Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (125043)	7/13/2005 2:57:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 793881

The fact that they aren't subject to an international treaty means as far as official international norms go we can treat them any way we want to. As for the military creating a "by the book" way to treat them, I think that is largely done. Their are plenty of rules as far as how the detainees are to be treated. The argument that foreigners don't have the right to habeas corpus even when they are in US custody is one that I don't believe is going to fly. Did German and Japanese POWs have the to habeas corpus? No. Why should Al Qaeda have this right? Their basic status is most analogous to POWs. They aren't POWS in the formal sense that the Geneva convention defined the term, and thus don't have the full range of legal rights by treaty that official POWs have, but POWs existed long before the Geneva conventions. They are enemy prisoners taken as part of a war. There is no American or international tradition of applying habeas corpus rights to foreign enemy combatant prisoners taken during war (whether or not they are formally POWs). Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next