Well, there is that....

I mean - yeah, this one's kinda wierd. I've been checking into the "theory" behind this, a little bit, and I don't understand it yet, but I'm almost there...

'Cause here's what happens: there are some circumstances (I mean, according to the "thought" around this subject, like the Geneva Conventions and so on), in which it's actually "better" to shoot someone on the spot, rather than to torture him.

If you simply execute someone, then you can make the claim that he was a "battlefield combatant in an actual battle", even if the guy was a spy or something, right? I mean, that argument, would probably fly, legally speaking. I don't think they could touch you on that one, treaty-wise. I mean, 'cause "legally" speaking, that would be the difference between doing it to a terrorist in Afghanistan, and doing it to a Jew in Nazi Germany.

Yeah, I kinda see now, why Mukasey didn't wanna say anything - I mean, after just half an hour checking into this thing, I can see that it's a very tangled web indeed. I don't know if I can make sense of it anytime soon, I gotta lot of other stuff going on, but if I find anything interesting I'll post it up here for y'all.