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 (54144)	10/23/2002 11:20:29 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is still a post by a lawyer out there that was not answered by CB I responded. I said that after reading through the definitions in the treaty, I did not see how it applied to the detainees at Guantanamo, and invited your friend to explain his position by bolstering it with facts. As the recent release of 5 Pakistani detainees demonstrates, the US is not interested in keeping anyone who is not involved in terrorism. Regardless of whether the Taliban is or is not the government of Afghanistan, members of the Taliban who are also terrorists are not covered by any definition in the Geneva convention. By engaging in terrorism, they committed crimes, and must be prosecuted.

To: zonder who wrote (54144)	10/23/2002 11:38:30 AM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

Zonder, First - I did not mean to insult, I legitimately see your position as inconsistent (a better word). Rather than read yours and CB's interpretations, I read the conventions. And I stand by my opinion that it refers to the armies of nation states and not irregular militias (terror groups like Al-Queda are not covered at all). From a purely legal standpoint it is entirely possible to argue that we engaged the Taliban on the side of the legally (UN Recognized) Government of Afghanistan (because thats what actually happened). Now on the Israeli question, I would like to see a Palestinian state created from the territories ceded by Jordan and Egypt. These are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I see the exact borders, as in most international treaty discussions, as a negotiation point - not a religious issue like SFD seems to argue. Vehemence when applied to anti-Israeli positions looks and smells like anti-Semitism. Cold logic needs to be applied to separate legitimate policy disagreements with the Israeli Government and the Jewish nature of their state. Now I realize there are lots of people with opinions out there and you are entitled to yours, but I am aslo entitled to mine. The liberals who seem to want nothing to happen to Iraq, despite UN resloutions are just as inconsistent as the activists (I hate the term conservative) who want nothing to happen to Israel. Having said that there is a huge difference in scale to the issues in Iraq and those in Israel, but that does not mean I approve of Israeli policy. The biggest mistake Europe (and America) made was creating all the ME nation states on religious boundries (and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh). States should be secular. John