At 11:04 AM 10/27/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> While it is true that the conventions say that *uniformed* POWs
>are only obligated to give their name, rank, and serial number, I can
>say that the US is the ONLY country ever to fully observe the
>conventions (though we have made some significant classified
>exceptions). Ununiformed insurgents, saboteurs, infiltrators, etc do not
>fall under this treatment, nor are they considered to be spies as
>covered under the US constitution. There is no Geneva convention for the
>treatment of ununiformed terrorists. A terrorist, by his very actions in
>operating without a uniform and targeting civilians specifically, thumbs
>his nose at ideas like the Geneva Conventions, human rights, etc. Thus
>they deserve none of the protections that combatants AND common
>criminals both enjoy.
OK, we're agreed that they are not POWs under the Geneva convention. I
still disagree with you about whether it would be a good thing to use drugs
in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Letting the authorities pick
up people, hold them, and give them mind altering drugs without a trial is
a very scary power for any government to have. I understand that federal
officials can generally be trusted not to abuse that power, but our
democracy hasn't survived this long by giving this sort of discretional
power to any group.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT