"So here you have somebody, who as I indicated earlier, is basically accused of attacking members of an invading army, of an army that invaded, whether justifiably or not, legally or not, that invaded his country. Is the reason that that's considered a war crime, or that he's treated as being a terrorist or war criminal, is because he's not part of a regularly constituted army, and was acting as a civilian? I mean, obviously, people who are involved in regular armies have the right under the laws of war to do things like throw grenades. Why is he being treated essentially as a terrorist, even if the accusations were true - and I understand the argument is that they're not - but even if they were, why would that justify taking him halfway around the world to Guantanamo?
And how is that different from - if you know - under the laws of war, from things like having Blackwater or civilian contractors engaging in violence in foreign countries in conjunction with our armies?"
Greenwald talks with the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz. The entire podcast is worth a listen but this question is asked in the eleventh minute. Here is the itunes link.
Greenwald creates one of the best podcasts on policy, politics and laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment