This has ample precedent in history: the Barbary Pirates for one.

Current Events » in reply to Do you declare war? How do you know when it ends?

This has ample precedent in history: the Barbary Pirates for one.

David F Mayer — 4/22/2004 12:58:12 PM (archived)

We hold those who we feel to be dangerous forever. We decide who is dangerous. One of the most amusing things about the Geneva Conventions is that there is no limit on confinement time for prisoners of war. After all, the left demanded that we treat them like prisoners of war. We should give in to this demand, because that means that we need never let them go, even though they have never been tried.

This is quite merciful, considering what Al Qaeda has been up to. Guess what happened to the Barbary Priates whom we captured?

David F Mayer

The whole thread (28 posts)

Sounds like a typical concentration camp...paid by your tax dollars. - Jack Herer - 4/20/2004 8:02:08 PM
- More on the SCotUS argument - Fox - 4/23/2004 10:42:51 PM
- Gitmo is an abomination.... - Publius - 4/21/2004 1:02:41 PM
- They should be declared to "Prisoners of War" and held for the duration. That is the proper thing to do by international law. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 4/21/2004 1:18:22 AM
  - Al Qeada terrorists are not lawful combatants - Gary - 4/21/2004 6:00:24 AM
    - Perhaps, but we don't like summary executions. - David F Mayer - 4/21/2004 10:00:54 PM
    - "undue mercy" means they weren't summarily executed? - alcaray - 4/21/2004 5:23:17 PM
  - What "war"? - Bowser - 4/21/2004 1:52:34 AM
    - The war against Al Qaeda. - David F Mayer - 4/21/2004 10:04:36 PM
      - Do you declare war? How do you know when it ends? - Bowser - 4/22/2004 12:06:48 AM
        
        This has ample precedent in history: the Barbary Pirates for one. - David F Mayer - 4/22/2004 12:58:12 PM
        
        Absolutely barbaric. Makes us no different than the badguys. (n/t) - Bowser - 4/22/2004 7:37:07 PM
        
        What would YOU suggest? Letting Al Qaeda prisoners go? As long as Al Qaeda exists and continues to attack the USA, that is simply not feasible. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 4/22/2004 9:21:18 PM
    - re: war - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2004 4:17:43 AM
      - Legalistically, Bowser's point bears directly on Mr. Mayer's post. - alcaray - 4/21/2004 5:28:57 PM
        
        Wrong: That is exactly why it DOES work. It lets us hold them forever within International Law. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 4/22/2004 1:00:39 PM
        
        I hear you. But I think that's a circumvention of the law. - alcaray - 4/22/2004 4:16:45 PM
        
        The Geneva Conventions apply to all armed conflict, whether declared or not. - David F Mayer - 4/22/2004 9:24:12 PM
        
        You tend to speak in absolutes - alcaray - 4/23/2004 3:46:37 PM
      - Fallacy - Bowser - 4/21/2004 1:47:22 PM
        
        re: Fallacy - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2004 4:42:58 PM
        
        I just don't believe what you believe. - Bowser - 4/21/2004 5:07:43 PM
        
        Obviously. - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2004 10:29:11 PM
- "The most important theme in all the cases is the power of the president to conduct a new kind of war as he sees fit." - Lindy - 4/20/2004 9:39:23 PM
  - re: "The most important theme in all the cases is the power of the president to conduct a new kind of war as he sees fit." - Publius - 4/21/2004 12:39:31 PM
  - Good analysis... - Derek - 4/21/2004 12:41:35 AM
- It is, but it's "ours". - Bowser - 4/20/2004 9:28:58 PM
  - re: It is, but it's "ours". - Derek - 4/21/2004 12:49:57 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (28 posts)