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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (23905)	7/13/2006 9:07:51 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541274

In a war that cannot and will not have a measurable end, POWs could theoretically be held forever with no legal rights other than combatant status. So we end up as permanent jailers anyway. I suspect even some of the hardcore neocons aren't ready for the US to run permanent gulags. So they need some legal cover to do something with the baddies they locked up. The whole thing is starting to look like a drunken game of Twister.

To: Ilaine who wrote (23905)	7/13/2006 9:35:57 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541274

Whereas, it seems to me, your position is that fair trials are for nobody. If we're going to have trials, I don't question for a moment that they must be fair. If you think otherwise, you are misreading me. If you concede that they were "captured on a battlefield" you're conceding that they're prisoners of war, and prisoners of war cannot be tried except for war crimes. Combat, in and of itself, isn't illegal. Indeed. That's a well established notion. So why don't we "want to go there"? There is no civilized country on earth that allows locking people up and throwing away the key without some kind of trial, first. Of course there are. We did it in all our wars. We didn't throw away the key. I understand the point about throwing away the key. But the key always has been and would continue to be the end of the war. I find myself quite unable to determine the basis for your argument that persons "captured on the battlefield" can be locked up arbitrarily forever. Because we've always done it that way, therefore we can again. I'm not arguing that we should, only that it's an alternative that should be explicitly argued and decided, not skipped over. If we eschew a viable alternative we should have a clearly articulated reason.

To: Ilaine who wrote (23905)	7/13/2006 10:29:22 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541274

I find myself quite unable to determine the basis for your argument that persons "captured on the battlefield" can be locked up arbitrarily forever. I see now that some of our more rightist brethren have found a quicker solution: don't capture them, kill them on the spot. Now why didn't we think of that?

To: Ilaine who wrote (23905)	7/19/2006 12:34:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541274

If you concede that they were "captured on a battlefield" you're conceding that they're prisoners of war, and prisoners of war cannot be tried except for war crimes. 1 - Your not conceding that they are prisoners of war. There is a long tradition of pirates and others who make no effort to follow the "rules of war" not being treated the same as regular prisoners, and even being subject to summary execution. Not that I'm recommending summary execution of the prisoners at gitmo, but they don't necessarily qualify for full prisoner of war status. 2 - Even if they are to be considered prisoners of war, than there is no need to try them for anything. You hold them in to the conflict is over.