The Washington Post hurts my brain

[Zkribbler]

That definition was written in 1839, Zkrib, and not in any legal document.

It's off the Internet, so it must be true.

[Sirotnikov]

Sirotnikov, consider the OP question. What if you have a dangerous man in custody, however you determined he was dangerous? Further he has committed no crime you can prove as he was "rounded up" with many others. Do you not have a moral dilemma? By law, you must charge him or release him. You have nothing to charge, but he is dangerous. You do not want him on the streets. Is the range of choices too narrow? Are you partly to blame if he creates deadly chaos?

I had argued that US law forces his release. But I did not address the moral dilemma. What do you think?

Well of course it is a difficult dilemma.

I don't know exactly how this person was picked up.

• Was it due to an informant tip?
• Was he found suspiciously in an area of battle?
• Was he found armed in an area of battle?

It also depends on what evidence do we have on him and what is their nature. Some stuff are good enough intelligence but are problematic as evidence in court. Or maybe the intel is just too secret (very unique sigint / humint).

I would then try him in a military court. I would charge him with something like affiliation with a terrorist organization, or participation in terrorist operations / unlawful combat.

Obviously, unless he is directly tied to the murder of my soldiers / civilians, he would be after some incarceration, so I would try to do one of the following:

• attempt to provide educational services to him while in prison (to hopefully reclaim his mind)
• consider a slight chance of doubling him
• possibly make him sign a statement promising not to return to combat (sort of supported by the geneva convention) so if i catch him a second time, i can do him for a much longer period.
  (notice i'm not sure it's a good idea. just thinking out loud)
• consider releasing him in a different area from the one where the fighting is going on. (i'm also not sure this is a good idea with hardcore fundies).

If he is really extremely dangerous i'd do my best to have intelligence files submitted as evidence in the military court.

In very rare cases, i would consider tricking him - releasing him, and covertly following him around, waiting for a good option to take him out, maybe with a couple of associates.

I know it's bad karma, but it really all depends on the intel i have on him. if it's a solid case, then i would certainly do my best to use it in court instead of later chasing this guy around.

[Wiglaf]

We don't have to prove sh**! You said you disagreed with our claim related to the Geneva Convention. Well, use your f**king vaunted skills on the internet and look it up! I see nothing from you that indicates you know what you are talking about, so why don't you go stick your head up your a**.

[Theben]

Stop trying to defend snoopy's stupid comment with a stupid post of your own. Or to put it in the internet vernacular, "Screenshot it or it didn't happen." If you have a document that you claim lays down a so-called internationally recognized definition of war that supports what you and he claim quote it or STFU.

Actually what Snoopy wrote is correct, war is a "combat[fight,struggle] between states". It's other things too, but I felt obliged to point out that you, in fact, are the stupid one. So STFU.

[Kuciwalker]

Theban, in context it was obvious that snoopy meant that as an exclusive definition, and DinoDoc's objection was "it means a lot more than that".

[DinoDoc]

Didn't you say that you were going to ignore me just a few posts ago, Tubens? Why make yourself out to be a liar if all you wanted to say was that you agreed with me?

[DaShi]

DD needs the attention.

[Theben]

Didn't you say that you were going to ignore me just a few posts ago, Tubens? Why make yourself out to be a liar if all you wanted to say was that you agreed with me?

I changed my mind. So you admit you are the stupid one?

[Theben]

Theban, in context it was obvious that snoopy meant that as an exclusive definition, and DinoDoc's objection was "it means a lot more than that".

A lot of inference there, espec wrt DD's clip. I will agree with DD that a legal definition isn't easy to find on the web, at least with a somewhat more than casual search (I looked for ~10 min).