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: Lane3 who wrote (23915)	7/13/2006 9:51:11 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541281

If we eschew a viable alternative we should have a clearly articulated reason. How about the rest of the world will think we are such obsessed loons (fighting "wars" against tactics and enemies who never go away) that we lack the stature to act as a world leader on any issue? We are already part way down that road now. Another thought - throughout the Cold War, did we ever capture Russian or Cuban advisers on Asian or African battelfields and hold them as POWs until 1990? Nope. Even though they were directing troops who often harmed our troops and our allies.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23915)	7/13/2006 12:08:42 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541281

Because we've always done it that way Nuh-uh. Geneva Conventions require a hearing on status. Not a full trial on guilt or innocence, just a hearing on who they are and why they're being locked up. I believe there's an exception if all agree that they're POWs. If they aren't POWs they need to be tried for committing a crime or released. If they are POWs they can be held until the end of hostilities, but not indefinitely. I know people have been arguing about this for years but SCOTUS has spoken. If you want to argue, maybe Justice Kennedy is up for it.