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: cnyndwllr who wrote (121556)6/22/2005 6:00:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 793731
 
I think the term is unlawful combatants. That's seem suitable since they aren't combatants in any nation's army and since we don't afford them the protections of the Geneva convention

Have you read the GC IV definition of a lawful combatant? Please answer a simple question: why would the treaty bother to define a lawful combatant if it was impossible to be an unlawful combatant? In fact, the GC names such an unlawful combatant, a saboteur behind enemy lines, and states that they may be shot out of hand when caught.

So it's hardly like Bush is just making this stuff up.
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