Point #1: You still seem to insist upon the protections of law enforcement-type procedures upon people taken on the field of battle or as terrorists in foreign lands. The issues are different, and if you cannot see that, you have no business in defending the nation.
In law enforcement - the arrestee is innocent until proven guilty, and we have made a specific and earnest decision that we would rather have some of the guilty get off than have a single innocent person wrongly convicted. This is right and proper.
In the battlefield and war - the arrestee is taken in combat, usually, or while carrying, or in bomb-making establishments, or in other such scenarios. They are NOT entitled to due process in the way we mean it for law enforcement. They are, in fact, presumed guilty, and in fact, are presumed guilty of violating the very Geneva Convention that you say protects them, in the case of the terrorists in Guantanamo and other places of confinement. Violators of the Geneva Convention are not entitled to its protection, in my view.
Your horror at the treatment of these violators of the Geneva Convention would be correct were we talking about law enforcement. We are not. We are talking about war. And unless you plan on your wife or daughter carrying bombs for terrorists, your hypothetical about what we would want our wives or daughters to be subject to is moot.
That being said, our treatment of them is far more humane than their treatment of us. The Pentagon and the Administration has been clear: torture is not allowed. Coercive interrogation techniques are. And you differ on where that line is. Fine. You try to make your case strongly. Fine. But everyone who disagrees where to place the line is not a monster, sir. Not a “Hitler”, not a “Nazi”, not a “totalitarianist”.
Your gratuitous insults are what are demeaning on here.
