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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46791)	5/25/2004 2:06:09 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793972

I read it at the time it came out and started to post it here but decided it was a waste to do so. It's not essential to go to the Geneva Conventions or any other international law to find prohibitions against mistreatment of prisoners. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, I posted, verbatim, the text of several provisions in the United States Code which prohibit United States nationals from engaging in these acts. The reason I bring this up is that uw posted an article by someone who argues that the Geneva conventions only apply when the opponent adheres to them. That's a tarbaby of relativism I'd sooner avoid. The actions were illegal. The perpetrators are being prosecuted. The apologists have egg on their faces, or worse, but refuse to admit it. End of story. The cherry on top is the fact that the military prosecutors, who are most familiar with the cases, said that the actions violated the Geneva Conventions. These lawyers are not political appointees who need to cover their butts, they are career civil service. No political axe to grind, no spin.