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: TimF who wrote (125026)	7/13/2005 1:15:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Tim, I know that POW means "prisoner of war." My question was, which side? Do you mean Germans and Japanese we captured, or do you mean Americans they captured? If you mean Germans and Japanese we captured, yes, the laws of war did cover them. The US military is the oldest employer of lawyers in the country, since the Revolutionary War. One of the old treatises still in use is Grotius, 1814. constitution.org Google "laws of war". You might want to limit to "World War II". This subject on the PBS website looks helpful. "The 1899 Hague Convention's Annex devoted eighteen of its sixty articles to laying out the treatment and maintenance of prisoners of war." pbs.org I am sure Germany ratified that treaty, don't know about Japan. Edit: yes, Japan ratified it.

To: TimF who wrote (125026)	7/13/2005 2:09:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Everybody pretty much agrees that Al Qaeda isn't subject to any international treaty, so we have to figure out what to do with them. This is a given. Kholt and I were just basically batting around ideas about what to do with them. The point I was trying to make, eons ago, and this horse has been beaten to death, is that the US military, which has many, many lawyers, and does things "by the book", will have to write a new book for these birds, but the rules will still be rules, and if the rules are broken there have to be consequences, and there has to be someone neutral to go to in order to ensure that the rules are followed. The right of habeas corpus exists even in times of war. The Civil War suspension was later deemed unconstitutional. The argument that foreigners don't have the right to habeas corpus even when they are in US custody is one that I don't believe is going to fly.