Replies

I've read it, read your posts, read your stream of consciousness profile, and it seems like you are a nice guy with an unusual set of beliefs. Your analysis of the Geneva Convention is wayyyyyyyy wrong. I've read it and written legal briefs about it, with historical footnotes and all that jazz.

I did not say that the sole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to protect civilians, but the provisions regarding uniforms and not using civilians as shields and so on were, and these terrorists are not covered.

I did not say that the sole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to protect civilians,
Didn't mean to put words in you mouth sorry, look like that was what you said.

My difference is no so much with how we treat terrorist - I'll agree that they are not covered, but more so with how we determine who they are when we are fighting in a nation, aganst an enemy, where it is a bit difficult to tell at times who the enemy is.
In a "police round-up" type operation we no doubt get quite a few terrorist. It is also enevitable that we will also get a few who are not.
Unless we know, (by previous encounter, or by directly catching them in the act), we are just speculating who they are.
If we arrest those who are not terrorist, then they would (and I think you may even agree with this) be covered under the fourth agreement.
Suspicion of, or close proximity of our enemy is good enough to arrest and remove. It is not, as I see it, enough to subject them to a military tribunal and potential execution.
My point earlier is that there is no way that 100% of the time those we suspect are in fact, the enemy. That's all I'm saying.

Cordially,
GE

Upon further study, I found that in 2005, the Congress exercising it's Constitutional authority to limit the court, withdrew authority for the SCOTUS to have jurisdiction over these matters.
While I personally feel this unwise, it is the law of the land. I still standby my views expressed, but in this case, if my information is correct, the "ruling" has no legal status because the Court had no Jurisdiction.
The Military is free to proceed.

Cordially,
GE