> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
