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

Quote of the Day by Alberta's Child
1 posted on 01/16/2002 9:56:50 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JohnHuang2
Rights groups also note that the Geneva Conventions specify that in cases of doubt, a prisoner taken in a military conflict should be presumed to be a formal POW "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Sounds logical to me. So convene the tribunal and determine their status. Shouldn't take long. It's not like they have the civil rights of an American citizen.

2 posted on 01/16/2002 10:07:32 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
The Red Cross is on my blacklist, as of now. No more blood, no more money. Generations of donations end here. Get your lucre elsewhere, you communist pigs. We will do what is necessary, and to hell with you.
3 posted on 01/16/2002 10:13:42 PM PST by cincinnati_Steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
I'm really confused now. If what they did to the towers in NY was an act of war as has been stated time and time again, how can they not be POWs if they were captured in a massive military operation? What does "illegal combatants mean?
4 posted on 01/16/2002 11:54:13 PM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
We should be detaining a few of these Human Rights groups, too.
13 posted on 01/17/2002 1:45:49 AM PST by Caipirabob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
" By saying that the status of the prisoners at Gitmo are "in limbo," this article is repeating the legal lie put out yesterday by Amnesty International and days before by the International Red Cross. There is clear law about the status of these prisoners, and the government's use of the phrase "illegal detainees" reveals that status. There is a 20-page, unanimous Supreme Court decision, written in plain English, that makes crystal clear the status of these prisoners and the trials that await them. ……" posted on 1/17/02 4:40 AM Pacific by Congressman Billybob
14 posted on 01/17/2002 3:52:38 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
Al Qaeda irregulars clearly served under the auspices of the Taliban regime. That should entitle them to the status of POW's but it doesn't absolve them of any criminal activities. POW's can still be tried as war criminals so I'm not sure why Rumsfeld is so ambiguous on this.
15 posted on 01/17/2002 12:24:28 PM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
I just love how the liberal-socialist-commie-nazi crybaby whinebag slimeball asswipes love to back the poor, downtrodden, murders of 3,000. I say we give these liberals to the Taliban and let them deal with them.
16 posted on 01/17/2002 12:26:48 PM PST by RetiredArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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