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: zonder who wrote (1797)	1/6/2003 9:59:17 AM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Courts of law (military tribunals) have held that these people do not fall under the GC. Other provisions of the GC have different definitions of who and who is not covered. We disagree here, as I said we will not change each others minds. Best bet, get your Euro-buddies to take us to the Hague for the terrible acts we are doing. We don't disregard the GC, we read it differently. The convention is not something read, one sentence at a time, but as a document in its totality. About the dollar, interesting BUT I still don't see how the US fairs worse than the other major currencies. I think the real estate bubble you are alluding to is minor if it exists at all. I think the economic problems of the US relative to debt are trivial compared to the problems with debt we faced in the early ninties. I still see more problems in Europe and in Japan. I believe that the dollar will bottom shortly if it hasn't already and will begin to turn itself around, but I'll admit that this may be wishful thinking on my part and not backed up by any technical or fundamental analysis that I can hang my hat on!

To: zonder who wrote (1797)	1/6/2003 2:11:45 PM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, unlike you. When I don't know, I don't try to interpret documents I could not understand anyway, but look for experts to provide answers with context as appropriate. WRT to the Geneva Convention situation I looked at the 'Council of Foreign Affairs', not as prestigious as you, but I'll take their take on things. Without spin here it the link: terrorismanswers.com From this I read that Taliban are universally considered to be GC bound bur others are not.

To: zonder who wrote (1797)	1/6/2003 3:11:05 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

zonder, please excuse my intrusion into your discussion but do you have a reference where the Geneva Convention clearly states that WHEN IN DOUBT (as we clearly are now): 1) A court of law should decide whether there is POW status or not I only find that the Geneva Convention states that the issue is to be decided by a "competent tribunal" which is not necessarily a court of law. Would the issue not be decided by a panel of officers (tribunal) from the capturing country? I don't know, but I would think that this determination would be made before shipping prisoners to Guantanamo.