posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:23 PM
Originally posted by americandingbat
There is certainly an argument to be made that he should never have been held to begin with,
Agreed. He should have been killed right on the battlefield he was picked up off of, not captured and kept like a pampered pet. Matter of fact, the
capture and release policy hasn't been working that well, with 25% of the released "detainees" (what a goofy name for a POW) having been killed
after going right back to the battlefield.
I wonder how many have gone back and managed to survive so far? You're absolutely right. they should have got it right the first time.
and a bigger argument to be made that no one should ever be held by the United States without charges, legal representation, or rights (the meetings
with the lawyer only began after this man had been held for a year or so without any recourse, and only thanks to legal challenges by the Center for
Legal representation? Lawyers? Rights? When did countries begin extending citizenship priviledges to POWs? POWs that aren't even being held in the
country in question?
Charges? I see you have not much experience of war. I hope you never do. When an individual is energetically trying to blow your head off on a
battlefield, it's generally considered a kindness to capture that individual rather than killing them.
Personally, I'm not very kind, so you can rest easy knowing that I'll never create a POW for folks like you to lose sleep over. Especially NOW,
after the way this wacky world has started talking about POWs and trying to confer citizenship in the country they're fighting against on them.
What a strange world we live in.