This did stick out though, referring to terrorists:
If captured, the unlawful acts committed during their direct participation makes them subject to prosecution in civilian courts or military tribunals. They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status.
This really does confuse somewhat. Even directly participating on the battlefield isn't enough to be called a POW if captured. Given that the War On Terror isn't directed at any country, there shouldn't be any POW's...?
Edited by Skeeve on 03/13/2010 21:22
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."- Ezekiel 23:20
Posts: 1257 Location: Monterey, CA Joined: 05.08.08
Why do I find myself thinking the our leaders are not going to give this matter any consideration whatsoever? But of course if the tables were turned we would be screaming "FOUL" at the top of our lungs. (sigh) We can be so two faced sometimes.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
The whole idea of a legal war, or 'just' war if you take your lead from the religious is beyond me.
Without declaring that the war will be conducted on barren, unoccupied land, far from possible innocents there is no way of avoiding the death of those who do not want to be involved.
So why bother going into all of this, the truth is one army of people who will not benefit in any significant way, is fighting another group of equally hopeless folk. Both sides will commit atrocities, both sides will murder people who do not wish to be involved.
When it comes to religious extremists populating one side in greater numbers than the other, considering law will only hinder those who are not willing to take their own lives.
Login
Happy
Tired
Similar Threads