"A lot of enemy prisoners that we have taken in every war where foricbly conscripted."
Yeah, and you're point was? Why should they be held prisoner indefinitely for that reason......just to punish them twice?
"Just to punish them twice" was not "for that reason". The reason is that they are enemy soldiers. You have to make sure enemy soldiers are no longer a threat. You can do so by bringing the war to a close, by keeping them prisoner, or by killing them. I would be against killing prisoners, so what else are we to do? Should we have freed Nazi conscripts or the conscript soliders of communist China during the Korean war just because they where forced to become soldiers?
At least one general said these guys were nothing but guys who got hijacked by the Taliban. The guys who are in their teens were kidnaped from their homes, raped and beatened and forced to fight. If they are over 40, they are not likely to be a major threat. If you are afraid to let them free, at least put them in a camp in Afghanistan and let them be tried by an Afghan court. It will be years before this war is over.
How do you know? Have you checked out the provisions of the Geneva Convention?
Not recently but yes I have. If you or the writer in the LA times wants to argue that the treament violates the Geneva convention then the person making the accusation should list the rule or clause that was violated followed by an example of such a violation. I have not heard or read such an argument from anyone.
I just remembered that the Red Cross is monitoring the situation so living conditions can't be too bad.
"Enemies captured as part of a war don't get charged with anything. They are just locked up as an alternative t oshooting them."
Thats' standard protocol.......for barbaric nations but I thought we were a little better than that. Thanks for straightening me out on that one.
Its standard protocol according to the Geneva convention (which mainly deals with treatment of prisoners and releasing them at the end of hostilities. It also has been standard practice of just about every country in every military engagement in history. The "barbaric" nations might not bother to take prisoners, or may torture them, or sell them in to slavery (even today this happens in some places). The civilized nations lock them up until the war is over or until they are exchanged for other prisoners, and are supposed to aboid any severe mistreatment.
Now I remember why Rumsfield did not want to call them POWs and comply with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention calls for them to be tried by a court of law.
unhchr.ch
This way we can hold them indefinitely.
"We didn't sign a ceasefire agreement or other treaty obliging us to get rid of our WMD.
Also there is the purely practical self interest of the US at stake. I see nothing wrong with acting in that self interest esp. when it is also reduces the threat to other countries."
Preventing people from any kind of judicial review and telling them they will be a POW until the war on terrorism is over which may go for decades is cruel and inhumane punishment particularly if they were conscripted in violation of their will.
news.bbc.co.uk
That's why need to get the conservatives out of the gov't as much as possible
You didn't address the first issue.
And if you think that you need to get conservatives out of the government because they act in our countries self interest, either as a general principle or as a response to a potential WMD threat, I suggest to liberals that they stay quiet about it. Saying "We should not act in our countries self interest", or "we should put the concerns of other countries ahead of our self interest when dealing with potential new nuclear powers", isn't the way to attract a lot of voters.
Acting in our country's best interests does not mean that people have to be treated badly or inhumanely. You seem to think one follows the other.
ted |
