, a blog run by the Weekly Standard's editors, tells us more about one of the Jordanian bombers: He'd been detained on suspicion of terrorist activities by US forces in Iraq, and then released due to a lack of compelling evidence.
Without knowing more about the circumstances of his detention and release, I'm not going to throw too many stones. We have a finite amount of jail space, interrogators, etc. It doesn't do us any good to lock up people and hold them indefinitely without cause, and it doesn't win us any friends. On the other hand, I have to agree with the Slaves:
It's hilarious how the intelligentsia try to manipulate Christians based upon their own warped understanding of them, no doubt derived from their own hilarious propaganda.
1
"Maybe requiring our military to meet the full burden of U.S. law when it comes to detaining terrorists isn't the best idea."
Maybe we should just make up quotes about what level of burden is required, specially a quote that brings up our criminal justice system and its various constitutional and statutory burdens.
Posted by: actus at November 14, 2005 03:40 PM (CqheE)
2
One wonders why this man was detained in the first place. I would like to know a lot more about his detention before I make my mind up about his release from US custody. I have an idea, but I will wait.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 03:52 PM (rUyw4)
3
As usual, rectus manages to make no sense whatsoever. Perhaps he's trying to say we should just tag and release them back into the wild, kinda like problem bears?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 14, 2005 07:10 PM (0yYS2)
4
Keep on doing sweeps and lock up all Iraqi males 8-80. It's a great recruiting campaign...for the mujahideen.
As was forecast:the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists. Maybe they'll take a hint from O'Reilly, blow up SF and help Bush's approval rating go back up.
ya bunch of freaks!
Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at November 15, 2005 09:39 AM (/3n/k)
5
A cowardly troll makes an appearance. What a little piss ant you are.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
6
"Perhaps he's trying to say we should just tag and release them back into the wild, kinda like problem bears?"
Its more that of course he was released pursuant to some burden of US law -- that's what governs the military abroad. They're not lawless. Its ambiguous whether this is the same burden that applies to suspects held domestically in our regular criminal justice system.
Posted by: actus at November 15, 2005 12:05 PM (CqheE)
7
The burden of law is fine when it's civilian authorities dealing with citizens in criminal matters, but when the military is dealing with a determined and ruthless enemy in a war zone, the burden of law only produces more dead. The choice the military faces is between possibly mistakenly killing or detaining an innocent civilian, and letting a terrorist live to kill even more innocent civilians and soldiers. Only an idiot would not see the logic of erring to the side of pragmatic caution. Those who fight wars by a fixed set of rules are doomed to lose.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:16 PM (0yYS2)
8
"The burden of law is fine when it's civilian authorities dealing with citizens in criminal matters, but when the military is dealing with a determined and ruthless enemy in a war zone, the burden of law only produces more dead."
What is 'the burden of law' that you're referring to?
Posted by: actus at November 15, 2005 03:03 PM (CqheE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
