@Deviant:Scripter:
and issues concering how said court will interfere with a nations soveirghty.
This does not answer at all the question of “which right does that give the US to keep citizens of other allied, democratic countries with a sound legal system (say, UK) captured and deprived of some very basic rights that define “sound legal system”…?”
@El:
I se it as the US finding questionable characters in a combat zone(yes, the war is over, but battles continue) compared to the UN/ICC coming into the US in a non-war situation.
I think i don’t understand…. so, if someone captures a US fighter somewhere, then it would be ok to send him to a non-US tribunal (not trial, that’s where the brits are sento to: a tribunal!)? That is exactly (except for the tribunal part, a internationally accepted legal trialis enough) what this one US law is about, that in these cases the US reserves itself the right to use military means to “liberate” that person…
Could you explain more what you meant with that sentence?