Interrogation video

[~Di]

Well, I can guarantee that if a 15 year old smuggled a grenade onto his high school campus, pulled the pin and threw it into a group of students resulting in death and injury, that 15 year old would be tried for murder, most likely as an adult. And he would most likely be convicted. When my kids were 15 (and when I was 15, for that matter) we all understood the concept of deadly weapons inflicting massive and frequently fatal injuries. Nobody is going to convince me that this particular kid, who traveled halfway around the world specifically to fight and kill people, did not understand that concept.

 

As I've said, I have more compassion for his victims than I do for him.

Edited July 18, 2008 by ~Di

[Walsingham]

I no lawyer, either civil or military but I think it works like this:

 

1. Grenade is thrown at patrol. It explodes, injuring but not fatally wounding the patrol. They do not see him throw the grenade.

 

2. In the aftermath, a number of suspects are picked up. One of them, with grenade splinters in his chest, turns out to be a young foreigner who claims he is visiting relatives in Pakistan. He has chemical traces of explosive on his person and no convincing reason to be in Afghanistan.

 

3. This is frankly beyond reasonable doubt proof of his involvement, and certainly grounds for detaining him. However, no civil court coudl convict on this because the evidence is circumstantial.

 

4. The argument given for accepting circumstantial evidence in such cases is that due to resource constraints, and the degree of conflict, military law applies, and that does not insist cicrcumstantial evidence is irrelevant. "Who, me? No, I'm simply in a warzone holding an assault rifle dressed in the uniform of te enemy. I am not a combatant, and you can't take me prisoner." "Who, me? I wasn't deserting. I was simply lost in the trenches, tok a wrong turn, and wound up working as a waiter in a Paris cafe."