<The United States should avoid any possible appearance of impropriety in its handling of the prisoners, and frankly, the legal justification for labeling these guys "unlawful combatants" seems a bit flimsy , imo.

We have the moral high ground in this struggle and we should take care not to squander it.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly over the long haul, the denial of Geneva rights to these fighters will set a bad precedent for future engagements, to say nothing of provididing justification to other terrorists to torture and abuse any U.S. forces which might someday fall into their hands.

While I'm at it, we should get the bloody hell out of Saudi Arabia.



This is not an easy issue for me to nail down, and I don't have any of my famous "pat answers," although apparently a lot of the conservative pundits do. It rubs me entirely the wrong way to see these terrorist bastards getting even moderately decent treatment, but that is an emotional response.

Splinx makes an excellent point about the moral high ground. The fact that the good guys need to play by the rules, even if the bad guys don't, is considered quaint nowadays, but a good case can be made that it may be part of the steel at the core of American values.

Unfortunately, since the bad guys don't obey the rules, I doubt that our good behavior will make them treat our prisoners any better. And our obedience to the laws will probably be seen by them as some sort of weakness. Still, I disagree that how the bad guys feel about us is a major rationale for this position anyway.

There are a lot of people watching us besides the bad guys, and we have already gained a lot of moral credit for our restraint in retaliation after being so grievously attacked. How we treat the prisoners will add to this credit, although we should be careful to adhere to the minimums of protocol, and not start going all liberal-sloppy by installing color TVs or exercise equipment.

When I was younger, the "Code of the Good Guys" was drilled into us through almost every cultural channel. Many heroes of my childhood never killed the bad guys, even when a rational person might think it would be a swell idea. When bad guys were caught, the law was called in. The Lone Ranger, Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and many others played by these rules. The Lone Ranger is long gone, and the comics and movies are now filled with "heroes" who would kill a bad guy soon as look at him. But Superman and Batman are still there, and I can still use them to teach my kids.

In the 1988 Batman comic, "The Killing Joke," written by the excellent Alan Moore, Commissioner Gordon has been rescued from being horribly tortured by the Joker. Gordon's daughter, Barbara, has also been shot and paralyzed by the Joker. If anyone had a reason for seeing the Joker's head on a pike, it would be Jim Gordon. Still...

Gordon: "He shot Barbara. Showed me photographs...he tried to drive me mad."

Batman: "Listen, the police are following right behind me. I'll stay here with you until they arrive."

Gordon: "No! I'm okay! You have to go after him! I want him brought in...and I want him brought in by the book!"

Batman: "I'll do my best."

Batman moves off to find the Joker. Gordon, huddled under a blanket, shouts after him:

"By the book, you hear? We have to show him! We have to show him that our way works!"

In real life, of course, sometimes you have to kill the bad guys. A "no killing" rule is easy for Superman--he's indestructible. And a reasonable person might make a case that if Batman had killed the Joker early on, many hundreds of innocent people would still be alive. Still, the rule of law is critical to a civilized society. Objective laws, applicable to all, are one of the foundations that separates a free society from a tyranny. Once you move into vigilante law, a line has been crossed, and you begin to move down a long slope.

It should also be remembered that there are principles that sometimes are more important than individual human lives, or no one would ever die fighting for freedom. As we contemplate "security measures" to keep us safe, this has to be kept in mind.

I believe that honest people should carry guns. As many honest people as is practical. I believe that this would make us all a lot safer. Still, someone who shoots someone else, even in self-defense, should be required to justify this decision in front of a court. The laws are important.

And by the way, I'm with Splinx on Saudi Arabia. Let's drill some wells, start pouring concrete for nukes, and tell the Middle East oil sheiks to go roll down a sand dune.