I have posted no personal abuse. You need to invest in either a dictionary or a thesaurus if you have misunderstood.
Your suggestion now that Amnesty International agrees with torture is, frankly, beyond the thunderdome. By all means, please, go and get a good night's sleep.
You need to follow your own argument then calm down and read the appropriate links provided.
Then comprehend the links before you post such nonsense to attack me again.
Do either of those links say Amnesty support torture, no, so stop this please.
You've watched too much 24. You also seem to think there have been individual investigations and intelligence gathering on those incarcerated when the truth is many are held there without any evidence. Honestly, when you watch american representations of CIA it isnt based on reality it is propaganda. This will help you in the future when discerning reality from fiction. Luther by the way isnt how london police operate or is in any way a basis for forming your opinions of whether the police should be allowed to torture.
Or a slew of people getting all bent out of shape in a bid to defend the civil rights of terrorists.
I thought the point of human/civil rights were that they applied universally, *including* suspected terrorists?
If you can prove that a person has done something bad then, by global consent, we have means to punish them. Doing something bad *before* that point is as bad as the bad thing one is charging to have happened in the first place. The point is that the CIA (and probably most other intelligence services in the world, let's not be naive), torture, injure and kill perfectly innocent people in the process of employing techniques that are woefully unreliable. If you condone that, then that's fine. Just don't condone the CIA's use of it but not the Taliban's use of it. It all amounts to the same thing.
I thought the point of human/civil rights were that they applied universally, *including* suspected terrorists?
If you can prove that a person has done something bad then, by global consent, we have means to punish them. Doing something bad *before* that point is as bad as the bad thing one is charging to have happened in the first place. The point is that the CIA (and probably most other intelligence services in the world, let's not be naive), torture, injure and kill perfectly innocent people in the process of employing techniques that are woefully unreliable. If you condone that, then that's fine. Just don't condone the CIA's use of it but not the Taliban's use of it. It all amounts to the same thing.
Si_Crewe seems to believe that if you're accused of an offence you're automatically guilty, proven by the way he keeps referring to the inmates of Guantanamo as "terrorists". Remember Christopher Jeffries who people thought murdered Jo Yates? That's the reason why we have innocent until proven guilty. If you say someone is a terrorist, the burden is on YOU to prove that in a fair and open trial. If the jury don't convict, that person is to be assumed innocent. We can't ever allow a system where peoples guilt can be assumed without a fair trial.
I thought the point of human/civil rights were that they applied universally, *including* suspected terrorists?
If you can prove that a person has done something bad then, by global consent, we have means to punish them. Doing something bad *before* that point is as bad as the bad thing one is charging to have happened in the first place. The point is that the CIA (and probably most other intelligence services in the world, let's not be naive), torture, injure and kill perfectly innocent people in the process of employing techniques that are woefully unreliable. If you condone that, then that's fine. Just don't condone the CIA's use of it but not the Taliban's use of it. It all amounts to the same thing.
We can't condone the Taliban full stop though. They totally lost it for me with the skinning of people alive and throwing sand over them.. I have some doubts the Americans taught them that.
Who's to say that the correct investigative procedures were not involved? Or that in some cases any investigation was needed at all, since they were captured in firefights in a country that they had purposefully traveled to, for the whole purpose of fighting coalition troops.
And somehow you seem to miss the point here. The detainees - they're not there to face legal proceedings. They're not there to be held until determined if they're guilty or not - they're there to provide information because they were either captured on the battle field or it was already determined due to surveillance that they had links to terrorist activities and were likely to know a lot of information.
And before people get bent out of shape; this isn't something that's unique to the U.S. Perhaps if you want to get angry, you should be questioning why the UN allows a lawful classification of people as being "illegal combatants" which means they are not afforded the same legal protections as regular soldiers.
BiB - how do you explain the ~25% of the tortured detainees who are acknowledged in the report as definitely being innocent then?
Further, on a moral point, your argument has zero credibility. Anyone can be branded a terrorist or even more easily a suspected terrorist. Saying "they're not here to have their guilt or innocence determined" actually shows that you either support or are willing to accept innocent people being tortured. Would your detention and torture be justified and acceptable on the basis that someone, somewhere has arbitrarily decided you might pose a threat? And before you answer that, do bear in mind again that the CIA themselves acknowledged that over 20% of the people they detained and tortured were found to have no links to terrorist groups or activity; they were innocent, fact. So some wishy-washy answer about how they must all have been guilty of something and therefore someone like you would have nothing to fear isn't going to cut it.
