So we don't have to respect the laws that we are pushing soverign Iraq to establish? Or are we content with having no due process?Alyrium Denryle wrote: Actually, they are independant from the Iraqi police force, they are not under the sovriegn power of Iraq, they are commanded by the US military.
You notice where I said that defense against iminant threat is acceptable? I no more expect us not to gun down someone shooting our troops in Iraq then I expect the LAPD to refrain from shooting down a drug dealer that is shooting at them with an assault rifle. However, there is a difference between this and the activities we are talking about.And no, they dont have to treat known terrorists as citizens. That would be unworkable now wouldnt it? WE CANT PUT PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVLY SHOOTING US ON TRIAL. They function as foreign invaders at best, terrorists at worse.
I've used this analogy before, so lets see if you can understand it. If a group of domestic American terrorists takes over a civilian building in Chicago and takes hostages, do we blow up the building with airstrikes? Is this morally justifiable to you? Would it also be okay if we suspended due process for Americans while dealing with SUSPECTED terrorists?Civil disobedience is a non violent protest that builds into an angry mob. The isues in Iraq are quite different. These are people who plant bombs and openly carry weapons in order to shoot at our peacekeeping troops. They kidnap civilians and behead them over the fucking internet. Just because we have turned over governmental sovereignty to the Iraqis does not mean that the legal status of known terrorists has changed. It hasnt.