>>>>>I cannot believe you see this as defending his home. Ridiculous. Did you read my message? He was videotaped making bombs. He was inside a residence that was being investigated for terrorist cells and was given ample opportunity to come outside - they called them out numerous times before the shooting began. From my understanding, U.S. soldiers didn't fire first. The situation is entirely different. U.S. soldiers are there investigating terrorism and rooting out cells and trying to maintain security. If he were in a country that is not under that situation, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. He was not defending his home. He wasn't even at his home. He was with other terrorist members. Would you see it the same way if the soldiers involved were not U.S. soldiers but from one of the other allies? Perhaps British or Polish?
>>>>
>>>>Sure I would. When the allies invaded Germany toward the end of WWII, they took prisoners. did they then try them all for murder or attempted murder? Of course not. There were those whose activities were so egregious that they were then tried as war criminals, but no regular soldier was tried as a murderer - even though Germany was the aggressor.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't really matter much who fired first. If someone invaded your home would you wait for them to fire first? You say they didn't invade his home - Afghanistan is his home. This did not happen in the U.S., it happened in Afghanistan where the U.S. were the invaders. As I said before, I was solidly behind the invasion of Afghanistan. I felt it was a necessary thing. I just think that if you want to invade a country, you should expect resistance and not whine about it later.
>>>>
>>>Wait a second. Was not it your side that demanded trials for all Gitmo detainees? If these guys are treated as POWs, quite normal imo, then they could be kept in detention as long as the war continues. Would you agree with that?
>>
>>Absolutely! During a war, it is normal to keep POWs until it's done. I have no objection to that whatever. But that would mean sticking to the terms of the Geneva convention, and the U.S. admin doesn't want to do that. That's why they invented this ridiculous 'enemy combatant' nonsense. If they aren't going to be accorded proper consideration according to the Geneva convention, and instead be treated as criminals, then they deserve their day in court just like any other criminal.
>
>Frankly, I don't understand what you mean. Does Geneva convention prohibit interrogation of POWs? In my opinion "enemy combatant" and "POW" is the same thing.

Not in the U.S. administrations' opinion. You're thinking like a real person, not a military politician. Over and over they have said that the terms of the Geneva convention do not apply to these detainees because they are not POWs. This isn't my terminology, it's theirs and I find it very disingenuous. If they had to stick to the Geneva convention rules, they would not be able to use any of the 'tortures' they use to get information. That's why they made up this other thing (enemy combatant). Actually, I believe the term is 'unlawful combatant'.

Here are just a couple of the terms that the U.S. administration is trying to bypass by refusing to call them POWs, and there are many more:

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

That means no renditions.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Pretty obvious by they want to sidestep this one.