Perhaps you should question why western nations that openly purport themselves to be protectors and champions of universal human rights are willing to ignore the fundamental rights established by the UN and agreed by signatory nations including the USA and UK that apply to all humans, whether they're classed as "illegal combatants" or not.
Further, on a moral point, your argument has zero credibility. Anyone can be branded a terrorist or even more easily a suspected terrorist. Saying "they're not here to have their guilt or innocence determined" actually shows that you either support or are willing to accept innocent people being tortured.
I thought that this was already clear. Have I somehow given you the impression that I feel any shred of compassion or a lack of scruples at the idea of the detainees being out through extreme interrogation techniques?
Would your detention and torture be justified and acceptable on the basis that someone, somewhere has arbitrarily decided you might pose a threat?
If I had engaged in suspicious activities, then it wouldn't surprise me. It probably would be justified. Probably not to me personally, but I imagine other people would feel differently. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
And before you answer that, do bear in mind again that the CIA themselves acknowledged that over 20% of the people they detained and tortured were found to have no links to terrorist groups or activity; they were innocent, fact. So some wishy-washy answer about how they must all have been guilty of something and therefore someone like you would have nothing to fear isn't going to cut it.
It helps if you read the report fully and understand why those people were detained. They didn't check that the information given was accurate before detaining them. That's a failure in intelligence gathering and verification, not a failure in interrogation techniques.
Perhaps you should question why western nations that openly purport themselves to be protectors and champions of universal human rights are willing to ignore the fundamental rights established by the UN and agreed by signatory nations including the USA and UK that apply to all humans, whether they're classed as "illegal combatants" or not.
Perhaps you should question why the UN allows for there to be a classification of "illegal combatant".
Does the UN allow for a status of unlawful combatant?
Check Article 4 of the third Geneva convention. It allows for the concept. although the phrase doesn't actually appear in the article, but it does set out the criteria where a person may be entitled to POW status. There are various international treaties that cover unlawful/illegal combatant status.
The report delved into this - many if not all had been given up as leads by those being held captive (note: not necessarily being tortured).
Right, and I'm asking you about the ones established to be innocent and having no terrorist links, which was somewhere between 20-25% of those subject to "enhanced interrogation", i.e. the now widely known torture methods.
I thought that this was already clear. Have I somehow given you the impression that I feel any shred of compassion or a lack of scruples at the idea of the detainees being out through extreme interrogation techniques?
Including the innocent ones?
If I had engaged in suspicious activities, then it wouldn't surprise me. It probably would be justified. Probably not to me personally, but I imagine other people would feel differently. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
And what about the innocent ones?
It helps if you read the report fully and understand why those people were detained. They didn't check that the information given was accurate before detaining them. That's a failure in intelligence gathering and verification, not a failure in interrogation techniques.
And what about the innocent ones?
Perhaps you should question why the UN allows for there to be a classification of "illegal combatant".
Can you point me to a UN declaration or international treaty that establishes that the fundamental human right to not be subject to torture is agreed to not apply to anyone not deemed a military prisoner of war?
What about them|? Mistakes happen. No system is perfect, and to expect it to be is unrealistic. As I said, it's a failure of intelligence - they didn't bother to verify the information they had been given was correct.
Can you point me to a UN declaration or international treaty that establishes that the fundamental human right to not be subject to torture is agreed to not apply to anyone not deemed a military prisoner of war?
There is none. But then, when you're operating in a black site in a country that hasn't agreed to the Geneva conventions; it's not something you have to concern yourself with. You keep on acting as if these conventions are somehow universal. They're not. Never have been.
Check Article 4 of the third Geneva convention. It allows for the concept. although the phrase doesn't actually appear in the article, but it does set out the criteria where a person may be entitled to POW status. There are various international treaties that cover unlawful/illegal combatant status.
If you accept that then you have to accept that a "competent tribunal" has to decide the status of the person. If it is then they are decided to be such then invariably the 4th GC applies.
International Treaties would have to extend the rights under the 3rd & 4th GCs.
Perhaps you should question why the UN allows for there to be a classification of "illegal combatant".
I have no objection to locking terrorists up and throwing away the key but it's impossible for us to know whether someone is a terrorist unless we've put them through a trial by jury where all the evidence is heard in an impartial hearing. Indefinitely detaining people by classing them "illegal combatants" and denying them the right to a trial is wrong no matter what conventions you quote at me. The potential for things to go wrong is simply to great to ever be worth the risk. The information that they are a terrorist might be wrong, it could be mistaken identity. And then you'll have condemned an innocent person to indefinite imprisonment.
