DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Bush and Obama administration transferred/released 160+ high-risk detainees

**Mjypksun** · 04-26-2011, 08:27 PM

Because membership in a foreign organization is not a crime ... certainly not a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction. Thus, with respect to your run-of-the-mill al Qaeda terrorist for whom we have no evidence of the commission of a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction (such as an attack within the domestic territory of the United States or, possibly, on a U.S. citizen abroad), release would be mandated under a try or release policy. Obviously, you cannot win a war by letting your enemy walk. The whole idea is to render him hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. Further, such a policy would encourage our soldiers to kill enemy they encounter rather than doing the more humane thing -- capturing them -- so as not to encounter them again in the field of battle. It's a fool's errand all around.

Ahhh, thank you for the clarification. That makes good sense.

The problem I see, though, is that capturing and indefinitely detaining/imprisoning isn't necessarily more humane, especially if we're realistically going to be holding these men until they die.

04-26-2011, 08:27 PM	#31
Mjypksun Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	Because membership in a foreign organization is not a crime ... certainly not a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction. Thus, with respect to your run-of-the-mill al Qaeda terrorist for whom we have no evidence of the commission of a crime over which the U.S. has jurisdiction (such as an attack within the domestic territory of the United States or, possibly, on a U.S. citizen abroad), release would be mandated under a try or release policy. Obviously, you cannot win a war by letting your enemy walk. The whole idea is to render him hors de combat, i.e. out of the fight. Further, such a policy would encourage our soldiers to kill enemy they encounter rather than doing the more humane thing -- capturing them -- so as not to encounter them again in the field of battle. It's a fool's errand all around. Ahhh, thank you for the clarification. That makes good sense. The problem I see, though, is that capturing and indefinitely detaining/imprisoning isn't necessarily more humane, especially if we're realistically going to be holding these men until they die.
	Quote