The Geneva Conventions require prisoners to be held safely out of harm's way, and prohibits siting them in the line of fire, to prevent use of prisoners as human shields. In the course of apologizing for the situation, the author inadvertantly points out another violation of the Geneva Conventions. Basically saying it's their own damn fault for being Iraqis in the line of fire of other Iraqis is uncomfortably close to saying that they're human shields."
I can't believe that you are really this stupid. It's similar to blaming Americans for 911. The Terrorists are violating the Genveva convention, by making the prison part of their war zone. If the coalition were to move the prisonors, then the terrorist wouldn't have any interest in attacking in this location. We aren't putting the prisoners in a war zone, the terrorist are creating a war zone at that location because that is where the prisoners are.
Current Events » in reply to Some defenses are better than others
re: Some defenses are better than others
The whole thread (17 posts)
- Kerry, drawing on his Vietnam experience, explains his Iraq exit solution.
- By the way, what's Bush's? After he finds the WMDs, of course. (n/t)
- Win. Even if France doesn't want us to. (n/t)
- Define "win" in realistic terms. I thought it meant finding WMD.
- re: "win" in realistic terms.
- If Bush had found 5,000 nuclear missiles, our action of preemptively invading a nation on the basis of imminent threat would have been true.
- re: "win" in realistic terms.
- Define "win" in realistic terms. I thought it meant finding WMD.
- Win. Even if France doesn't want us to. (n/t)
- BTW, I don't blame Kerry or his staff for this one.
- By the way, what's Bush's? After he finds the WMDs, of course. (n/t)
