loathesomeshrub
(669 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-11-04 10:27 AM
Original message |
Is Afghanistan a war? Then why are the detainees not POWs? |
|
Makes me spitting mad that the right wingnuts made so much of how Clinton tried to disseminate words like is. They love to show that. But what do they call it when everyone keeps saying that we are in the middle of 2 wars, (which of course we keep forgetting because the assholes have concentrated so much attention on Iraq that Afghanistan is like a second thought, instead of the more important of the 2)but yet Rumsfeld has no problem refusing to give the people that were transported to Guantanamo from Afghanistan pow status. If this is a war, then they are pows. Period. But there's the double standard again. As long as its not the Democrats doing it, it isn't wrong! Charges should be brought against Rumsfeld at the Haig for his total disregard and disdain for the wellbeing of people, most of whom may be innocent of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
fryguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-11-04 10:44 AM
Response to Original message |
1. its verbal gymnastics and semantics |
|
my understanding of the rules of war (a bizarre enough notion in and of itself) is that POWs are those people who are part of an organized military force in conflict with another and are taken prisoner at the time of battle. because there is no longer an Iraqi or Afghani army opposing the US - the repukes are good at keeping the label "insurgent" tossing around - the people who are captured are non-lawful combatants.....
basically rummy, chimp and company are making up excuses to allow them to do whatever the hell they want....
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 05:50 AM
Response to Original message |