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: Lane3 who wrote (87195)	11/19/2004 2:23:54 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793801

I don't understand why it's up to the Constitution to decide how to treat foreign combatants. We're already party to the various Geneva conventions, at least I assume we've ratified them, so unless we unilaterally abrogate them, we must abide by them. Which should not be any problem, as far as I can tell. The Geneva Conventions lay out who are enemy combatants, and if a captured person doesn't fit the rules, then they simply don't apply. This means Al Qaeda, for sure. Interpretation of who the treaties do and don't apply to is a job for courts, not Constitutions. Even if the Constitution were amended, it would still have to be interpreted by courts.