If you accept that then you have to accept that a "competent tribunal" has to decide the status of the person. If it is then they are decided to be such then invariably the 4th GC applies.
No problem with that. A competent tribunal could be anybody though. The local commanding officers, for example.
What about them|? Mistakes happen. No system is perfect, and to expect it to be is unrealistic. As I said, it's a failure of intelligence - they didn't bother to verify the information they had been given was correct.
What I'm asking you is this and it's a straightforward yes or no question: Do you believe it's morally acceptable for innocent people to be indefinitely detained and tortured, with no trial or other legal process, simply because they are falsely suspected of some wrongdoing? If your answer is yes, a follow-up question is would you still believe that to be morally acceptable if the innocent person detained and tortured was you?
There is none. But then, when you're operating in a black site in a country that hasn't agreed to the Geneva conventions; it's not something you have to concern yourself with. You keep on acting as if these conventions are somehow universal. They're not. Never have been.
Erm, actually, the clue is in the name: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To which the USA and UK are both signatories.
I thought the point of human/civil rights were that they applied universally, *including* suspected terrorists?
If you can prove that a person has done something bad then, by global consent, we have means to punish them. Doing something bad *before* that point is as bad as the bad thing one is charging to have happened in the first place. The point is that the CIA (and probably most other intelligence services in the world, let's not be naive), torture, injure and kill perfectly innocent people in the process of employing techniques that are woefully unreliable. If you condone that, then that's fine. Just don't condone the CIA's use of it but not the Taliban's use of it. It all amounts to the same thing.
And how do you reconcile that view with the idea of just pointing a gun at somebody and killing them in a war?
Simple fact is that enemy combatants aren't given the same consideration that we give to our own people so it seems a bit obtuse to suddenly decide that they should be.
Si_Crewe seems to believe that if you're accused of an offence you're automatically guilty, proven by the way he keeps referring to the inmates of Guantanamo as "terrorists". Remember Christopher Jeffries who people thought murdered Jo Yates? That's the reason why we have innocent until proven guilty. If you say someone is a terrorist, the burden is on YOU to prove that in a fair and open trial. If the jury don't convict, that person is to be assumed innocent. We can't ever allow a system where peoples guilt can be assumed without a fair trial.
No, Si_Crewe doesn't believe any of that stuff.
And comparing a suspect in a domestic crime with a combatant in a time of war is kinda retarded.
What next?
You want soldiers to hold a trial for every jihadi that they get in the crosshairs before pulling the trigger?
You want soldiers to hold a trial for every jihadi that they get in the crosshairs before pulling the trigger?
A battlefield situation is different because in that moment it's kill or be killed. Once you've captured someone the situation has changed. If you believe in justice you will agree that you have a duty to put that person on trial for the crimes you are accusing them of. Because we don't know that person is a terrorist we just have your word. You could be mistaken or you could be lying. The only way we'll know for sure whether that person is a terrorist deserving indefinite imprisonment, or an innocent person deserving an apology is by holding a trial for them. Assumption of innocence until guilt is proven applies for the most heinous of crimes just as much as it does the most trivial.
It seems some people would like a system where there is no presumption of innocence. If you want someone locked up you just brand them with a specific name like "terrorist" or "combatant" and they can be detained indefinitely without actually being convicted of any crime. We can't let emotion override common sense here. It might seem soft and wrong to give a person accused of such atrocities a fair trial but it's a necessary evil. If we start locking up terror suspects without a trial then we will no longer have a fair justice system because we'll have reached the point where an accusation carries the same strength as a conviction. Terror suspects might be innocent. The information could be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or someone could just be lying about stuff. This means we can never be sure of a terror suspects guilt until we've seen the evidence reviewed in court.
If you believe in justice you will agree that you have a duty to put that person on trial for the crimes you are accusing them of....
Well, that's kind of the root of what I've been saying.
If there was evidence that, say, the USA had been detaining every subversive and malcontent who they could find and shipping them off to gitmo, I'd be rather unimpressed by it.
If, OTOH, the large majority of the detainees were people who they've captured during a military campaign then, unjust or not, I have limited sympathy over any mistreatment they might have endured.
