Skip to main content

View Diary: Are you suggesting we kill all the detainees instead? (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I really really do not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sc kitty, browneyes

    understand the fascination with and insistence on "charges."  We detain plenty of individuals for indefinite periods of time without any charges.  For instance, the insane.  Or prisoners of war.  Or child molesters who have already served their sentence (See Kansas v. Hendricks).  I fail to see why dangerous individuals in other context cannot be similarly confined.

    The issue is not charges, but a competent tribunal to decide whethe the individual is in fact dangeorus, and whether confinement is proper, and if so, whether a formal POW status ought to be awarded to him.  I fail to see why the military that has ALWAYS made these determinations (see, e.g, WW2, Vietnam War) is not a good choice to make them now.    

    •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

      that is certainly the way it should have worked, but that whole military process is so thoroughly tarnished by the Bush Administration's rigging of military kangaroo courts, do you think anyone in the world would trust it now?

      •  That's the thing (0+ / 0-)

        I have never heard a convincing argument as to how the military process was inadequate.  (Torture aside for the moment).  Simply because it was more truncated than a regular civilian process does not in and of itself mean that it was inadequate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site