Agreed. When you start just making people disappear because there is no law against it, sorry, it just reeks too much of Kafka. And Jochem seems to think that there *is* a law against it.
In any case, my point of view is that you can see that some of these people are not very nice and are a danger and still think that there needs to be *some* sort of safeguard against the arbitrary imprisonment of bystanders.... your hypothetical Ahmed. Or some means of saying enough is enough, this John Walker kid is never going to go back to Afghanistan -- for example. Dana On 7/12/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ken wrote: > > You failed to notice phrase "Upon the end of the war". If we are not > > going to send them back to Afghanistan or their country of origin then > > what are we going to do with them? Imprison them forever without > > charges, due process or trials? Aren't those some of the same complaints > > we had against Sadam? And against China, etc... > > > > That's what I keep coming back to - what is the "war on terror"? It > has to be defined so that we can show there's a process we're > following. As Brian suggested maybe that should be a military court, > maybe a special court, maybe a world court, but it should be > something. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164478 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
