Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Defiant; GrandEagle
It won't fix the idiocy of declaring terrorists who are not attached to any army or nation to be covered by the Geneva Convention.

GrandEagle thinks they are covered.

93 posted on 06/29/2006 2:58:06 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: Toddsterpatriot

GrandEagle is wayyyyy wrong. I've read the Geneva Convention. They are not covered; I haven't yet read today's decision, but from what I have read the court did not claim that the terrorists are covered under the convention, either. They used an "international law" argument to extend the Geneva Convention's rights to all military prisoners. Of course, this is a violation of our own constitution in many ways, as well as a breach of the intent of the Convention, which was made to protect civilians from the horrors of war by giving combatants obligations to wear uniforms and stay away from civilians. Do those things, and be part of a national military, and you get protections.


94 posted on 06/29/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by Defiant (MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson