegade warriors from various countries acting, fighting, killing, murdering, destroying public and private property, on their own behalf, not on behalf of their country or their country's government. If we are going to simply turn these people back over to those countries and those governments, then those countries and those governments need to be held accountable themselves for the actions of these men to the countries, governments, and peoples that they have damaged, if it becomes evident that they will not hold these men themselves responsible. Somebody needs to pay a serious penalty here. And somebody is going to have to be responsible for levying and upholding it. This isn't simply victory in war of one country and its citizenry over another. These are not men who are simply going to go back to some prior peaceful existence before they were called to arms by their nation. They are international criminals, their actions affect more than one or two opposing governments or countries. There is a collective, multinational interest in the fate of these men, and seeing that some kind of justice, in the criminal sense, is done, equally and across the board. And when I say justice, I mean justice for the victims.
In essence, if our current international agreements do not give us what we want out of this situation, then we need to change them, amend them, update them, or put something entirely new in place that does.
imo. |
