Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (52369)	10/16/2002 12:01:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This whole Guantanamo business feels more than a little dodgy to me, but this is probably another one of those subjects you beat to death before I came around We did. The American response to the ICRC was that it was precisely according to the Geneva Conventions that Al Qaeda were unlawful combatants, since they wore no uniform and belonged to no army. So America refuses to give them POW status. They give them equivalent treatment, but reserve the right to question them, a right that they would have to forgo if they were POWs.

To: zonder who wrote (52369)	10/16/2002 7:10:09 PM
From: BCherry168	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Zonder, I believe if one wishes to be treated as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention, one must be a part of an organized national army wearing a uniform. Guerilla or terrorist forces don't count. Of course, the Red Cross can be expected to put a very liberal interpretation upon it. Also, of course, the Red Cross doesn't have very many divisions. "This whole Guantanamo business feels more than a little dodgy to me, but this is probably another one of those subjects you beat to death before I came around :)"