this tangled mess of application of definitions, treatment of legal jurisdiction etc. First we claimed holding them and doing the things we did to them didn't violate any treaties about treatment of war prisoners because they were not "uniformed" combatants and weren't a part of an "official force of a state". Ok.
But how then do we find an ability to charge them under "war crimes" when those treaties deal with acts by officials and official forces of a state? Put another way, the US tribunal in Gitmo seems to be saying "You can't qualify for how to be treated under the treaties but we can charge you under those same treaties". Or it's like the US military court saying "We'll just find some charge we like from some document somewhere and use that."
I have zero empathy for these clowns who did 9/11 but I also have zero tolerance for this goofy process of applying the law like you're ordering take-out from a Chinese restaurant.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read