Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
Pindar-san,

What would be your stance on the following scenarios:

Question 1.
Another nation did not recognise the USA and had captured US citizens. They put them in prison, but did not charge them with any crime. When a trial did come the prisoners were not allowed either a trial by jury or to be present while all evidence against them was put before the court.

Question 2.
Using the above scenario would you deem it okay as long as the rule of law was followed as established by that nation.

Question 3.
Using the above scenarios. Would you still see it as okay if the law was changed after the capture of those prisoners.
Hello,

Is this a scenario of a Pindar Presidency where the land is then marked by fluffy clouds, fuzzy bunnies and merriment abounds? And yet (queue ominous music) in some far locale darkness and oppression remains: perhaps due to a plague of Leftism? Whether evil doer nation X recognizes the U.S. or not is not my concern. What I would need to know to more properly answer would be why were U.S. citizens captured? Is this because they were fighting in a war zone? If so, then the consequences of their actions are upon them. For example, if there were a Johnny Walker Lindh taken by his opponents: so be it, such is the life of the mercenary.

Regarding questions 2 & 3: law is fluid and subject to the polity that is its source. Some nations are more lawful, others not. To quote Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to" One should avoid lands whose legality they question.