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: Ilaine who wrote (121240)	6/21/2005 1:18:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793718

I thought the point raised by Pavel Litvinov was a good one. The US tells the Arab world that they should be more like us, because our system is better. Why give them a reason to think otherwise? Because this isn't a real debate. Giving concessions to anti-Americanism will just make them alight on something as next week's "gulag of our times". Our system is better. Our system does not say that captured terrorists must be treated like American criminals, when they are combatants not criminals; no case can be made against them due to the nature of their organization and they would have to be released. The Geneva conventions does not say that captured terrorists must be treated like POWs either, and asked for name, rank and serial number. It is significant now that we find quoted some Red Cross interpretation of the conventions which claim that there is no category under the conventions besides civlian and POW, clean contrary to a straightforward reading of the fourth convention, which defines lawful combatants and gives an example of a saboteur as an unlawful combatant. If the standard is that America has to fight perfectly, with no mitigating circumstances allowed, and naturally no demands on the other side, then America is in trouble.