Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
So what, in your mind, does it take to be a POW, rather than a criminal?
Flashback: Isn't this the topic that triggered the first of many AG meltdowns?
|
Flashback first: yes.
As to the question, I can readily see that there is a gray area where one could be classified either way. It would be a multifactored analysis that would be very situation dependant.
That answer is a bit wishy-washy, but here's how it gets more solid: I am willing to concede it is within the rights of the captivating nation to choose which system applies to a given individual. But it has to pick one. Either one. And only one of the two, unless the change is deliberate and essentially permenant (i.e. we discover that a heretofor POW took active part in the 9/11 planning, and so move him from POW status and give him criminal status). There should be no denying access to the Red Cross on the one hand and to legal representation on the other.
With terrorists, or more genericly, people taken captive in our war on terror, I tend to think the correct structure is the criminal one. This is not a war; this is organized crime.
