--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes and no. I've seen Rumsfeld state that no trials are
> needed....they can be held indefinately without trial until the
> war on terror ends. The problems with this, compared to a war
> like WWII, are obvious I think.
To which Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded:
And this is a real issue. ....
We're probably going to end up with something like mental health
hearings - like John Hinckley, we're going to have to decide, at
some point, if they're still a danger or not. ....
Right. World War II ended, a peace treaty was written, and the
prisoners were released. In 2003, the US does not continue to hold
any WWII German prisoners of war.
As you and Dan point out, the same cannot be done in a war against a
non-state entity.
So the question becomes one of governance.
Do we follow US tradition and have people from a different branch of
government make the decisions? Or do we go against tradition and have
people in the same branch make the decisions?
As far as I can see, the Founders of the US were wise to establish
three branches of government. Certainly, it is not perfect, but it
does provide a governance methodology that is more likely to persuade
others -- especially foreigners, who are key in this issue -- that the
US behaves justly. Otherwise, the US gives the impression it behaves
as injustly as one of the Arab tyrants that Osama bin Laden is
against.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
