Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (121726)	6/23/2005 3:17:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Good question. Do you have an answer? That was a rhetorical question. Of course there's no reason to capture them, bring them to Gitmo, go through the motions of a trial, and then send them all home. That's way beyond dumb and a total waste of everyone's resources. As to the question of why capture enemy combatants, are you suggesting that we should kill them instead? Probably not. The whole point of the notion of prisoners of war is that you get the enemy out of commission short of killing them because nice people don't kill unnecessarily. They are out of commission when they are stashed in some prisoner of war camp until the end of hostilities so that they can't return to the battlefield and fight another day. That way we win the war faster and with fewer casualties. Like, duh. I know you know all that. So I am still not understanding your problem with it. Where I am coming from is that it is a violation of due process to detain people indefinitely First of all, due process is a function of the defined process. Just like we discussed re Terri, the process is whatever the process is and due process means that the process was followed. It doesn't mean that you like the process. If the process is to bag them and tag them, have a hearing to check the tags and the documentation, etc., and then, if all is in order, stash them for the duration, then they've had due process whether or not you like the process. What you're objecting to, it would seem, as in Terri's case, is the established process, which is another matter. What you're saying, I think, is that the process should be other than what it is, that it should be the same process that we use for criminal defendants. If you have some arguments in favor of doing that, I'd like to hear them. I have yet to hear any. without evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe one of the things that's confusing this issue is that they haven't done anything wrong. Being a combatant in a war is not wrongdoing. If our guys get captured, should they be accused of wrongdoing, go through a trial with evidence and lawyers and all that, and then sentenced to jail time for their crimes? What crimes? What evidence? That's silly. They should be kept in a holding area until the end of hostilities, then repatriated.