oldsaw wrote:
PHeller wrote:
Drewsifer is my new ideal of an American Hero. Not that anyone else serving is not, but I'm glad that the war machine has not left all of our men and women jaded.
Drewsifer is a hero, as are all who have and are currently serving. But the universal application of Constitutional rights is a bit troublesome.
The President has stated we should "capture or kill" bin Laden. If we are now applying our laws to our enemies, the "kill" option is rendered moot. Is Drewsifer speaking on his interpretation of the oath, or is there intent to re-define the role of the military as an extension of the DOJ?
Drewsifer, first off thanks for all you do. You also seem to have much more restraint than I; I don't know if I could watch some slimeball kill my buddies and then hand him over. I do believe he and I would be out of sight behind a wall for a few seconds.
oldsaw, thanks for reinforcing my point. Terrorists have already, by their actions, declared themselves to be operating outside of the rules of engagement as set forth in the Geneva Conventions. That means they have not only decided that they need not conduct themselves according to the rules of so called 'civilized warfare' but that by so doing they are not covered by the GC's conventions regarding POWs etc.
From: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/COM/365-570017?OpenDocument
'Article 4 of the Third Convention is constitutive in character; and the enumeration which it gives is comprehensive. If an individual not belonging to one of the categories specified is captured after committing hostile acts, he may find himself denied the right to be treated as a prisoner of war, not to mention the punishments which may be inflicted on him.'
There's a link on that page to the full text of Article 4 which describes what's expected of soldiers; basically it's to be part of a nation-state's military and to clearly identify themselves as such.
It sounds so good to say 'but we will be better than they if we run them through the justice system'. The reality is that they are using our decency against us. If that were to keep up, eventually they would win through our paralysis and the Western world as we know it would eventually cease to exist (which is the final goal of the Islamic militants). That means our system of laws would be replaced by shar'ia which means governed by strict Koranic interpetation. Maybe others want to live that way but not me.
I'm perfectly willing to live my decadent scummy Western infidel way and let the pure devout fundamentalist Islamic live his way. But if he decides that I should be put to death for not believing as he and then acts violently on that (thus trying to force his beliefs on me in the most virulent way possible: convert or die!), why it's triple tap time.
