pissed off.
[This post has a lot to do with the whole criminal/military prosecution of the war on terror debate. I still think we are screwing up both systems, hampering the military options (of just holding indefinitely as POWS) and harming our criminal traditions by pursuing this 3rd way. To me, I still see only two functional ways - 1. POW status, and hold for the duration. I understand the CA 2 or 3 distinction, but I refer to the Battle of Trenton where Washington pretty much said we are going to be better than the enemy, and afford them niceties that they would not us. The risk there is that we hold someone for years and they were never fighting us, they really were tending sheep. The other option is trying everything in a criminal arena, and then you have to charge people and shuffle them through and try to convict and get a life in jail or death penalty, but the risk is that you may not convict. I don't like the middle ground of "not pow, so we can interrogate, but also not regular criminal, so we can hold indefinitely." I think it is opposed to traditional US thought. But what the hell do I know. 2/1/07]