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 (4956)	3/4/2003 7:55:40 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

- We are for free markets and free trade, but watch as we decide to severely limit steel imports to protect our domestic industry Actually that's an area where criticism doesn't seem unfair. - We rigorously enforce international treaties we see in our benefit (WTO) and undermine others that don't have a profit for us (ICC, Kyoto) The US hasn't committed to the ICC or Kyoto treaties. This is an area where I see we are being bullied by others. Though I'm not sore about it. - We are the defenders of human rights but we can keep people indefinitely without charging them with anything, denying them Prisoner of War status through invention of half-baked terms like "unlawful combatants" that don't mean a thing for the Geneva Convention. Yes. Nevertheless the information we have gotten from the terror detainees has allowed us to capture others. I'm sure you noticed the recent capture of a major Al Qaeda figure. There have been a number of such captures over the past months. If we were to give them the status you describe we would get no information from them. What we're doing is what is necessary to prevent Americans from being slaughtered in future attacks. The war with Al Qaeda is a unique affair not like other wars. The detainees are not soldiers of a state we are at war with. What did the serious consequences UN resolution 1441 threatened mean? Unlike you, I am not so sure it meant "war". In any case, I believe the UN is more than able to decide for themselves what they had meant. Sec. of State Powell negotiated 1441 and he thinks it meant war. I believe him.