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: zonder who wrote (6985)	2/17/2004 8:34:27 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

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. Al Qaeda are not part of the armed forces of a nation. And the Taliban they were fighting with was not an armed force of an internationally recognized government either. I've previously dealt with 2. Al Qaeda wouldn't meet that 6 either. They weren't inhabitants of Afghanistan. The Guantanamo detainees come from many nations. I understand Saudi citizens are the larget group, but there are also Pakistanis, British and French citizens, etc. And I resent that statement. My "advocacy" is for THE POSSIBILITY that some of those people might have NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda, a point we will NEVER be clear on unless they have access to lawyers and courts. Even you cannot have missed that the US turned loose quite a few of the Quantanamo detainees. Let's try to think for a minute - What does that MEAN? Answer: That not all detainees are Al-Qaeda. The fact that the US has released a bunch of detainees ought to demonstrate that the US isn't trying to hold innocent persons. And that when investigation shows them to be innocent, they are released. Treatment of the detainees as POW's would hamper investigation. What is the first thing a lawyer tells a client? Keep your mouth shut. We'd never get anymore information from them and in fact asking them would be forbidden. "Article 17 Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information." The fatwa Osama bin Ladin issued calling on Muslims to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can is well known. And the resulting religiously based commitment of these Al Qaida members to fulfill the fatwa is equally well known. And that means what? That the US should forget all law? That because it is under attack by crazies, US should get crazy as well? I am outraged that you are looking for legal loopholes to set these people free so they will be enabled to commit future attacks on my country and my people. The Geneva Convention is NOT a legal loophole. It has come into existence for a good reason. And the US has signed it. Now, it has to obey it. Yes, US is under a new threat. No, that is not an excuse to disregard a treaty they have signed. And no, that does not mean I am protecting terrorists who mean to cut your throat. We are debating on what the right thing to do is in the light of the Geneva Convention. Don't pretend ignorance. You and I both know the detainees in Guantanamo were captured on the battleground in Afghanistan. They didn't just sweep up people from the streets of Kabul or guys herding their sheep - if they'd done that there'd be hundreds of thousands of people at Guantanamo not a thousand or so. And they'd pretty much all be Afghan citizens whereas most are Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians, British, etc. The vast majority of the Guantanomo detainees are committed Al Qaida members - pledged to commit terrorism against America and Americans. While there may be a few innocents among them, those are released when identified as such. Here's what the POW angle is all about - setting them free: "RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES Article 118 Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. "