In 1998, during the Lewinski affair, the Democrats had several defensive mechanisms. First was denial, then attacking the investigators, then trivialization (it's all about sex), diverting attention to other "more serious" things ($50 million with all the crime going on, etc), and finally, moral equivalancy (Everybody does it).
At that time, It seemed clear to me that the Dems were on the wrong side, and we, especially here at FR, were on the right side. Now, unfortunately, the shoe appears to be on the other foot, and we at FR have used every one of those defensive tools on this and related threads to justify or trivialize what has happened.
Telling anyone that the harm these actions have done to our political capital in that part of the world should be ignored because the same things happen here in America every day is simply an example of moral equivalancy. I don't question the veracity of what you are saying. I'm merely telling you that it is irrelevant to this discussion. I would invite you to start a thread on the American justice system if you are that concerned. I want us to succeed in the war against terrorism, and will not be drawn into any argument that posits some unrelated example of moral equivalancy to either parry the original argument or justify it.
I can't blame anyone trying to be compassionate with genuine motives, but you need to do your homework my friend.
This has nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with the rule of law during wartime.
Again, I say uniformed combatants. No uniform, no rules. That's the Geneva Convention. There are not too many countries who are signators of the Geneva Convention.
I am not supporting violence toward them. I'm just saying that your argument of rules of war do not apply based on our being a signator of the Geneva Convention. You need to belong to a state who has declared war for that and you need to wear their uniform.