A battlefield situation is different because in that moment it's kill or be killed. Once you've captured someone the situation has changed. If you believe in justice you will agree that you have a duty to put that person on trial for the crimes you are accusing them of. Because we don't know that person is a terrorist we just have your word. You could be mistaken or you could be lying. The only way we'll know for sure whether that person is a terrorist deserving indefinite imprisonment, or an innocent person deserving an apology is by holding a trial for them. Assumption of innocence until guilt is proven applies for the most heinous of crimes just as much as it does the most trivial.
It seems some people would like a system where there is no presumption of innocence. If you want someone locked up you just brand them with a specific name like "terrorist" or "combatant" and they can be detained indefinitely without actually being convicted of any crime. We can't let emotion override common sense here. It might seem soft and wrong to give a person accused of such atrocities a fair trial but it's a necessary evil. If we start locking up terror suspects without a trial then we will no longer have a fair justice system because we'll have reached the point where an accusation carries the same strength as a conviction. Terror suspects might be innocent. The information could be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or someone could just be lying about stuff. This means we can never be sure of a terror suspects guilt until we've seen the evidence reviewed in court.
In a war situation, you don't put prisoners on trial. Those we are up against don't play by any rules, and at times they have to be subject to similar tactics.
In a war situation, you don't put prisoners on trial. Those we are up against don't play by any rules, and at times they have to be subject to similar tactics.
But we aren't talking a situation on the battlefield we're talking about after someone has been captured which changes it completely. You keep saying that the person is an enemy combatant so has no rights but how do you or I really know that they are? Your information about them might be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or maybe you're just lying in your accusation. For someone to be labelled an enemy combatant or a terrorist instead of just being an accused enemy combatant or terrorist they need a trial. That basic principle applies to the most heinous of terrorist offences just as much as it does the most trivial of ordinary offences. It's to prevent someone malicious calling someone they don't like a combatant and then being able to imprison them forever without accountability, and also to prevent genuine mistakes. We can't ever have a system where anyone (no matter whether it's a thief or the worlds most violent terrorist) can be labelled with a name that allows you to imprison them indefinitely without trial. I might not agree with parts of the law but what makes me proud of it is that no matter what the person is accused of and no matter how much "we all know they're guilty", everyone has the right to a fair trial. If we move away from that even just in exceptional cases we become a society where guilt is arbitrarily determined by public opinion and accusations, not really different to Salem.
If Jihadi John is ever captured I want him to have a fair trial with access to legal advice and be allowed to give his side of the story. We all know he's guilty but our opinions can't come into it when we're talking about the impartial application of justice. He'll never be able to justify what he did so he'd be found guilty anyway but at least he'd be found guilty in a fair trial and not convicted by popular opinion. As a former police officer I would have thought you'd want the same. Terrorism is different to "normal" criminal offences but the way we handle it through the justice system is not. If you accuse someone of being an enemy combatant, that doesn't mean they are one it just means you think they are. If you want them to be locked up indefinitely you must first prove to me and the rest of society that they actually are an enemy combatant. Your word, however honest you might be, is not good enough. An accusation must never be enough to convict on its own.
But we aren't talking a situation on the battlefield we're talking about after someone has been captured which changes it completely. You keep saying that the person is an enemy combatant so has no rights but how do you or I really know that they are?
Let's look at that a bit more...
What do you think about the idea of POW camps in WW2, for example?
I mean, we've only got "the word" of those who captured POWs that they were actually enemy soldiers.
Were POWs rights being infringed by imprisoning them in POW camps?
Course, we have stuff like the Geneva Convention to help with this stuff by dictating that combatants wear uniforms to identify themselves as such and ensure that they are treated in accordance with the GC.
Spies, OTOH, were not accorded the same rights, because they weren't in uniform, and were often executed.
If Jihadi John is ever captured I want him to have a fair trial with access to legal advice and be allowed to give his side of the story.
Comments
You need to follow your own argument then calm down and read the appropriate links provided.
Then comprehend the links before you post such nonsense to attack me again.
Do either of those links say Amnesty support torture, no, so stop this please.
The answer surely is yes and no?
I never knew that.
I thought the point of human/civil rights were that they applied universally, *including* suspected terrorists?
If you can prove that a person has done something bad then, by global consent, we have means to punish them. Doing something bad *before* that point is as bad as the bad thing one is charging to have happened in the first place. The point is that the CIA (and probably most other intelligence services in the world, let's not be naive), torture, injure and kill perfectly innocent people in the process of employing techniques that are woefully unreliable. If you condone that, then that's fine. Just don't condone the CIA's use of it but not the Taliban's use of it. It all amounts to the same thing.
