Legal rules are different for soldiers in wars than terrorists.
The new Cuba deal is a covert plan to shut down Gitmo?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
No, doof, you're mixed up. My reply was to db about Obama's cleverness, and how opening Cuba has American support.
: )
how so? a terrorist is just a soldier with no official army and no government military budget.
I don't see how a member of the French Underground should be treated any different than an American pilot shot down during WWII.
Last edited:
yes, Thank god for Obama and the democrats who have put an end to this injustice (don't you just love them?)
Only because the repubs won't let them.
well then what the hell good is it being a president? Obama can't make a speech, whether it is to factory workers or State of the Union without blaming those pesky republicans
"I would be really good if they would just let me."
There are several international treaties on the law of war. To be considered a legal combatant, one must meet several standards,eg wearing a uniform and being part of an organized armed force of a sovereign government. That is why when you see WW II movies and infiltrators are caught in disguise, they are generally executed. if they are in uniform, then they have to be treated as POWs.
Terrorists or insurgents kind of fall into the cracks between legal combatants, ie soldiers, and common criminals. The democrats have tended to want to treat them as criminals, ie the so-called law enforcement approach to terrorism. So Holder wanted to try them in federal court, etc. Republicans have generally wanted to go a different route and treat them as illegal insurgents or irregulars who do not qualify for POW status but who also cannot claim constitutional protection under the rules of criminal due process,etc.