Well, since we're supposed to be stepping all over the Geneva Conventions holding this guy, I still want to know what the burden of proof is in the Conventions. They supercede everything but the Constitution in this case, and yet, reading through them, I don't see anything that states that prisoners taken need to be tried. The attitude for the free him side seems to be that joining the Jihad is a criminal offence, but if it's truly a war, then his only "crime" is being on the other side, and in a war, that's not a crime. If there weren't two sides, it wouldn't be much of a war.
|