I am talking about the first section in the page that the title of this post links to. It's the part entitled "Appeals Court Considers Enemy Combatant Case".

It quotes a question from the Christian Science Monitor:

"But does he (the President) have the authority to whisk a civilian in the US suspected of being an Al Qaeda sleeper agent into indefinite military detention without charge?"

To give you my perspective, I am a soldier. The US Army requires that I receive regular instruction in the "Law of War", to include the Geneva Conventions.

According to what I have learned, the answer is a qualified "yes".

What do I mean by "qualified 'yes'"?

Well, according to what I have learned, the President, and, by extension, the various agencies of the Executive Branch of the Government (like the military), are within their rights to summarily take a person that fits this definition and execute them, at their whim and/or leisure.

This is the definition of the term "spy", under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions allow for the execution of spies, or any lesser penalties, that the offended government choose.

So, by incarcerating them indefinitely, under the Geneva Conventions, is letting them off light.

Think about it.

During WWII, POW's and enemy spies that we captured were jailed (if not executed) for the duration of the war. No one looking back at history thinks of this as extreme or unjust. The attitude is more of "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

Did I miss something? Did we capture bin Laden? Did any part of al Quaeda anywhere surrender to the US?

I haven't been able to keep as close an eye on the news as I would like lately, but did I miss where we defeated all the Islamic extremists that have devoted their lives to destroying the Western way of life? I figure that there, at least, would have been a memo at work about that.

I haven't seen it.


Shot at 2005-09-25