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: aladin who wrote (115022)	9/16/2003 5:05:45 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In international law, there is no definition of "illegal combatant". This term has only a negative definition: they are not POWS or criminals (both of whom have well-defined status and rights), not the subject of any treaty, they have no rights and no protection. They are not on U.S. soil, not subject to our Constitution (or anyone else's). They are just NOT. <So on a practical level, how would their treatment differ if we conferred them POW status?> For the prisoners in Guantanamo, actually, it wouldn't necessarily make all that much difference. Since we are still at war with Al Queda and the Taliban, we would not have to release them (until the end of the conflict). We would stop doing "torture-lite" at Guantanamo. We would stop "rendering" them, handing them over to nations who we know torture and kill prisoners (and, of course, we should stop doing this ourselves at Bagram). We should release the handful of children at Guantanamo. But almost all the prisoners could still be held, under pretty much the same conditions as now. Although, for the conscripted Taliban foot-soldiers, no harm would be done by releasing them, imo. The main benefit would not be for the prisoners. It would be for us, our foreign policy, and our national security. Ignoring the Geneva Conventions has been one (unfortunately, only one of a list) of unilateral actions we have taken, that have estranged our natural allies. It would be easier, for the Brits and Canadians and New Zealanders to support us, if we followed the rules, and were a team player. We would have far more respect in the world, and would perhaps not be losing the HeartsAndMinds campaign so badly, if we set a good example, instead of the reverse. Recently, the Iranian secret police murdered a Canadian citizen. 10 days later, after an international outcry, they made arrests. Later, they released the murderers, on some technicality. No further arrests have been made. They are doing "further investigations", a synonym for "burying it" (in all senses of the term). The world looks at this, and looks at what we do at Bagram and Guantanamo, and can't see any difference. Which is why polls in so many countries say the U.S. is the main threat to world peace. Unless our Hegemony is Benign, we will not be allowed to rule the world.