Replies

The logical conclusion, and it's not too far away, is that these scum will be tried in courts of law. Thus our troops will have to retrieve evidence from the battlefield, give depositions, set up a 12,000-mile long evidence chain of custody and fly halfway around the world to trials so the defendant can face his accuser.

That means taking a prisoner will result members pulled off the line to give depositions and attend trials. It also means troops will have to risk their lives to gather "evidence" beyond what's needed militarily. Any commander worth his salt will determine that the added risks and serious depletion of a unit's firepower makes taking prisoners untenable. We will lose valuable intel that captives can provide as they will now be killed instead.

The President and all his lawyer friends can gloat about how we've "rejoined the world" while the people whose rights they're championing are being killed instead of imprisoned. American soldiers will also die from the reduced intel flow. Nice job - dickheads.

Does anyone else see a contradiction in how this Administration is fine with killing a suspected terrorist from a drone but refuses to interrogate prisoners? It's OK to turn them into grease spots, just don't make them uncomfortable. Guess we shouldn't point that out or the Zero will cancel the Predator strikes too.

The logical conclusion, and it's not too far away, is that these scum will be tried in courts of law.

There is a very good reason why civil law, criminal law and the laws of war are separate.

War is not crime. Treating it like crime is a guaranteed one-way street to crushing defeat.

If you want the perfect way to lose a war, just put lawyers in charge of it.