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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3499)	12/24/2002 11:31:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7720

Come on, Tim, that was done by the gov't to EVADE constitutional requirements and you, I, and they know it. It results in a situation where there is nothing to evade. During WW2, (some) German prisoners-of-war were kept on US soil. No problem And they didn't get full constitutional rights either. They where POWs, not regular prisoners. Of course, their status was clear: they were prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions. Those guys in Gitmo are in Limbo. They're not prisoners of war. And they're not criminals with Constitutional protections. Exactly. They are not covered by either the Geneva convention or the US constitution. You can argue they should be but you haven't really made a straight out attempt at that argument, and in any case if they should be that doesn't mean they currently are. You would have to amend the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions or come up with some new treaty, then they would have some legal protection. But their lack of legal protection doesn't amount to a violation of the law (either normal law, constitutional law or treaty) even if some would say the law should be changed. Tim