Si_Crewe seems to believe that if you're accused of an offence you're automatically guilty, proven by the way he keeps referring to the inmates of Guantanamo as "terrorists". Remember Christopher Jeffries who people thought murdered Jo Yates? That's the reason why we have innocent until proven guilty. If you say someone is a terrorist, the burden is on YOU to prove that in a fair and open trial. If the jury don't convict, that person is to be assumed innocent. We can't ever allow a system where peoples guilt can be assumed without a fair trial.
We can't condone the Taliban full stop though. They totally lost it for me with the skinning of people alive and throwing sand over them.. I have some doubts the Americans taught them that.
BiB - how do you explain the ~25% of the tortured detainees who are acknowledged in the report as definitely being innocent then?
Further, on a moral point, your argument has zero credibility. Anyone can be branded a terrorist or even more easily a suspected terrorist. Saying "they're not here to have their guilt or innocence determined" actually shows that you either support or are willing to accept innocent people being tortured. Would your detention and torture be justified and acceptable on the basis that someone, somewhere has arbitrarily decided you might pose a threat? And before you answer that, do bear in mind again that the CIA themselves acknowledged that over 20% of the people they detained and tortured were found to have no links to terrorist groups or activity; they were innocent, fact. So some wishy-washy answer about how they must all have been guilty of something and therefore someone like you would have nothing to fear isn't going to cut it.
Perhaps you should question why western nations that openly purport themselves to be protectors and champions of universal human rights are willing to ignore the fundamental rights established by the UN and agreed by signatory nations including the USA and UK that apply to all humans, whether they're classed as "illegal combatants" or not.
The report delved into this - many if not all had been given up as leads by those being held captive (note: not necessarily being tortured).
I thought that this was already clear. Have I somehow given you the impression that I feel any shred of compassion or a lack of scruples at the idea of the detainees being out through extreme interrogation techniques?
If I had engaged in suspicious activities, then it wouldn't surprise me. It probably would be justified. Probably not to me personally, but I imagine other people would feel differently. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It helps if you read the report fully and understand why those people were detained. They didn't check that the information given was accurate before detaining them. That's a failure in intelligence gathering and verification, not a failure in interrogation techniques.
Perhaps you should question why the UN allows for there to be a classification of "illegal combatant".
Check Article 4 of the third Geneva convention. It allows for the concept. although the phrase doesn't actually appear in the article, but it does set out the criteria where a person may be entitled to POW status. There are various international treaties that cover unlawful/illegal combatant status.
Right, and I'm asking you about the ones established to be innocent and having no terrorist links, which was somewhere between 20-25% of those subject to "enhanced interrogation", i.e. the now widely known torture methods.
Including the innocent ones?
And what about the innocent ones?
And what about the innocent ones?
Can you point me to a UN declaration or international treaty that establishes that the fundamental human right to not be subject to torture is agreed to not apply to anyone not deemed a military prisoner of war?
What about them|? Mistakes happen. No system is perfect, and to expect it to be is unrealistic. As I said, it's a failure of intelligence - they didn't bother to verify the information they had been given was correct.
There is none. But then, when you're operating in a black site in a country that hasn't agreed to the Geneva conventions; it's not something you have to concern yourself with. You keep on acting as if these conventions are somehow universal. They're not. Never have been.
International Treaties would have to extend the rights under the 3rd & 4th GCs.
I have no objection to locking terrorists up and throwing away the key but it's impossible for us to know whether someone is a terrorist unless we've put them through a trial by jury where all the evidence is heard in an impartial hearing. Indefinitely detaining people by classing them "illegal combatants" and denying them the right to a trial is wrong no matter what conventions you quote at me. The potential for things to go wrong is simply to great to ever be worth the risk. The information that they are a terrorist might be wrong, it could be mistaken identity. And then you'll have condemned an innocent person to indefinite imprisonment.
No problem with that. A competent tribunal could be anybody though. The local commanding officers, for example.
Only for those subject to the Geneva Conventions though.
What I'm asking you is this and it's a straightforward yes or no question: Do you believe it's morally acceptable for innocent people to be indefinitely detained and tortured, with no trial or other legal process, simply because they are falsely suspected of some wrongdoing? If your answer is yes, a follow-up question is would you still believe that to be morally acceptable if the innocent person detained and tortured was you?
