Re: some U.S. observations and notes

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Dec 19 2001 - 21:35:43 MST


Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > Actually, they deserve fundamental protections simply as human
> > beings. If you don't think so then I don't see much point in
> > continuing this discussion. War criminals are actually brought
> > before high courts in most of the cases I know of. What
> > combatants? Supsicion is not being a combatant.
>
> You are apparently rather ignorant of history. Under the Geneva
> Conventions, a combatant caught in civilian clothes in a zone of combat
> is subject to summary execution, which has been used more often than
> not, it was not until Vietnam that one of these cases actually made it
> into the news, because prior to that the news media was fully aware of
> the Conventions and what they said.
>

History has little to do with a blatant disregard of the obvious
differences between the detainees rounded up in the US after
9/11 and any such situation as you outline.

> Prosecution of war crimes by combatants does not belong in civilian
> courts.

A lot hinges on who you label "combatants".

- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:28 MDT