SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (52667)10/17/2002 1:27:12 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I would be interested in seeing the legal argument that terrorists are covered by any Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war.

The nations which ratified the Geneva Convention agreed to treat each other's captive soldiers in a humane way. It's a multilateral agreement between nations.

Terrorists, by definition, are not soldiers in the service of a nation.

For example, according to the Geneva Convention, captive soldiers have the right of repatriation upon cessation of hostilities.

What nation has requested that their captive soldiers be repatriated? I'll give you the answer - none.

These prisoners are eventually going to stand trial and be convicted of violation of US law. They are not going anywhere.

But in what sense does it matter? They are receiving exactly the same humanitarian treatment which they would receive under the Geneva Convention if they were captive soldiers of a nation.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News