Dan Minette wrote:
Jeffrey wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> But, they did not use these methods. Rather, they dressed as civilians and
> used civilian airplanes as weapons.
>
> The Geneva convention can be seen as having a twofold purpose. It is to
> regulate how warfare is waged as well as how prisoners are treated. AQ
> violated the conventions rules on waging warfare, thus they are subjected to
> penelties that do not exist for those who follow the rules of warfare.
>
But you don't really address the question. Its understand that they
don't qualify for GC treatment. Jeffrey asked why shouldn't we
afford them humane treatment not what legal justification we had for
not doing so.
And if we are treating them humanely, what is the argument against
at least some degree of public scrutiny?
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration." A. Lincoln's First Annual Message to
Congress, December 3, 1861.
