Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
The POWs there are not mistreated, and they should not see trial until hostilities are over.
|
That's even a double self-contradiction in that sentence. First, the POWs are no POWs, and second: if they were POWs they would automatically qualify for access to legal rights and protections - that to deny them was the
explicit goal when declaring they were
no POWs.
Now read carefully, it does not happen often that I quote Faux News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44169,00.html
Quote:
Still, Bush said, those being held in Cuba are not prisoners of war. Ambiguity about whether a captive should be considered a prisoner of war requires a special three-person military tribunal to decide, the Geneva Conventions say. There is no ambiguity here, the administration says.
The POW designation would confer an array of rights on the terror suspects.
Under the Geneva Conventions, it would entitle them to trials under the same procedures as U.S. soldiers -- not through the military tribunals the administration has authorized. The conventions also require captors to pay prisoners advances on their military salaries, and make soap and tobacco available.
In April 1999, the United States government insisted that three U.S. Army soldiers captured by Yugoslavia near the Macedonian-Yugoslav border were prisoners of war and were covered by the Geneva Conventions. The three were later released unharmed.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said Bush, who repeatedly called them "prisoners" and then caught himself to refer to them as "detainees."
"And the reason why is al-Qaida is not a known military," Bush said. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries."
|
Even the Republican's own propaganda channel had it right this time back then. So what are you trying to rewrite history here, eh?