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: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/22/2003 9:26:32 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

READ KIPLING TO UNDERSTAND AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ story.news.yahoo.com

To: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/22/2003 9:31:10 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam trial may backfire mlive.com

To: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/23/2003 1:13:42 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thank you for telling us, John, and congratulations to Steven. May this be the beginning of things bright and beautiful for Steven and his family.

To: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/23/2003 1:15:41 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OT~~Hi John......Welcome back!!! You were missed...

To: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/23/2003 10:52:28 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi, John, good to hear you popping in. The thread has declined since your absence. I got the latest issue of FA last night, and didn't notice Steve's article. I did, however, read the article on the law concerning treatment of prisoners on the WOT. Unfortunately, for the first time, I have some rather severe (for me) criticism. The author is highly biased, is apparently not a trained lawyer, though he cites a few cases that support his thesis. He doesn't cite a pertinent 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager, on which the Ninth Circuit's dissenting judge properly relied in blasting his colleagues for allowing AQ prisoners the full panoply of rights. The law, as presently interpreted, properly in my view, is that an enemy combatant captured and imprisoned overseas cannot invoke US rules on due process because the territorial reach of the federal courts does not allow them to provide him with any relief. This is absolutely clear from Johnson v. Eisentrager. The author doesn't even mention the case, a huge hole in his argumentation. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com The author of the FA article also proposed a three-part test for determining whether aliens who are not part of a "war" should be given the full Geneva Conventions treatment that is a bit vaporous. The first two prongs of the test are fine (organization into combat plus a finding that the individual is a part of the effort) but the third, whether there is available "law enforcement" to deal with the individual is--tb will perhaps pardon me--ridiculous for its difficulty in implementing. A lawyers' dream of a test. Merry Christmas to you.

To: JohnM who wrote (121937)	12/24/2003 3:14:49 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 281500

Thanks John, that will be an interesting piece ... here is a link to the preview - foreignaffairs.org 'Summary: Washington has made the fight against radical Muslim separatists in the Philippines a critical front in its war on terrorism. But its one-size-fits-all approach reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of the problem -- and could make things worse. Steven Rogers is a journalist based in the Philippines. ...' Several more paragraphs on that page, then at the bottom there is a link, 'Purchase Article' .... i'll look for it on newstands, should be here by now ... never bought a copy of Foreign Affairs yet, an oversight more than anything, and this would be time to rectify it, Steven is a fine writer and certainly knows the scene there ... he had very detailed pieces posted on boondocksnet.com [sp?] years ago, don't know if they're still there but they were excellent background on filipina history Happy Christmas to all ..... and yes kumar, screw the PC euphemisms, that's from an agnostic who feels it makes great sense to celebrate the solstice, the renewal of years, using time-honoured social-bonding traditions whether they come from old belief structures or not ..... provided no one is planning on cutting out said agnostic's heart on a stone slab or something, i mean you have to draw a line somewhere