That is asinine. Our civilian laws do not pertain to those caught on the battlefield, as much as Dems wish they did, doesn'-t change that. For you to even suggest it, is nothing more than a way to put our men and women in even more harms way. Or do you expect them to call a time out on the battlefield, and expect the other side to agree so they can gather the type of evidence which would be required within a civilian court of law?
I didn't hear of al qaeda giving our soldiers trial in civilian courts. They just cut off their heads.
And Hagel feeling pressure to release people have been detained for a decade and never charged with any crime is a bad thing because.......?
And? We're better than Al Quaida. We are a nation of laws. And our adherence to our own values shouldn't be dependent on anyone else's actions.
Our duty is to our own laws. And by our laws, these men need to be charged with something or be released.
IF they are prisoners of war, they have to meet specific criteria. If they don't, then they're not prisoners of war. They're merely 'prisoners'. We don't detain people indefinitely with no charges.
If you'd like to charge them under military law, do so. But they're not being charged with anything by anyone. They're not recognized as prisoners of war. And even the USSC has tossed out the idea that these prisoners don't get access to constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus petitions.
We don't just hold people. They have to be held in accordance with the law. International law, military law, civilian law, something. And for Guantanamo.....there's nothing. We're just holding them because we can.
We're better than that.