While they state that they no longer have jurisdiction over the matter, I do agree that we can't allow "enemy combatants" access to civilian courts. Here's why: Say we have a spy within Al-Qaeda's network that's detailing upcoming plots. If we were to try the detainees in civilian court, we would have to detail what intelligence we have and how we got it. While that's perfectly fine in regular criminal trials, it's quite different when it comes to terrorists.
The Geneva Conventions were designed to protect soldiers of sovereign nations from abuse and spelled out the rules of war between nations. When a person takes up arms against a nation and does not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, they are not protected by those same rights. For example, if you are a soldier with say, Brazil, you must wear a uniform that points you out as a member of the Brazilian military. (Sorry Brazil, nothing against, you, I just picked a random country). You must also not involve civilians. You cannot use religious grounds for a base of attacks or weapons storage or that becomes a legitimate military target. Al-Qaeda does none of these things. Therefore they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Sure, they do deserve to be free from "abuse", but that doesn't mean that their time spent in our custody needs to be comfortable or even observe religious differences. The fact that we even provide them with religiously sensitive meals shows we're doing a better job then most people think.
Make no mistake, these people will kill you and everyone around you if given the chance. There's even been people found on the battlefield after we've released them. So you'll have to excuse me if I could give a rats ass less about their "plight". When they start observing the Geneva Conventions, THEN they deserve to be protected by those rights.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment