I hear you. But I think that's a circumvention of the law.

Current Events » in reply to Wrong: That is exactly why it DOES work. It lets us hold them forever within International Law.

I hear you. But I think that's a circumvention of the law.

alcaray — 4/22/2004 4:16:45 PM (archived)

It circumvents because Geneva is supposed to apply to wars with beginnings and ends.

And it may not even be legal depending on exactly how Geneva is worded. I'm not going to look it up and apply my mighty legal talents (not!) to the problem, so don't bother challanging me to do so.

Anyway, I would like to see this tried out. Because at least it would make a legal assertion about these people's status that could be tested in court.

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)