exactly... I can see the difference but I think it's setting a dangerous precedent to say that we don't have to treat these people like people...therefore we won't. And the POW analogy applies to some extent, ie these people will presumably work against us if we let them go, but then they should be handled with the same acountability as POW's...
Dana On 7/3/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > we don't have to allow > > this so therefore we don't. I believe the excuse is security > > That's the danger - power tends to corrupt. Allowing the State to > jail people without due process is corrupt. The POW argument is > valid, but only in times of war which have typically been times of > invasion. > > For example, WWII was declared over when the Germans were expelled > from foreign countries and faced the razing for their own country. > > The "war on terror" isn't that type of war. By its definition it been > happening forever and will continue forever so normal POW rules don't > apply. > > You have to ask why the POW rules were in place to begin with: an > attempt to force our enemies to treat our soldiers with the civility > we were fighting for. What are saying to the world if we capture > prisoners and throw them into a black hole? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Flash for programmers - Flash MX Pro http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=56 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162748 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
