Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > "They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war. They don't > > deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an > > American citizen going through the normal judicial process," Cheney > > said. > > How is it morally defensible to have two standards of justice? Anyone have > any pointers to moral justifications for this? Don't we believe that our > judicial process exists because it is just, not because Americans deserve > better than the rest of the world? Our justice system seems to have dealt > with the Oklahoma City terrorists about as severely as one could expect. > > Seems to me that this is expediency wearing a poor disguise. I'll have his > words in mind the next time I hear a complaint from the right about moral > relativism... > > Nick > > Well, the Geneva Conventions, for starters. Cheney is, legally, exactly > correct. They don't deserve to be treated as Prisoners of War, because Al > Q'eda terrorists don't meet the legal definition of Prisoners of War.
America has a long tradition of extending our standards of justice even to those not legally protected by it, and to remove it in this case is frightening. > The second of those articles is - imo, by far the best, and I agree with > just about everything said there. The first and third are interesting, and > I include them mainly to give some different perspectives. I'll go give them a read, thanks :) -j- -- "O! for a Muse of fire, that would ascend, The brightest heaven of invention!"
