Indian Muslim Council resisting burial of Mumbai Muslim terrorists anywhere on Indian soil

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes - that would be Leo Strauss talking. How constitutions are symbolic and should be repealed if its deemed necessary. Needless to say its something I don't believe in.

I don't believe in repealing constitutions either. The home demolition policy does not violate

the constitutional rights of Israeli citizens, only those of foreign invaders.

That would be the trial-lawyers answer to the problem.

"One standard for me, another for you".

Enemy combatants do not and should not have the same constitutional protections as citizens.

So the "enemy combatant" designation should be applied to law-abiding citizens who happen to have a relative involved in a terrorist act?

No, the combatant's family are "enemy civilians", not "enemy combatants". As citizens of

an enemy country, they can be presumed to owe allegiance to the enemy.

They can?

That's... nice.

Certainly its similar logic to that which the Military uses to explain away bad intel that results in the air-force bombing hospitals and civilian air raid shelters.

Enemy civilians are NOT lawful military targets. The distinction between enemy combatants and

enemy civilians (in the midst of an armed conflict) is important, as it determines the legal protections

afforded to such persons.

Combatants are not generally allowed to target civilians, as long as they do not take up arms.

Confiscation or destruction of their property is a different matter.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes - that would be Leo Strauss talking. How constitutions are symbolic and should be repealed if its deemed necessary. Needless to say its something I don't believe in.

I don't believe in repealing constitutions either. The home demolition policy does not violate

the constitutional rights of Israeli citizens, only those of foreign invaders.

That would be the trial-lawyers answer to the problem.

"One standard for me, another for you".

Enemy combatants do not and should not have the same constitutional protections as citizens.

So the "enemy combatant" designation should be applied to law-abiding citizens who happen to have a relative involved in a terrorist act?

No, the combatant's family are "enemy civilians", not "enemy combatants". As citizens of

an enemy country, they can be presumed to owe allegiance to the enemy.

They can?

That's... nice.

Certainly its similar logic to that which the Military uses to explain away bad intel that results in the air-force bombing hospitals and civilian air raid shelters.

Enemy civilians are NOT lawful military targets. The distinction between enemy combatants and

enemy civilians (in the midst of an armed conflict) is important, as it determines the legal protections

afforded to such persons.

Combatants are not generally allowed to target civilians, as long as they do not take up arms.

Confiscation or destruction of their property is a different matter.

But that's not consistent with what you seem to be saying - which is that ruthlessness can dictate policy and that the disposition of a city full of people can be assumed in order to justify their destruction.