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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (103568)	3/10/2006 6:37:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

On the one hand you don't want people to be held indefinitely if they may have done nothing wrong, or at least if it can't be proven that they have been. OTOH it really isn't reasonable to put prisoners captured in war through the full American court process. Typically prisoners captured in war are held to the end of the war. Of course the problem in this case is the war doesn't have a simply foreseeable end. Its not like we can take some capital city and have everything be over and done with. Because Mr. Bush does not recognize that American law or international treaties apply to his decisions as commander in chief, these prisoners were initially not given hearings. International treaties do not generally require hearings for captured enemy. If you want to convict them of war crimes, or other crime then there will have to be a hearing, but captured enemies aren't imprisoned because they are accused of committing a crime but rather for being part of an enemy force. It was simpler when most of our enemies wore uniforms and served in identifiable units.