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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (6730)	2/9/2004 8:49:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

You might as well argue that mafias/pirates or other organized criminals deserve POW status. You mean they don't???

To: Brumar89 who wrote (6730)	2/16/2004 12:26:16 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Sorry for the late reply, but: Terrorists do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; do not carry arms openly; and do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The only thing listed which terrorists comply with (possibly) is the commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;. Even that is debatable. You might as well argue that mafias/pirates or other organized criminals deserve POW status. I don't think you have even read my post. (1) Most of the detainees of Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan, as they were fighting with (or resisting to) US forces. That is a very weird definition of "terrorist". It does, however, fall under Article 4 (1) "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. OR Article 4 (6) "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units". What you are talking about re "carrying arms openly" and "distinctive sign" etc is in Article 4 (2) of the Geneva Convention. Persons belonging to ANY ONE OF THESE CRITERIA are covered by the Convention. All of this, of course, I wrote in the post you replied to. So my question is: Have you not read my previous post, or are you just evading it? Another point you have chosen to ignore is that the Geneva Convention states very clearly that if any doubt arises as to whether or not detainees are POWs, they shall enjoy POW privileges until a tribunal decides on their POW status. Which means you cannot lock up people for two years and say they are not POWs anyway. And I asked you a question, which, again, you have ignored. Here it is: >>>We did, however, treat captured Iraqi soldiers in the recent war as POW's and that was correct.<<< What, exactly, in your opinion, is the difference between the Iraqis captured during the invasion of Iraq who fought US forces and the Afghans captured during the invasion of Afghanistan who fought US forces that one merited POW status and the other didn't?