But also consider that in our attempts to export democracy, one should ask how far democracy extends. If you continue to state that they don't deserve protection under our laws as they are now subject to them, it creates a dangerous divide between what is practiced and preached. This divide is what terrorists will continue to exploit in Iraq and Afghanistan to recruit terrorists and demonize the West.
I don't think its a coincidence that the level of insurgent violence in Iraq is much higher than Afghanistan. Whereas the latter was born from binding international agreements, the former is a largely unilateral action condemned by many world governments. While I don't disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the timing could've been better.
I'm not going to dispute whether or not protection should be offered to the individuals in question. I'm simply pointing out that it currently isn't. We could debate what should change all day, but if we're discussing prosecution of individuals involved in past incidents, it's not the proper context. If you want things to change going forward, that's all well and good. But we can't accurately discuss what's already happened by thinking that same legal protection was offered to the detainees at the time. That's all I'm saying, really.
