But this issue has nothing to do with what the men in the field do or don’t do. This issue only has to do with how we will handle any legal proceedings we pursue against those who are captured. The combat soldiers should not change their actions in the slightest. His argument is like saying that we should just let the cops decide what to do with criminals. But that is precisely what our constitutional system does away with, allowing the same person to act as judge, jury and executioner.

The troops will continue to take into custody those they capture. But it’s not up to them what will happen to them then, anymore than it’s up to the cop on the beat to hold the trial and pass judgment on someone he arrests. That is the proper role of the courts and the courts are bound by the law. It was John Adams who coined the phrase “we are a nation of laws, not of men”, which means that we are a nation which sets up clear standards by which we judge accused criminals and we do not jettison those standards whenever we feel like it. That’s the difference between a republic and a dictatorship.

Oak Leaf is right about one thing: this is an important issue. It is important that the United States remain a nation of laws, not of men. Unfortunately there are far too many who, like Oak Leaf, would abandon our laws in a futile attempt to ensure security though lawlessness.

Where laws are ignored, there can be no security.