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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (660934)	11/16/2004 10:43:19 PM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 769670

The answer lies in the definition of combatant campusprogram.com Anyone who failed to meet the criteria for combatant is an illegal combatant.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (660934)	11/17/2004 2:14:02 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

I see no disagreement, LL. You are skipping past the determination of status phase, right to the conclusion that POW status is not justified. (I agree with you that it appears POW status is not justified... but --- just as in the US one is considered 'innocent until proven guilty', under the Geneva accords combatants are to be granted all the considerations and protections of POWs, UNTIL they have been ruled to not be legal combatants.) One cannot skip the 'status adjudication stage', even though there need not be all that much of what we expect to see in modern civilian trials to meet the Geneva requirements... in WW II relatively small-scale military hearings were all that was necessary to fulfill this requirement. campusprogram.com campusprogram.com