AZKC wrote:
fancyred wrote:
AZKC wrote:
apmom wrote:
They are enemy combatants or so we were told. If they are innocent of anything, why would we hold them? Weren't we supposed to find out and let those innocent go and try the others? Or did that change along with the reason we went into IRAQ in the first place.

Even the United States cannot just go in and start putting people in lockup without a reason. As obstinate and as big as ass as we have become won't allow that.
If they are enemy combatants, by definition they can't also be POWs. 

Many of the folks who are in Gitmo are there not because the US wants them there, but because we can't find a country willing to take them off our hands.

Gitmo is a cock up of the highest order.

HUM I thought Enemy combatants became POW's when they were caught and taken to a camp of some type. 
You thought wrong.


So, what do you call a person held in prison camp without a trial? The five people where there before President Obama, and they were not charged, and they haven't been charged with anything during Obama's term. So they are held, without trial on any charges.

If they are not POW... then what are they?
  


Conservatism is a pale horse, and the riders should be called DEATH.