Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

24601

(4,137 posts)

11. There are lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. If you treat unlawful combatants the same

Reply to sinkingfeeling (Reply #4)

Wed May 2, 2012, 07:38 PM

May 2012

as lawful combatants, what is the incentive to adhere to the rules that apply to lawful combatants?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Berkeley law professor cannot be sued over Bush-era torture memos [View all] shawn703 May 2012 OP

He deserves the same treatment he coined, KARMA! Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #1

Fuck Yoo!!! Odin2005 May 2012 #2

Ain't that America. Solly Mack May 2012 #3

Damn Patriot Act! 'Enemy combatant' so has zero rights. sinkingfeeling May 2012 #4

There are lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. If you treat unlawful combatants the same 24601 May 2012 #11

You are a disgrace to your chosen username. Nihil May 2012 #14

You are of course entitled to your misguided opinion. Just how would you enforce adherence to 24601 May 2012 #16

"The laws of war," that's a hoot. JackRiddler May 2012 #18

Go ahead and split hairs on the terminology used. It is, however, used in US law as defined by 24601 May 2012 #24

Soldiers do go to trial but receive simple slaps on the wrist. Arctic Dave May 2012 #19

So life in prison is your idea of a slap on the wrist? 24601 May 2012 #21

What are the ratios of those to crimes committed? Arctic Dave May 2012 #26

Interesting that you bring up ratios. So what is the ratio of US military personnel to those who 24601 May 2012 #27

Could be a very large number if Iraq is Arctic Dave May 2012 #29

You completely dodged it the question because the facts don't back up your agenda, 24601 May 2012 #31

I don't have an exact number but maybe you can help find them. Arctic Dave May 2012 #32

We must look FORWARD not backwards about these events. Justice wanted May 2012 #5

Yes, let us refuse to learn from the past! OrwellwasRight May 2012 #7

How convenient for the judges. Roland99 May 2012 #6

No fucking shit... truebrit71 May 2012 #8

For all those who say this can't happen to American citizens: sudopod May 2012 #9

Yoo should be on criminal trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, under coalition_unwilling May 2012 #10

The most liberal Circuit of Court of Appeals in the country disagrees with you. If you can't 24601 May 2012 #12

I was not asked to convince the 9th circuit. I only wish I had been coalition_unwilling May 2012 #13

snip* Jefferson23 May 2012 #25

It's highly offensive and inaccurate to even remotely equate an opinion on interrogation 24601 May 2012 #17

It wasn't an 'opinion on interrogation.' It was an opinion on TORTURE. Before coalition_unwilling May 2012 #20

At least you admit it was an opinion - yet still equate it to genocide? 24601 May 2012 #22

Judges equal legal flunkies issuing opinions? boppers May 2012 #28

I guess this is one of those times when condoning torture isn't condoning torture. LanternWaste May 2012 #35

It's a fundamental disagreement on where the threshold for torture rests. And yet some 24601 May 2012 #36

1984, blkmusclmachine May 2012 #15

THAT is disgusting, period. n/t Jefferson23 May 2012 #23

I hate to say it but in this case it might have been the correct decision. cstanleytech May 2012 #30

REVOLUTION - K&R n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #33

I'm sure this idea has been put forward before... Volaris May 2012 #34

Letting Reagan, Bush, Bush appoint judges is going to haunt the US Doctor_J May 2012 #37