Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400,
> judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban
prisoner's were in fact
> >> >> denied their GC protections, by being
> tortured, mistreated, etc.,
> >> >> it's pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply"
> provision was the
> >> >> operational part of this order, and not "taken
> out of context quite
> >> >> badly". It's more reasonable to conclude that
> the other language
> >> >> was included as whitewash.
Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't
resist this one. Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy
combatants that wear no uniforms and commit acts of
murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may
be leagaly shot on sight. During the cold war, the
understanding developed that everyone has spies and
that if you don't kill mine I won't kill yours. Are
you old enough to remember that famous antiwar photo
from the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier
shooting a captured vietcong agent in the head? Under
the geneva convention, that was legal. Al Queda and
the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or
freedoms. We need to follow the rules because we are
who we are and need to stay that way if free nations
are to survive. Though there have been some abuses,
military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily
outside the rules when dealing with an organized
terrorist threat.
Reply to: