In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:59:03 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

............. except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's. Now, where does that leave your argument, Dave?

If you accept the argument that POWs may be detained until after hostilities
have ended, it strengthens the argument. As irregular combatants refusing to
observe the laws of war, these people, when captured, are certainly entitled
to no greater rights to be freed than a regular enemy soldier would be, and
probably lesser rights.

Your Govt has denied that they're POW's, Dave. Fact. Stop squirming
about. All you've written above is off point.

If they *were* POW's, the behaviour of your Govt violates the Geneva
Convention on treatment of captured soldiers. Which is why the US has
been so vehement that they're not holding POW's.

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them. Why don't you just admit
that fact?

"lesser rights". It was people like you who helped remove fundamental
protections from those who needed them most in the past. You would have
been looking for ways to lock up the Nisei and confiscate their
possessions in WW2.

Years ago, in one of Bob Brownell's books on gunsmithing, there's a
quote that has always stuck in my mind. It was to the effect that you
don't act like a gentleman because the other guy is (or isn't), you act
that way because you *are* one. Transfer that concept to human rights
and the rights under law and your Govt's behaviour is damn shabby, your
rhetoric hollow, and your commitment to equal treatment under the law
shown for the farce most people suspected.

I personally am disappointed.

PDW