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 (53588)	10/21/2002 4:54:17 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

so pathetic I can barely bring myself to rebut it. zonder, this whole argument is silly. Why don't you move on to something else.

To: zonder who wrote (53588)	10/21/2002 6:55:20 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

LOL! I see I touched a nerve. Ask your friend why, if the captured Taliban were actually fighting the government of Afghanistan, why isn't the government of Afghanistan trying to get them back? Answer - Afghanistan doesn't want them back, and nobody else does, either. Maybe he'd like to invite them into his home?

To: zonder who wrote (53588)	10/21/2002 7:25:17 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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.