"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:51:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that
far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of
our
defensive capabilities?

i don't think they are. they are not signatories to the GC. they do
not wear uniforms. while i agree they can be tried in federal court,
i don't think they're covered by the GC

I don't know the law well enough to make a definitive statement. I doubt
anyone here can. My impression is that they don't need to be wearing a
uniform or be signatories, but I could be wrong. In any case, it's about
human rights, and how we treat the worst among us that defines us as a
people.

i've read the relevant sections of the GC. it does say that only
recognized governments can be signatories (which therefore excludes
the taliban which was recognized by almost no one). and it does say
soldiers, to be protected, have to wear uniforms.

human rights are a separate, but broader area. i agree they deserve
humane treatement. the cheney crew forgets that, if we abandon law
for 'enemy combatants' there's nothing to stop us from doing so for
american citizens. we're americans. we're a people of law

Someone here was recommending taking them as prisoners of war, thus
recognized war, thus GC? Who knows. This has nothing to do with Rudy's
demand that we torture the Underwarer for some period of time, I suppose to
satisfy Rudy's bloodlust.

--
Nom=de=Plume