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 (7101)	2/20/2004 12:53:29 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Guess you have a problem taking no for an answer Guess you have a problem understanding the question. I asked you if you understood why Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo prisoners. I did not ask you which groups you think Geneva Convention is meant to "protect". (If that were the question, it would be a meaningless one, since it is not meant to "protect" any group) >>>Again, YOU DO NOT KNOW GUANTANAMO DETAINEES ARE ALL AL-QAEDA<<< I'm confidant that almost all are, perhaps every single one is. And HOW exactly are you thus "confident"? What do you know that the rest of us don't? Of course, you do not know that the Guantanamo detaines aren't all Al Qaeda Loads were released after 1-2 years, since they were not Al-Qaeda. Others are said to be about to be released. Ergo, not all still imprisoned are Al-Qaeda. See, one CAN have a conviction that can be explained. Now you try to explain YOUR conviction that they are ALL Al-Qaeda. 1) You maintain the GC's mean the US must give POW status to all the Gitmo detainees. No. To those captured while fighting in Afghanistan against US military. I said this very clearly before. Pay attention. 2) You agree that at least some of the detainees are AQ members. Probably. Although we will not know for sure until tribunals are held. 3) You admit that AQ members are to be considered terrorists. Yes. You can be the member of a terrorist group but still a POW, if you are captured on the battlefield rather than in civil life plotting to blow up a mall. 4) You agree that POW status would prevent the US from interrogating POW's beyond the "name, rank, SSN" level. Yes. Still, you must realize that any info Americans could not get out of Guantanamo detainees in two years (1) does not exist or (2) will never be disclosed. Conclusion: You believe the GC should prevent the US from interrogating detained terrorists. Wrong. See above. For additional clarification, Google "Logical fallacies".