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 : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: unclewest who wrote (46734)5/25/2004 9:58:20 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793970
 
I do not believe more than a handful of those prisoners if any met the requirements for protection under the Geneva Convention.

I don't see why you and John can't both be correct. Technically speaking, you're probably right about who's covered and who isn't. But I think that John is also probably right that the Administration gave the impression of "running away from" the Geneva Conventions in that long, well publicized drama over whether they applied to the prisoners at Guantanamo.

It seemed clear to me that the US thought it in its best interests to interpret the Conventions in a way that minimized the number of prisoners covered by it to enable flexibility in the treatment of prisoners. And that's probably right, too. But you can see how that could be interpreted as the US setting a tone that tolerated abuse of prisoners.
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