I am beginning to wonder whether the conservative label really fits you . . . I am starting to see you as an honest, pragmatic, intelligent, independent thinker. And did I mention that you are an excellent writer?

1. If some arrangement could have been worked out between Justice and Defense over trying to figure out which of these detainees are a threat and which are taxi drivers who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time (or some other innocent bystander turned in by the warlords and/or tribal leaders in Afghanistan) Guantanamo would probably be closed.

2. I wasn’t referring directly to the suicides but rather a system that has allowed the issue to drift on for years without a resolution.

I disagree with about 90% of the NY Times editorial. I want to see the truly guitly placed in a dungeon for the rest of their lives. But about 2/3 of the people being held at Gitmo were not captured on any battlefield of this war. They were turned in by people with suspect motives - informants, warlords, and tribal elders.

Look at what happened in England last week with the chemcal vest raid. They had to let those guys go because the informant who passed along the info was dead wrong. What was the informants motive for turning those people in? Doesn’t it make you want to ask questions about the people being held at Gitmo on evidence of informants?

This is why some kind of judicial oversight is needed. If every single one of the detainees were captured carrying a gun on the battlefield I’d say fine, the military tribunals are adequate. But this is not the case - despite what the government told us, some of the top lawyers in the country (Republicans and Democrats I might add) are saying otherwise. And the documents released by the government on detainee cases prove that the lawyers, not the government, are telling the truth.

It begs the question: Is the Pentagon continuing to hold these people and resist judicial review for them because of national security or because the truth would be embarassing to them?

I tend to come down in the latter camp.

And I hope I get to continue to mock the MSM when I feel that they’re acting like a pack of fools - even though this piece has turned me into one of them (lol). Come to think of it…I have a peculiar desire to start wearing a fedora and smoke a pipe. Maybe there’s an antidote I can take before its too late!

Just one question though: you said,

This could have been avoided years ago which is why I call it a stain on our justice system.

Really? How exactly (and I do mean exactly) could this have been avoided?

And do you really think three scumbags who finally succeeded in their attempt to stir up trouble constitute a “stain on our justice system?” Might it not be considered yet another “stain” on their ideology/death cult? (OK, two questions.)

I did some more research and there is conflict on the issue. Mercenaries are specifically covered under protocol 1 (article 47) of the Geneva Conventions, but the USA has only signed, not ratified, that treaty. It states, in part: “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” I’m not sure if this means they are exempt for the protected person status in GCIV or not.

Speaking of which, I’ve read all of GC 1-IV and it is rather confusing. It’s no wonder there are arguments on both sides. With regard to wars between States, it’s very clear, but what about a “war” with non-state actors? The GC doesn’t address this at all. Protocol 1 does address it, but the US and many other countries have not ratified it.

Here is some interesting and conflicting reading:

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

Pres Reagan’s letter and reasoning for rejecting Protocol 1:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/012987b.htm

The Naval Postgraduate School has a lot of interesting analysis, possibly by a distant cousin of Rick Moran:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/law.asp
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/law.asp
And this is probably the best paragraph I’ve seen on the combatant civilian dichotomy. And its lessons can even be applied to a situation like Haditha:

The ultimate reason to have legal rules defining combatant status is not simply to ensure that the right of combatants to employ vicarious violence is respected, but simultaneously to ensure, as far as possible, that such violence is not directed against civilians. The essence of combatant status is to be liable, at any time, to deliberate attack. The essence of civilian status is to be immune from deliberate attack. Any legal norm that expands the rights of civilians to function as combatants is certain to erode that basic immunity. In legal terms, what is good for the guerilla must inevitably be bad for the civil society within which he hides. To suppose otherwise is to imagine the legal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which seeks to draw a circle that cannot be closed, but must inevitably spiral in upon itself. A terrorist or other “illegal combatant” who trades upon his adversary’s respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield, and he may well deprive those around him of its aegis as well.

Our have a nice day attitude will only get more Americans killed. Evil Bushhitler will be looked upon fondly when we are forced to institute really harsh measures after a probable major attack here again…when we decide we need to kill out enemies as we did in bombing German and Japanese cities in World war II. Maybe that it was is regrettably necessary.

Bravo to Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House for taking the Gitmo suicides seriously

That’s not my understanding but I could be wrong. Again, I’d love to see a citation, a statute, case law interpretation- something that evidences that you’re not just pulling a conclusion out of the air.