Dan Minette wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags
From an article on "POW's or Unlawful Combatants"
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html
You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the
International Red Cross has to say:
"The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants'" In it
the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined
by the Third Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War"), they still deserve more limited
protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") and
the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of
protection do they deserve.. Do they deserve protection against
unpleasantness, as do real POWs? Is anything that could be called
undignified unacceptable. Take the case in Time magazine. If this is the
extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners
(like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must
Or must what, Dan?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
