Detainees or POWs?

National Review ^ | 12/24/2002 | Mackubin Thomas Owens

[BikerNYC]

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?

[cantbebought]

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.

[cantbebought]

If Gore had won, yes. Gee, maybe there is a difference after all. :-)