Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Soldiers in military prisons are under a different set of laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And there are different laws applicable to people overseas who were engaged in combat operations against the US, especially when they are not part of a recognized military or act as guerillas.
Just as US "civilian" law doesn't apply to a man in Afghanistan beating his wife, US "civilian" law doesn't apply in a lot of situations overseas.
|
At the risk of redundancy, let me try again. I understand what you are saying. You are correct, the laws don't apply equally. No one is forcing/mandating equality. By the law as is, no one is doing anything 'wrong'. I get that.
But I'm not sure you get the other side.
My issue is not the strict letter of the law. My question is: why not do so anyway? Just because we CAN do it the way we do it now, why are we locked into that? What do we have to lose by holding ourselves to a higher standard?
My belief is that the highest standards in the world are the ones we hold ourselves accountable to. That is one reason the 'American Way' is appreciated around the world. That is one reason we are the greatest country on earth.
But when we say: "these rules are for us, YOU get different treatment", we are not walking the talk.
Again: what do we have to lose?
Right now, we are losing the war on terror. And I base that purely on the rising death count. When less Americans die to terrorists in a 6 month period than the prior 6 month period, I'll believe we are not losing the war on terror anymore.
Sure, it's an arbritrary standard, but it's all I know how to use right now. Anyone is welcome to use their own yardstick, this one works for me.