Erm, actually, the clue is in the name: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To which the USA and UK are both signatories.
And how do you reconcile that view with the idea of just pointing a gun at somebody and killing them in a war?
Simple fact is that enemy combatants aren't given the same consideration that we give to our own people so it seems a bit obtuse to suddenly decide that they should be.
No, Si_Crewe doesn't believe any of that stuff.
And comparing a suspect in a domestic crime with a combatant in a time of war is kinda retarded.
What next?
You want soldiers to hold a trial for every jihadi that they get in the crosshairs before pulling the trigger?
A battlefield situation is different because in that moment it's kill or be killed. Once you've captured someone the situation has changed. If you believe in justice you will agree that you have a duty to put that person on trial for the crimes you are accusing them of. Because we don't know that person is a terrorist we just have your word. You could be mistaken or you could be lying. The only way we'll know for sure whether that person is a terrorist deserving indefinite imprisonment, or an innocent person deserving an apology is by holding a trial for them. Assumption of innocence until guilt is proven applies for the most heinous of crimes just as much as it does the most trivial.
It seems some people would like a system where there is no presumption of innocence. If you want someone locked up you just brand them with a specific name like "terrorist" or "combatant" and they can be detained indefinitely without actually being convicted of any crime. We can't let emotion override common sense here. It might seem soft and wrong to give a person accused of such atrocities a fair trial but it's a necessary evil. If we start locking up terror suspects without a trial then we will no longer have a fair justice system because we'll have reached the point where an accusation carries the same strength as a conviction. Terror suspects might be innocent. The information could be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or someone could just be lying about stuff. This means we can never be sure of a terror suspects guilt until we've seen the evidence reviewed in court.
Well, that's kind of the root of what I've been saying.
If there was evidence that, say, the USA had been detaining every subversive and malcontent who they could find and shipping them off to gitmo, I'd be rather unimpressed by it.
If, OTOH, the large majority of the detainees were people who they've captured during a military campaign then, unjust or not, I have limited sympathy over any mistreatment they might have endured.
In a war situation, you don't put prisoners on trial. Those we are up against don't play by any rules, and at times they have to be subject to similar tactics.
But we aren't talking a situation on the battlefield we're talking about after someone has been captured which changes it completely. You keep saying that the person is an enemy combatant so has no rights but how do you or I really know that they are? Your information about them might be wrong, it could be mistaken identity or maybe you're just lying in your accusation. For someone to be labelled an enemy combatant or a terrorist instead of just being an accused enemy combatant or terrorist they need a trial. That basic principle applies to the most heinous of terrorist offences just as much as it does the most trivial of ordinary offences. It's to prevent someone malicious calling someone they don't like a combatant and then being able to imprison them forever without accountability, and also to prevent genuine mistakes. We can't ever have a system where anyone (no matter whether it's a thief or the worlds most violent terrorist) can be labelled with a name that allows you to imprison them indefinitely without trial. I might not agree with parts of the law but what makes me proud of it is that no matter what the person is accused of and no matter how much "we all know they're guilty", everyone has the right to a fair trial. If we move away from that even just in exceptional cases we become a society where guilt is arbitrarily determined by public opinion and accusations, not really different to Salem.
If Jihadi John is ever captured I want him to have a fair trial with access to legal advice and be allowed to give his side of the story. We all know he's guilty but our opinions can't come into it when we're talking about the impartial application of justice. He'll never be able to justify what he did so he'd be found guilty anyway but at least he'd be found guilty in a fair trial and not convicted by popular opinion. As a former police officer I would have thought you'd want the same. Terrorism is different to "normal" criminal offences but the way we handle it through the justice system is not. If you accuse someone of being an enemy combatant, that doesn't mean they are one it just means you think they are. If you want them to be locked up indefinitely you must first prove to me and the rest of society that they actually are an enemy combatant. Your word, however honest you might be, is not good enough. An accusation must never be enough to convict on its own.
Let's look at that a bit more...
What do you think about the idea of POW camps in WW2, for example?
I mean, we've only got "the word" of those who captured POWs that they were actually enemy soldiers.
Were POWs rights being infringed by imprisoning them in POW camps?
Course, we have stuff like the Geneva Convention to help with this stuff by dictating that combatants wear uniforms to identify themselves as such and ensure that they are treated in accordance with the GC.
Spies, OTOH, were not accorded the same rights, because they weren't in uniform, and were often executed.
I'd rather they forego capturing him entirely.