At 14:16 11-1-02 -0800, Richard Crawford wrote: >I do not believe that there is ever a time when it is acceptable to toss >out the principles on which our country is based; in wartime, in fact, I >believe that such principles are even more important to hold on to.
My thoughts exactly. >What bothers me the most is really Secretary Runsfeld's comments on how >the prisoners will be treated. They won't be treated as POW's, he says, >because they aren't *technically* prisoners of war; they weren't part of >military units, they weren't wearing uniforms, etc. Hm. That sounds as if Secretary Rumsfeld is holding a double set of standards. The bombings by AQ were called "an act of war", the US launched a full-blown military operation (read: went to war) against Afghanistan for it, but once the people responsible are captured, they are not prisoners of war. It makes me wonder if this is an attempt to dodge some international treaty. My first guess is that by considering them non-military prisoners, they can be sentenced to death and executed, while executing prisoners of war probably is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
