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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (80682)	3/9/2003 1:36:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't have a problem with attempting to establish a rule of law for the treatment of unlawful combatants. It's a much better idea than trying to pretend that unlawful combatants are already covered by the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Since it is extremely unlikely that the rules could be established by mutual negotiations, I suppose what would be established would be a list of things that would constitute crimes against humanity, e.g., torture, which would have to be defined. Which raises before me the memory of poor William Buckley, the CIA chief of station who was tortured to death by a man with ties to both Iran and Al Qaeda. I don't believe that radical Islamists believe it's morally wrong to torture Christians or Jews, nor the wrong flavor of Muslim, so I don't suppose they'd sign on for a prohibition of torture. Do you? But at any rate, I think it's worth debating whether American government employees should be able to do the same. After all, we don't allow federal money to be used to provide abortions, so there is precedent.