Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
To answer the poll first: McVeigh was dealt with correctly, and he is no different from Al Q. They are criminals. Bad, bad criminals. Why they are being treated differently is beyond me.
In my view, there are two, and only two, legitimate types of prisoners: criminals (and suspected criminals), and prisoners of war. One is legitimately held under one construct or the other; a country can not legitimately choose features of each, while ignoring the protections it finds inconvenient. For example, holding people indefinitely without charge, yet not giving those same people access to the rights granted to them under the Geneva convention.
|
I have a slightly different view.
McVeigh as a US citizen living in the US had to be treated like a criminal. That said, those militia organizations that supported him should have been treated as terrorist organizations having declared war on the US, and broken up in any manner possible.*
Al-Qaeda should be treated as an organization that has declared war on the US and dealt with through every means available, including every military means.** I agree that military prisoners should be given the benefits of the Geneva Convention, though those benefits would be seriously limited to persons not actually serving a government and in uniform.
*Of course, that couldn't happen when they had active supporters like Helen Chenoweth in Congress. Or when all the people who got so up in arms over Waco were still so prominent. (The response of conservatives to the attack on Waco was so deeply repugnant. If the Waco wackos had been AIM or the Panthers these same people would have demanded a tactical strike by the Air Force.)
**This excludes going to war on countries that don't support al-Qaeda.
