- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Not to put too fine a point upon it, but there seems to be something of a similarity here...
-- But if a fighting force constitutes an army in every respect but the wearing of uniforms (but what is a uniform? -- red coats? -- camouflage suits? -- gang colors? -- arm bands?), does this make them not an army? -- Wouldn't prosecuting them as civilians overwhelm a system intended for a different purpose? -- Aren't there some precedents to consider (whatever they may be)? -- As a long-term question, shouldn't all this be reassessed with due consideration of the inevitable future context, that of fine-grained, universal surveillance?
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, no.
The point is that there are only two categories of people, civilians and combatants. And there are legal systems to handle each case. Bush's trying to invent a new category and then a new legal system to handle it is the problem.
Bush's trying to invent a new category and then a new legal system to handle it is the problem.
I don't think Bush is trying to invent a new category. I think Bush is saying 'I can do wtf I like and you can't stop me heh heh heh.' He's then leaning on the government machine to cover his ass with rationalisations - which he doesn't personally care about, and probably doesn't even understand.
