.... If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it.

I guess if you repeat it long enough, you come to believe it yourself.

... It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does things.

If the rest of the world jumped on a bridge, would you do that too?

Dave wrote:
Your thinking is hopelessly muddled, Vito. Whether detaining a combatant for
the duration is consistent with law, or desirable from a policy standpoint,
is a perfectly valid inquiry, and I'm inclined to agree with you that they
may be held. But justifying that determination by calling the decision to
hold each one a "trial" is simply an exercise in doublespeak.

I'm curious about issue of holding detainees for the duration. It makes
sense, but shouldn't each one have a hearing to determine that he really
truly was a combatant, not just some unlucky schmuck whose neighbor had
a grudge?

I have not seen any justification under any law for holding any class of
prisoner indefinitely with no due process at all, ever.

Of course by now, we've held them for years... I'd be pretty f&^&in mad
if it happened to me, if they weren't combatants before they will be as
soon as they're freed. And this is wise policy?!?

DSK