I’m not arguing against your knowledge of this type of thing — but isn’t the lines between non-combatants and combatants blurred substantially in the war on terror. I know we’ve made mistakes in our incarceration of men not involved in terrorist activities at Gitmo. When it’s a terrorist cell, and not a nation fighting in clear position, doesn’t this create a very serious question in regards to the POW approach to incarceration and interrogation?
We still want to be a little better in our way of doing things, don’t we? Not that I want our feelings to dominate the military theatre, but we want to handle things with a sense of integrity still, right?
It’s extremely blurred. We don’t have precedence in our history to deal with this. There are 3 schools of thought. 1. Is to treat them as traditional enemy combatants. 2. To treat them as criminals. 3. Take advantage of the blurred lines.
My general feelings are that there is a fourth school of thought. There is no question that they are enemy combatants as we have each formally declared war. The problem is that they aren’t a formal Govt or abide by the Geneva Convention. That presents a problem.
I don’t believe they are criminals as Popeer put it, “they are fighting for their cause” and back to the point about formal declarations of war. They may break international laws, but it’s blurred, again.
My thoughts on GITMO, leave it open and house them. Try to interrogate and generate intel as able. I don’t abide enhanced interrogation. That violates my moral code, but that’s me personally.
