Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Okay, you've made your choice. Criminals they are.

No, I think they are POWs from terrorist organizations who have declared war on the US and that the GC doesn't apply to POWs from terrorist organizations.

Originally posted by baltassoc
From the rest of the world's standpoint, we can do whatever we want to with them as part of our criminal justice system. We're the one's who decided that criminals get due process. But those rules apply to everybody.

Even POWs?

Originally posted by baltassoc
And re: treason. Treason isn't enough? What's deficient about it, the penalty? You can't get any more dead than dead. Should we execute the person twice?

Treason is the mechanism the drafters came up with the deal with this situation. Switch sides in a war and it's treason. Two witnesses and you're dead. Literally. But the two witnesses must have been an important part, 'cause they included it there where it hasn't been included for other crimes. Perhaps the framers were concerned that treason might be the type of crime that one should be very, very careful about accusing.

Is treason the exclusive remedy? Is the government obligated to try the person for treason in lieu of holding them as a POW?