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 (1512)	1/2/2003 1:57:19 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

the perpetrators were non-state actors, not servicemen of another nation which has declared war upon the US (were this the case, we would be bombing cities in said state)... Need I remind you that (what passes for) cities in Afghanistan were indeed bombed? because they have formed a "supra-national" cartel of terror fall between the cracks of international law. That's why the captive members have not been tried as criminals, but held in detention I am not sure if any of that "falls between the cracks of international law". The current US administration argues this, but it does NOT absolve them from the passage in the Geneva Convention that I paraphrased, stating that when in doubt, prisoners must be treated as POWs until a court of law determines their status. I see no court of law determining no status of the prisoners. Why do you think that is? Could the US be aware that they do not have a legal leg to stand on? But yet, because their group leadership has declared war upon the US, they are also combatants and thus POWs. Wonderful. Now can you tell me why the US does not accord them POW status? But I do know that they represent a significant danger to the very civilization we have fought so hard to create and maintain... Agreed. IF they really are guilty as charged. We need courts to determine that, don't we? all for sodium pentathol/amital, sleep deprivation, and if necessary, taking their relatives into custody... Err... "taking relatives into custody"??? How is that consistent with not making the innocent suffer? , I'm not going to be overly critical of them, so long as they are not torturing innocents who have no participation/sympathy for these militants. You are thus renouncing your suggestion above that the prisoners' relatives can be taken into custody?