Ken,

> turn them loose and find them again on the battle field as
> has happened with some that were turned loose in the
> past.

From what I know of the Geneva Convention, it applies to all or none
of combatants captured in combat situations.  If we are truly at war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these people were captured in those
theaters of operation, then it should apply, shouldn't it?  If they
were captured on US territory, then the Supreme Court has held (for
the last 50+ years) that the constitution applies.

I'm not saying that the don't deserve to be held accountable for their
actions, just that we need to apply the same rules to them that we
would to similar combatants or criminals.

Kendall

On 10/27/06, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> i do not think these guys meet the description to
> have the geneva convention apply. and i do not think
> they should have contitutuitional rights conferred on
> them. i think if we could get their home countries to
> take them they should be turned over to their own
> governments for trail. but, many of their countries
> don't want them either. the other things to do is turn
> them loose and find them again on the battle field as
> has happened with some that were turned loose in the
> past. the other is to use the law that just passed the
> congress.
>
> --- "Kendall D. Corbett" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > If the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere are
> > prisoners of war,
> > then the Geneva convention should apply.  To me
> > "waterboarding" sounds
> > like a violation of Geneva. Wasn't it (or something
> > very similar)
> > done by the VietCong in the 60's and early 70's,
> > with a loud outcry
> > from the military and public at that time?
> >
> > If the captives are not prisoners of war, shouln't
> > US lawe apply,
> > since they are being held on American soil?  (US
> > bases are, in effect,
> > US Territory)
> >
> > Finally, what happened to the Judeo-Christian
> > precept of two wrongs
> > not making something right, or the truism that "An
> > eye for an eye
> > makes both blind"?
> >
> > Kendall
> >
> > Who doesn't think _anyone_ can have it both ways,
> >
> > On 10/26/06, Mike Collis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Republicans are shooting themselves in the feet.
> > What is going on? Ken, do
> > > you have any idea?
> > >
> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15431835/
> > >
> > > -----------------------
> > >
> > > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> > >
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy