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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (160510)	2/10/2003 5:59:33 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

According to the newspaper [LA Times], army officers who were frustrated that their recommendations were being ignored decided to circulate a list of 49 Afghans and 10 Pakistani prisoners they wanted released or repatriated. The list included street vendors, taxi drivers, farmers and several men suffering severe mental health problems. While no names were provided, many of the men were kidnapped by bounty-hunting Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan border. One young detainee was captured in a border town where he had lived and worked for 20 years. He had no connection with the Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Did you read the article? A lot of these guys were picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters so they could make some money. The army officers said 59 fit this category.....we released 6 one of whom was 100 years old. I guess he won't be doing too much spying.....ya think? Its unbelievable that we as a nation have to stoop to this kind of crap. ted

To: TimF who wrote (160510)	2/10/2003 6:19:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

At least one general said these guys were nothing but guys who got hijacked by the Taliban. How many despotic regimes don't force people to fight for them. So when they're 16 we keep them locked up indefinitely? If we can be really sure that some Afghanis where forced in to it and are apparently not terrorist types of violent fundmentalists maybe we can consider letting some go esp. if the situation in Afghanistan improves, but I think no Al-Qaeda should be let go, and the Taleban soldiers only if it can be really solidly determined that they where unwilling. When there is any doubt (and more often then not there is) I think we have to lean on the side of not releasing them. Also its quite possible we might release them in to Afghan custudy only to see them abused or killed... Now I remember why Rumsfield did not want to call them POWs and comply with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention calls for them to be tried by a court of law. unhchr.ch I can't load your link. If that is true then the Geneva convention is rutinely violated not just by the "barbaric countries" but by almost anyone at war. Certainly we didn't put the Nazi's and North Koreans, and Chinese and Vietnamese Communists that we captured on trial. That's odd......I don't understand why you couldn't load my link....I just checked it and it worked fine. I did find this link - www1.umn.edu I didn't read the whole thing but I searched for "trial" and only found statements relating to the rights of a POW when they are put on trial for crimes. (Their detention as a POW is not considered punishment for a crime). Article 43. Acting in our country's best interests does not mean that people have to be treated badly or inhumanely. You seem to think one follows the other. I don't think that we are treating prisoners inhumanely nor do I think that doing so is in our nations interests. I also don't think your comment is relevant to my original statement as my original statement about acting in our best interest was not about prisoners but rather about potentially invading Iraq. I think its inhumane to keep these people away from their families particularly the ones who were nabbed incorrectly by bounty hunters. ted

To: TimF who wrote (160510)	2/10/2003 6:35:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577893

Tim -"We didn't sign a ceasefire agreement or other treaty obliging us to get rid of our WMD. Also there is the purely practical self interest of the US at stake. I see nothing wrong with acting in that self interest esp. when it is also reduces the threat to other countries." I highlighted what the Aussie was saying not because I necessarily agreed with him but rather was showing another example of sentiment outside the US. However, having said that, there is some legitimacy to his comments. We are setting ourselves up to be policeman to the world when no one gave us the job. Secondly, we have also become judge and jury......again without anyone's permission. These are dangerous precedents. You can argue that its good for America and what's good for America is good for the world. But thats all a load of trash........we are using our sole power to do whatever we want.......much like any belicose superpower. And let me ask you now that we have set this precedent in the world......why stop with dissident countries like Iraq. Why not bring that precedent on home? Why not round all the suspected criminals in our society, take their guns away and put them in jail. And then we could go after others......say like suspected pedophiles and other people we don't think 'fit' into society. There is no limit to what we can do with this precedent. ted