"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 09:57:10 -0500, "Vito" said:

....... As I understand your position it's that if one
person in authority looks at a prisoner and says "I think he should go
to
jail" or "I think he should go to Gitmo" that's a "trial." .....

That's right! If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it. It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does
things.
More important that is the way the people we are talking about do things,
the was they treat themselves, and that is the standard they are trying
to
impose on us, and others, by terrorism.

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.

Hey, I'm just going by international law and Afghan legal custom. The
Geneva Convention doesn't require proof like a US/UK court would - but
rather only suspicion.
"Article 5: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter
is satisfied
that an individual protected person is *definitely suspected of or engaged
in*
activities hostile to the security of the State,......."

A kid I knew got drunk in Mexico and wrecked his car. One passenger was
ejected and killed. He and his other passengers were taken to Jail. The next
afternoon they were told that their trials had been held without them. The
passengers were given probation and told to stay out of Mexico. The driver
got a year in prison. Was that a trial?? US Government said yes - if you
don't like it don't break the law in Mexico. I'm just following the same
rules - don't get caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan unless
you're willing to go to Gitmo.