Skip to main content

View Diary: Defense Department Backs Indefinite Preventive Detention of ACQUITTED Detainees (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Terrorists are both an armed enemy and criminals. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B

    Both designations apply, and thus do the legal consequences of both.  We can arrest them and imprison them.  We can also drop a bomb on them, shoot them from 150 yards, and detain them for the duration of the conflict.

    They do not get to benefit from their dual status as criminals and armed combatants.  To the contrary, whichever is least advantageous to them from a legal point of view may be pursued by the government.  We do not have to choose between treating them as criminals and treating them as armed enemies.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:13:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, you can go through legal contortions to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot, ewmorr

      justify whatever it is that we are doing to them.

      I'm just saying that I'm sure they (with "they" possibly being bereft family members of wedding parties that we have bombed . . .) easily make themselves just as confortable doing whatever it is they may do to us.

      . . . I believe I'm edging towards the "blowback" concept here.

      •  So, now being tough on terrorism while following (0+ / 0-)

        the law is doing 'legal contortions?'

        No.  It's called common sense--something rejected by the neocon right and the ivory tower left.

        Again, you insist on some kind of mutuality/equivalence between us and terrorist organizations.  There is none.  Every single member of AQ belongs either in jail or a grave.

        Blowing up wedding parties of course is a tragedy, and something the US should do a much better job of avoiding.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:27:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conversely, I suspect that some of them feel that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot, dancewater

          every single member of the US Military likewise should be killed.

          I suppose with this type of escalation on a "progressive" website, going even beyond what Bill Clinton would countenace ("we can't kill all of the terrorists . .. . "), there ain't a lot of hope for anything improving in the next generation or so.  

          Let's all give a big welcome to eternal war!!

          •  I reject your sympathy for the motives of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            Al Qaeda.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, I think I'm hearing you loud and clear (0+ / 0-)

              when we kill their innocents, it's unfortunate and something that should be avoided.

              When they kill our innocents, that's justification for a never-ending literal war against them (even if we really don't know who they are, we'll just take our best guess).

              Nice to see that American Exceptionalism is alive and well!!

        •  Trust in the judicial system is important. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Detaining individuals who were acquitted in a criminal court undermines the legitimacy of our court system.  

          I understand the complexities and the competing interrests, including the need to detain individuals who are members of Al Quada and the Taliban.  But members of these organizations are criminals, and should be treated as such.  They should be tried in the criminal justice system, and the verdict should be respected.  

          The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at

          by Jesselyn Radack on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:07:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are criminals AND armed enemies. (0+ / 0-)

            There's no reason to treat them MORE leniently because they're criminals than we would noncriminal members of a legitimate state-controlled armed forces.

            We didn't release German POW's while we were in armed conflict with Germany.  Nor should be release members of AQ and the Taliban while we're in an armed conflict with them.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:10:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  you sure blow up massive civilian casualties (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          by US forces pretty easily.... how do you look in the mirror and not throw up?

          The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. - Chris Hedges 3/2/09

          by dancewater on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:15:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site