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: William B. Kohn who wrote (1824)	1/6/2003 2:19:23 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, unlike you. That is a pathetic excuse of a comeback. Let us not forget that you DO claim that there HAS BEEN a tribunal, which DID decide that the prisoners were NOT POWs, right? >>Courts of law (military tribunals) have held that these people do not fall under the GC<< siliconinvestor.com Can you tell us why you felt the need to make this up, Mr Kohn? You see, we all know that nothing of the sort took place, AND the link you have given only says "Experts disagree". We also know what GC says about when there is doubt - courts must decide on prisoners' POW status and they enjoy POW status until courts give their decisions. Right? Now can you or can you not tell us why you lied about courts of law having decided on POW status of prisoners? And then you accuse me of thinking I am an "expert on everything". How sad...