a country called Terrorism. Its more of a methodology than a territory.
Moreover its also somewhat of an ideological thing - those terrorists who
agree with us are Freedom Fighters (trumpet fanfare please) while those
freedom fighters who do not agree with us are terrorists. That said it may
be that the Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan are being "illegally" held as
they were the army of the current Afghani government when the coalition
invaded.
As for O'Reilly, he's no expert on the Geneva Conventions, shows a very
shallow understanding of it, and ignores the provisions for civilians and
combatants not in uniform. There are very strict definitions as to what can
be considered a lawful combatant in the various protocols.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:05 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Question
>
>
> Was watching O-Reilly last night on Fox, and he said
> something to the effect that if the US had officially
> declared war on Terrorism (I dont know how you do that), but
> if they did, then people picked up that are actively fighting
> us, but are not wearing official uniforms are not subject to
> the rules of the Geneva Convention.
>
> What's youre take on the situation?
>
> Seems to me that an arguable case could be made that in a
> country-less army like Al Queda that whatever clothes they
> are wearing, that those are their uniforms. And that the
> classic definition of sabateur may not apply.
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
