Back from dropping the kids off at school.
I would feel some concern for the detainees at Camp X-Ray if they were being ill-treated, but they are not. Their condition is being monitored by the International Red Cross, and I have not seen any reports of ill treatment.
As far as I can tell, if they were accorded prisoner of war status, the only difference between the way they are being treated now would be that they could not be interrogated, and, at the end of hostilities, they would be repatriated.
I appreciate the link to the Geneva Convention - I've looked at the definitions, and I don't believe that the prisoners at Camp X-Ray meet any of the definitions.
Your friend disagrees. Fine. That's what lawyers are for, and courts.
Since your friend said he was working on a deal, I assume he is a soliciter and not a barrister. In court, you don't just argue the law, you argue the application of the law to the facts of the case.
Sending me a link and saying the prisoners fit the definition isn't much of an argument. He needs to explain why he thinks the law applies to these people.
The argument that they must be POWs because the Geneva Convention doesn't recognize the term "terrorist" is specious. If they don't meet the definition, then the convention doesn't apply to them.
These guys are criminals, and they will be prosecuted as such. |
