How many POWs did we have during ww2? How many were "dangerous?"
How dangerous they are doesn't matter. They were grabbed as POWs, and as far as I'm concerned they should all be held until AQ unconditionally surrenders.
The total number detained in tiny compared to the number of people killed. The total number of innocents wrongly held at Gitmo is a vanishingly small % of the number of combatants, and the number of combatants and non-combatrants killed in the theaters of operations.
As I said in some other threads, the comparison needs to be made with how many would be dead if we used more "military" and less "police" tactics. Instead of grabbing people up, just kill threats (real, perceived, or wrongly accused by intel assets).
For example:
Potential target of value in that house compound over there. Send troops at grave personal risk to clear the house, using minimal force. 3 guys are grabbed up, of which we'll say NONE are guilty for argument. That's 3 guys who lose their liberty, which is bad. The compound, however, contained 4 men, 3 women, and 4 kids. 3/11 lose liberty, happily none were killed.
Alternate tactic. Potential target of value in compound. JDAM hits compound. 6 people killed, 3 wounded, 1 unharmed (other than his extended family all getting killed or maimed).
Which scenario is better?
__________________
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine
|