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 (125053)	7/13/2005 2:33:06 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793862

Forget POWs. They aren't POWs. You're on the wrong track. In 1942, in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court held that it's ok to try unlawful combatants by a military tribunal. Last year, the Supreme Court held that the detainees in Guantanamo must have their status reviewed by military tribunals. The rights I listed govern the way military tribunals operate.

To: TimF who wrote (125053)	7/13/2005 2:46:14 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793862

Just to be clear, I am aware that the detainees in Guantanamo did get military tribunals, over the strenuous objection of the Bush adminstration, but they did not get the fundamental due process rights I listed. And that, in my opinion, was illegal. They are entitled to these rights, not because of who they are, but because of who we are. America is the greatest country on earth because we adhere to the rule of law.

To: TimF who wrote (125053)	7/13/2005 4:40:04 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793862

Getting back to the original question. What due process rights did enemy POWs get in WWII? You might find a reading of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions helpful. For a more complete understanding of the rights WWII POWS had, it might be helpful to read the post WWI versions (1929 I believe). Then read the the post WWII version (1949) to see the differences as they apply today. In order to get to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted himself according to the laws and customs of war as defined in the documents. With very few exceptions...the only one I know of has to do with certain guerrilla fighters...those not adhering to the laws and customs are not eligible for POW status and the protection it (supposedly) provides. Those not eligible (but captured by us while involved in hostilities against us) are treated and afforded protection within our laws if they are in the US. Outside the US, we treat them humanely. Most other countries do not. Summary execution of eligible POWs often happens. Summary execution of non-eligibles is routine in many countries. All of this of course has nothing to do with the current crop of terrorists. They do not meet the requirements for POW status.