These aren’t POWs. In WWII days we were alot less sensitive to collateral damage and I suspect that such illegal combatants would have been executed as spies rather than held as we do today. The comparison isn’t between Gitmo detainees and WWII POW’s, the comparison is between Gitmo detainees and executed WWII illegal combatants. I’ll leave it to you to decide if this is progress or not.

Without a uniform they are free to perform attacks and then drop their weapons and easily blend into the civilian landscape. This gives us a few choices:

1. Execute suspected illegal combatants on the spot

2. Let them go if we don’t actually catch them holding a weapon

3. Detain them until we can determine their guilt

Option 1 is what would have probably been followed in the past but is rejected now due to the collateral damage of false positives.

Option 2 puts our military in the unfair position of repeatedly letting their enemies go. Knowing full well that the man they are releasing could be putting a bullet through their head tomorrow. It’s easy for us to demand this while sitting in the comfort of our homes, not so easy if we’re the ones getting shot at.

Option 3 is the best choice, but it introduces complications since now we need to worry about how we prove their guilt or innocence and what standards we have to follow in holding them.

These questions are being worked out through the legal process and there are arguments on both sides which I can’t give justice to so I won’t bother trying. Either way it is going to become a moot point since both Senator Obama and Senator McCain intend to change President Bush’s policy regarding Gitmo.

I just hope they don’t try to push this all into the criminal justice system. Our soldiers are not police men and trying to make them act as such would divert their focus and result in more troop deaths. If this happens I suspect that many troops will unofficially just go with option #1 which I think would be an unfortunate development but a rational decision on their part given the irrational policy imposed on them.

As I just said over at BCC, I just found out what it takes to have your righteousness questioned by the conservative Mormons online: Enjoying the most recent Batman movie – I’m not kidding.

Aluwid, you seem to be missing the main point. It is a gospel point, how we treat one another. We are commanded to love one another and treat our neighbors like ourselves. When the Lord lays out the laws of; retaliation, war and forgiveness He is clearly specifying how we are to treat people we disagree with.

Our government ignored the Lord’s law and in the heat of the moment went to war. But that bad start does excuse the continued abuse of POWs.

Those prisoners are no longer combatants. They are under our control and isolated, no longer posing a strategic or tactical threat to anyone.

Imo D&C 98 and the gospel suggest that their continued abuse is indefensible before the Lord.

Aluwid: “Going down the inhumane vs humane path won’t be productive since it will probably come down to a disagreement…”

Let’s try this. After 911 our government abandoned WWII standards for the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. If you believe that this was the correct decision, please explain why this was necessary and why you believe it is justified.

Aluwid: “At this point you’re leaving D&C 98.”

This is just an attempt to divert away from my question.

I was simply addressing YOUR statement; “I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…”

I will now re-ask you to explain how Gitmo treatment of POWs is “common-sense” and WWII standards for treatment of POWs would result any less “national self-defense”. Please answer.

Your exegesis implies that saints would absorb a 911 attack just as they absorbed the mob attacks without a counter attack. As a result, there would be no POWs in Gitmo.

Are you expanding your compliant from Gitmo to the War in Afghanistan and the War on Terror in general? This statement makes it sound like you are.

“I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…”

Please explain how inhumane treatment of POWs is “common-sense” and humane treatment of POWs would result any less “national self-defense”.

At this point you’re leaving D&C 98. Are you dropping it as your counterexample to how Captain Moroni dealt with his Lamanite (and Nephite apostate) prisoners? If you agree that the motivation behind Gitmo is not retaliation then I don’t know how else you are using that section to condemn Gitmo unless you are stating that America should not ever have been involved in any of their past Wars (Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II, etc) and as such all military actions we currently take or have ever taken including any handling of prisoners of war would be wrong.

Going down the inhumane vs humane path won’t be productive since it will probably come down to a disagreement on where the line lies between the two. Also keep in mind that one can support Gitmo while wanting some of it’s policies (including interrogation policies) to be tweaked.

No.

Your exegesis implies that saints would absorb a 911 attack just as they absorbed the mob attacks without a counter attack. As a result, there would be no POWs in Gitmo.

“I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…”

Please explain how inhumane treatment of POWs is “common-sense” and humane treatment of POWs would result any less “national self-defense”.

I’m going to say that it appears people are talking past each other and addressing in essence the straw men on the other side.

Bryce, Hugh and Green all agree that we are stewards and need to take care of the earth. HOW we take care of the earth and the DEGREE to which we change our lives and the specific measures we choose are in contention. There are valid disagreements whether some of the changes in the environment derive from man’s actions or from the planet.

I recently heard that 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. It makes me wonder how much an impact the little creatures that live on the surface actually affect the earth.

On the other hand we live in such a fragile biosphere with very little atmosphere on this huge rock with extremely preferential temperatures for life and a chemical make-up that allows for incredible diversity, maybe we do need to do more.

Are you saying that you believe retaliation is the underlying motivation behind those that support the usage of Guatanemo?

I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…

Remember that the Nephites under Captain Moroni held prisoners also.

Aluwid,
From the first paragraph of your exegesis:

The natural reaction “would have been to retaliate. But such a reaction is not in harmony with the godliness required of Saints,

No message about prisoners of war there.

And so we come full circle in our discussion. The revelation relates to people(both combatants and prisoners)not just faceless governments of nation states.

You don’t find that question even slightly ironic given the text of Geoff’s post?

Geoff’s post is a good indication that there are at least two camps on this issue. Irony? Well there is a similarity. I wanted to understand more about Geoff’s thinking. But there is a huge difference, I make no accusations.