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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (751)	12/18/2002 9:38:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

>>It's "never my fault" is their motto...<< Truer words were never spoken. Criminals blame everyone but themselves. They blame the victim for fighting back, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or for not having the right attitude. They blame society because they are bad to begin with. They blame the judges and juries for being hypocrites. They blame society for making their actions crimes, because it is their belief that everybody would do the same as the do if they only had the ability or the provocation. They accuse their own lawyers of being in cahoots with the prosecutors. There isn't any person, anywhere, any time, who isn't more to blame for the criminal's acts than the criminal himself.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (751)	12/19/2002 7:58:10 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

Hi Hawk - This issue is beaten to death, of course, and I do remember these questions answered a while back by a guy who knew significantly more about me than the Geneva Convention. However, you might like to look at the link below for a summary of how there could be a POW issue, as I have said in the previous post: justiceonline.org As detailed below, the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally declare prisoner combatants to be outside of the protections of the Geneva Convention's prisoner of war provisions. Article 4 of the convention defines the categories of persons who may be considered as "prisoners of war." According to Article 5 , "should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." No competent tribunal has adjudicated whether or not the prisoners taken are or are not prisoners of war. Under the terms of the Convention, each prisoner is entitled to the benefits of the P.O.W. provisions unless and until the prisoner has been found to be outside the applicable defintion. The determination needs to be made on an individual basis, as circumstances may differ for each prisoner. So you see, I am not incorrect in saying that there could be a POW issue. If you like, I can try and dig up that discussion that addressed to your points. It had to do with the Article 4, where one of the categories of POWs are: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. All Guantanamo prisonser could be in this second part of volunteers fighing for a party to the conflict. Then again, I will let legal people fight this out. Still, Article 5 is VERY clear that IF there is ANY doubt on whether or not a prisoner is a POW, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". Does that mean any bank robber who "declares war" on the US should be treated as a POW?? Please. You know the present situation is a wee bit different than a bank robbery <g> Besides, the Geneva Convention does not apply to petty crimes.