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 (124150)	7/13/2005 12:25:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Specifically POW refers to people who are formerly prisoners of war. Did they receive any "due process"? "Illegal combatants", are basically the same thing without some of the protections granted by treaty to those who meet the standards for prisoners of war. But illegal combatants were not a major part of WWII. If you can think of any examples of the illegal combatant issue coming up in WWII or in other previous wars that would be great but I can't think of any so the question refers to formal POWs. There is some equivalence of terrorists to spies or pirates who had no international protection, but the difference is that spies or pirates where often tried for specific crimes (even if they normally had less protection and less extensive due process then criminals in America today) and punished as criminals, rather then being interned for being part of a "pirate organization". In that sense "illegal combatants" are more like prisoners of war. No one tried captured enemy soldiers. They took them prisoner rather then killing all the enemy soldiers who surrendered (or using other ways of dealing with them that used to be common but would now be considered unacceptable such as selling them in to slavery) Tim