Dan Minette wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeffrey Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:21 PM > Subject: Re: Egg on my face (was Re: Treatment Of Prisoners) > > > > I'd like to see us (the US) have a consistent moral stand in this - what > > possible reason could we have for not affording them the full rights of > > POWs and human & sensitive treatment? > > As far as I know, if they had followed the "if" clauses, and attacked the > WTC and the Pentagon with conventional bombers flown by pilots wearing > uniforms, then those pilots would not be subject to prosecution. The > Pentagon is certainly a legitimate war target, and if factories are > legitimate targets, I'm guessing that the WTC would be too. After the end > of the war, we would be required to free them unless they did something > besides attacking these two targets.
So one possible reason we could opt for a legal interpretation versus a moral interpretation is to be able to hold them afterwards, or otherwise subject them to our system of justice (military or otherwise)? I suppose moral vs legal isn't a good phrasing, but I think they should receive the same treatment as a POW even if they're not - the odd hedging about "they don't deserve the same rights" that Rumsfeld spouted months ago seems to be coming true, and I can't imagine how it plays abroad. > But, they did not use these methods. Rather, they dressed as civilians and Are our SpecOps subject to treatment as POWs then, if they're not wearing the uniform? > > Note that I'm not saying that humane treatment isn't the case, but > > between the military tribunals, the questions surrounding the issue of > > human treatment raised by watchdog groups (who admittedly are more than > > a little rabid, for good reason) we need transparency, openess, and > > compassion. Either we are morally correct in this or we're not - its > > hard to say how just we're being if we're hiding those actions. > > I thought the Red Cross/Red Cresent will have access to the prisoners. 2 weeks after they arrive, and only after fairly intense pressure from human rights groups and the RC for access. Again, I can't imagine how that looks. > > What about flipping it around? What if the Taliban/AQ/Forces of Evil > > managed to shoot down a helicopter and took the pilot prisoner, and > > didn't treat them as a POW as outlined in the GC? Wouldn't we be as mad > > as a nest of hornets? > > If our soldiers were treated in a similar manner, I would be extremely > thankful and surprised. Remember, they promised to drag them through the > streets. ..and did in Mogadishu. (No, I haven't watched Black Hawk Down yet, and I don't really plan to. I found the book to be enlightening, but don't feel the need to ingest the rah-rah feel-good fest the movie is widely reported to be, Ridley Scott or no..) > I'm guessing that Jeffery will not respond to this. If my last post sounded > a bit short, the reasons for AQ not qualifying as POWs under the Geneva > convention have been given several times. The last time, I quoted the > convention. This wasn't even adressed in the origonal comment. Too many people around here have been using terse, angry words designed to bludgeon other people into silence. Instead of making themselves feel good at the expense of other's intellectual exploration, they should, in a polite and civil arena, foster vigorous yet respectful debate, presentation of facts that others do not have access or exposure to, and general good will. If I missed your quotes of the GC before, it is because I only read every 4th or 5th message these days - too often its yet more vicious pro-/anti-Israeli arguments that go something like this: "Israelis did ____" "Well Palestinians did ____" "I'm right" "No, I'm right" "Ha! You just said I'm right!" "No, you misunderstand." "Sorry" "That's okay, I'm right." -j- > > Dan M. -- Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
