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 (24626)	7/20/2006 10:19:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541344

You didn't say it, but you implied it with Message 22637885 I said "It doesn't make sense for us to have some third party to decide who is and who is not a combatant in a war." You said - "Breathtaking insularity. International treaties are not confected solely by "third parties" who strive to dictate to us against our will." If we have no treaty obligation to have any hearing in front of any third party in regards to captured enemy combatants, than my statement has nothing to do with violating or ignoring our international treaty obligations, despite your implication that it does. Edit- You also implied it with "No, we don't have the unilateral right to define who is and is not a "combatant" in a "war." " Message 22637577