Skip to comments.
Detainees or POWs?
National Review ^
| 12/24/2002
| Mackubin Thomas Owens
Posted on 01/24/2002 11:40:25 AM PST by stop_fascism
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 last
To: piasa
Thank you. That was great. Since they are not POWs, does that mean we have to pay to hold these people indefinately, since it does not seem that they would be repatriated once hostilities are over?
21
posted on
01/24/2002 2:47:18 PM PST
by
BikerNYC
To: piasa
It is in the interest of all nations and parties which abhor terrorism to preserve the Geneva Convention for the protection only of those personnel who behave as disciplined soldiers from responsible states or parties, rather than as terrorists which act irresponsibly. This is neccessary to make terrorism as unpalatable as possible- and to make lawful tactics the norm. We must not blur the distinction betwen terrorism and legitimate warfare.Exactly, it's the difference between feeling & thinking, or as Rush puts it Symbolism over Substance. The unintended consequence of these liberals getting thier way could be the destruction of the Geneva Convention.
Great post.
To: stop_fascism
If Gore had won, yes. Gee, maybe there is a difference after all. :-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson