marymary100
Underwater Plumber
Posts: 32211
Registered: 9-5-2004
Location: Scotia
Theme: Iconic
Member Is Offline
Mood: fact me
|
![[*]](./images/kfblue/default_icon.gif) Post 402125 posted on 22-1-2010 at 20:22 |
|
|
47 should be held indefinitely without trial
Really? A fair trial for all, unless you
don't have enough evidence to convict apparently.
|
|
|
Daz
Custom User Title
Posts: 6630
Registered: 10-8-2002
Location: Deb'n
Theme: KPCH Default Blue
Member Is Offline
Mood: w00t - Lge1 :-))
|
| Post 402145 posted on 23-1-2010 at 01:37 |
|
|
It's not ideal really, is it. However, in the circumstances, given the horrible damage these people (terrorists) can do, I'd rather they remained
detained until evidence is sufficient enough to prove things one way or another...
That won't go down well with some, but there you go. 
|
|
|
scholar
Knowledge of Ages
Posts: 32183
Registered: 14-10-2004
Location: Illinois
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline
Mood: pensive
|
| Post 402158 posted on 23-1-2010 at 03:03 |
|
|
In the course of warfare, soldiers normally don't arrest the enemy, collect evidence against him, give him a lawyer, hand the case over to a
prosecutor, and leave their role in battle to testify in court as often as needed. In fact, I would think that would be a pretty stupid way to
conduct any war.
Usually, you capture or kill the enemy, and hold the captives until the war is over (unless a prisoner exchange is arranged).
In the U.S, those captured in war who for any reason needed to be tried, were always tried by military tribunals. The tribunals were of such a nature
as to administer justice without conferring the rights of U.S. citizens upon people who were not, and were better able to guard matters of security.
|
|
|
