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: carranza2 who wrote (118114)	10/30/2003 6:22:56 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

c2, that was a masterful summation of the criminals and combatants , POW's and Geneva Convention. Thanks for such a concise overview picture.

To: carranza2 who wrote (118114)	10/31/2003 2:30:36 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Hello carranza2 , ken, the distinction between criminals and combatants is fairly clear, as are the reasons why they are treated differently. Message 19450356 Thank you for preparing that clear and informative post. --fl

To: carranza2 who wrote (118114)	10/31/2003 1:01:24 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

>>I don't think we need to accuse them of a " crime. "<< crime against humanity? Date: 1945 : atrocity (as extermination or enslavement) that is directed especially against an entire population or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility even on such grounds hate crime? Date: 1989 : any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation) war crime? Date: 1906 : a crime (as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with war -- usually used in plural - war criminal noun or merely the generic - crime ? Date: 14th century 1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law 2 : a grave offense especially against morality 3 : criminal activity <efforts to fight crime> 4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food> Exactly what are each individual prisoner being held against their will for? Regardless of how you,me, or anyone else wishes to define " crime ",you should not hold prisoners indefinitely without reason.There has to be a reason other than " they are all terrorists ". Israel currently holds in the vicinity of 5000 people in their jails without an officially documented charge ever having being made. Do you believe that a governing body can merely state that you are a criminal or combatant by assertion of association or by having bad thoughts, and then incarcerate you without trial? Where does the line get drawn? Who draws the lines? Can retribution for their perceived crime against them be equally considered or even justified as collective punishment? Can those in what they perceive as an occupation of their lands and lives be considered criminals if they revolt? If that is so,then the American Revolution itself was a criminal act. I know it is easy to simply state that from " our " perspective ( point of view )they are indeed criminals, since the British likely used the same term to describe America's revolutionaries ,America's heroes today. But in today's World where foreign forces occupy or have huge military control over lands far away,not recognized as theirs, are we now to believe that everything America stood for and fought against is not applicable to those who fight against America within their own ideology? >>To sum up a wordy post, the reason POWs are not treated as criminal defendants is that they are not generally considered criminals under international law.<< Correct. >>Why the need to counsel, bail, to a trial by a jury of their peers, and all the rest of the procedural safeguards we afford criminal defendants, if there is no criminal accusation and no punishment imposed upon them other than the legally sanctioned incarceration during the time the conflict exists?<< Therein lies the crux of the ideological conundrum. The " War On Terror " in a misnomer. Using the term " War " to describe a broad based conflict of ideological and maybe religion based( among other ) positions of contention, leaves the door open for all involved to hide behind the auspices of War under the generally accepted Geneva Convention when it is in their interest to do so, and not, when it doesn't. It is not a War...never has been..never will be. It is a conflict of ideology. Another wordy post to bring another perspective to your nicely written ( wordy )post.<GGG> KC