SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (23905)7/13/2006 9:35:57 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) of 541298
 
Whereas, it seems to me, your position is that fair trials are for nobody.

If we're going to have trials, I don't question for a moment that they must be fair. If you think otherwise, you are misreading me.

If you concede that they were "captured on a battlefield" you're conceding that they're prisoners of war, and prisoners of war cannot be tried except for war crimes.

Combat, in and of itself, isn't illegal.


Indeed. That's a well established notion. So why don't we "want to go there"?

There is no civilized country on earth that allows locking people up and throwing away the key without some kind of trial, first.

Of course there are. We did it in all our wars. We didn't throw away the key. I understand the point about throwing away the key. But the key always has been and would continue to be the end of the war.

I find myself quite unable to determine the basis for your argument that persons "captured on the battlefield" can be locked up arbitrarily forever.

Because we've always done it that way, therefore we can again. I'm not arguing that we should, only that it's an alternative that should be explicitly argued and decided, not skipped over. If we eschew a viable alternative we should have a clearly articulated reason.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext