It is not hard to understand that Washington, D.C., is having trouble deciding what to do with terrorist when they cannot even decide on a definition of who is a terrorist and who or what is an enemy combatant.
The recent story in the New York Times says it all. The New York Times, March 29, 2010, “Obama Team Is Divided On Tactics Against Terrorism,” By Charlie Savage: “Senior lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of legal briefs.”
When one member of the Administration says that men and women returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan could be dangerous – read potential domestic terrorist – what are the real bad guys?
According to the New York Times: “The discussions, which shaped classified court briefs filed this month, have centered on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. The outcome of the yearlong debate could reverberate through national security policies, ranging from the number of people the United States ultimately detains to decisions about who may be lawfully selected for killing using drones.”
Unbelievable?
The Geneva Convention is very clear on spies, guerrillas, terrorist, etc.
Anyone carrying arms as a civilian or using civilians to hide behind have been considered terrorist or enemy combatants and subject to summary execution since Abraham Lincoln.
It cannot be that hard except for any and all who have never heard a shot fired in anger.
We need to send all Washington, D.C., lawyers to Afghanistan and accompany a Marine Corps platoon for one week of combat.
