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 (24496)	7/19/2006 2:27:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541327

No, we don't have the unilateral right to define who is and is not a "combatant" in a "war." A combatant is a combatant. If they are fighting they are a combatant. There has never been any issue of putting people captured in war in front of an international tribunal to determine if they are really combatants. No one operates that way. So the decision is made by the country that captures them. Even if there is judicial review our federal courts are part of the US government and part of the US determining who is a combatant. There is no treaty or even commonly accepted practice that suggest that anyone else gets to review the decision in some formal way and that we have to follow the determinations of the review. If we get in the habit of sweeping up innocent people, than there may be protests, from street level protests to high level diplomatic protests. We might pay attention to such protests. If we really are sweeping up a bunch of innocent people it would probably be good both in a practical and moral terms for us to pay attention to the protests. But there is no requirement in any treaty signed and ratified by the US, for us to change our policy because of the protests.