Sorry to disappoint you Kid, but your post has an error:

"Terrorists are a reasonably new and heretofore unprecedented phenomena (circa 2001)"

One of Jesus' disciples was a terrorist.

Also you see that those who do certain evils are deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they sit on death row and undergo execution. (Even if you reject capital punishment it is still law in many states)

Has anyone here objected to incarcerating people who break the law when those people have been afforded due process as is required by our Constitution? If so, I am not aware of it. Do you have cites?

Now, I am in possession of an individual who planted an IED that killed 3 GIs (hypothetcal).

Your contention is to bring said individual back to the US for trial while the IED maker continues to make his toys and kill others?

Should he be interrogated before or after being mirandized?

He should be mirandized only if it is our intention to bring him back here for prosecution. If not, he should be held as a Prisoner of War and afforded the rights and priviledges of a POW under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. One of those rights, is to be told why he is being held and offered an opportunity present evidence that he is NOT guilty of doing what he is charged with (in this case, engaging in war against the US or its allies).

Did said individual commit a federal crime or a state crime based on the states of origin of the victims?

You don't give enough information to properly make that judgement. From the information you give, he should not be charged with any crime. It isn't a crime to be on the other side of a war with the United States, is it?

For instance, was he a member of an organized resistance movement and a citizen of the country in which the act took place? If so, he has not broken any law and should not be tried at all. Please don't attempt to give me that lame bullshit about wearing uniforms or not wearing uniforms. Most of our Special Forces in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) don't openly wear U.S. military uniforms and somehow, I doubt if you would not consider them as legitimate combatants in a war so please spare us the horseshit.

Should he be tried in the US or in the land where the crime took place.

What crime?

Here's another thought, in a declared war, is the killing of the enemy a crime for either side? Maybe not!

So if said individual committed no crime when he killed my three buddies with the IED - then I will commit no crime if I kill said individual since he is the enemy.

To a point, that's correct. The point where it becomes a crime is when the person is no longer a combatant but is a prisoner or is in the process of surrendering and becoming a prisoner. If you kill (or mistreat him) after he is a prisoner, you are engaging in a war crime. That's really not a difficult concept to understand, is it?

In a way that is strange to comprehend, the information my enemy possesses gives me pause on the battlefield. Should I spare his life for the intel or just kill him now?

Once he's a prisoner, you have no choice in the matter if you wish to obey the law.

These are questions that haunt me.

Why do I think you are stretching the truth when you say this?

-- Cousin J

This is really getting embarrassing. Its like a child who knows they're wrong but has made such an effort to defend herself that there's no turning back now. She has to turn to personal attacks by calling it "diatribe" because she knows she's dead in the water on the real issue. Its almost excruciating to hear her defend this.

"propaganda" would be more appropriate.

but let's start calling it National "Pandering" Radio.

;~)

As long as this stays up for discussion, the more you (and us) succeed. Good.

O/T- I have begun a painting that I wanted to present on National Torture remembrance day, but I got busy. Here is a detail and I'll let you guess where I'm going with this (link@sig). I'll show the full painting when done.

Us DFHs don't know nothing about brooms! That's the 'D' in DFH.

Hope you have a fine 4th, you & all the other great posters here.

Glenn,

Thanks for all the work you're doing in bringing the NPR/torture issue to light and keeping it there so that all (well, the listeners at least) can see the inanity of NPR's position. You refer to the 2-sides to every a story paradigm as stenography journalism, although journalists fail at being good stenographers. The term that I've been using to describe that failed journalistic paradigm is "Dead Parrot Reporting", as in the Monte Python "dead parrot" sketch. As you probably know, the sketch includes a customer and a shop keeper arguing over whether a parrot is dead or not. To the audience it is obvious that the parrot is dead, the comedy is that there is even dispute over the status of an "ex-parrot." To the audience, it is obvious that the shopkeeper denies the truth. Yet in the case of the dead parrot sketch, "objective" reporters wouldn't report that the parrot is factually dead. Rather, "objective" reporters report that the two sides (customer and shopkeeper) disagree. The status of the parrot itself, the very basis for the dispute, is immaterial. Taking this to the current discussion about torture, Alicia Shepard and other "objective" reporters refuse to acknowledge or even focus on the issue of torture itself and whether or not it occurred (that's the parrot) and instead rather repeat what beltway Democrats and Republicans say. Sadly for us in this case, it is not a laughing matter; tragedy rather than comedy.

MP's Dead Parrot Sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

-Squashua