Replying to a message of Mark Hessey to Adam Flinton:

 MH> From: "Mark Hessey" 

 MH> "Adam Flinton"  wrote:
That's what's
 MH> really giving the despots succor.

 MH> Interesting, your position is that holding illegal enemy combatants
 MH> for an indeterminate period of time in places like Gitmo, is actually
 MH> encouraging more terrorists to come out from under their rocks sooner
 MH> than they otherwise would have? I hadn't realized there was such a
 MH> positive, directly related, ancillary benefit to this strategy.

Well, the U.S. invaded *their* country and kidnapped them.  Defending your
country is somehow illegal because you're fighting the U.S.?  The U.S.
government won't bring them to this country because some people - like me
but with more clout - would demand that the Constitution be followed.  So
they're kept isolated, on a military outpost with very restricted access.

I also note that many officials of the former Iraqi government are in
confinement in U.S. custody, without charges.  One has to wonder what
'crimes' they're eventually going to be charged with.  AFAIK, no WMD's or
nukes were used against the invading U.S. forces, so that 'crime' didn't
happen.  Violating U.S. laws isn't a crime in Iraq - or at least it wasn't
until the U.S. conquered the place.  One also has to wonder what
jurisdiction the U.S. can claim to put these people on trial - AFAIK the
only International Court that *could* claim such jurisdiction is in The
Hague, and that court isn't recognized by the U.S. government.

OTOH, starting a war *is* a war crime, it has been since 1946 (and BTW I
think the War Crimes trials after WWII were a travesty, they should just
have taken the surviving ringleaders out and shot them without trying to
put a facade of legality on it).  That is a charge that can be hung on a
large chunk of the leadership of this country.

Bear in mind that the Constitution of the United States should be in full
force on every square inch of ground controlled by the United States
government.  If the government can deny Constitutional protections to any
segment of any population under its control, it can deny them to *all*
segments of *all* populations under its control.

---