| |
|
Aren't the detainees the Americans are holding in Guantanamo (sp?) specifically, trans-nationals (non-Afghanis) who were fighting with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and thus loopholedby the Geneva Convention? Wasn't the same sort of trick was used in WWII by Germans holding the Russians afer they turned coat: since the Germans refused to diplomatically recognize the USSR's policy shift, Red Army captives were technically not POWs, and thus inaccessible to international aid organizations? I can't remember correctly anymore.
BTW, the Taliban are utter bastards, but was any clear association ever established between Al-Qaeda and them? Aside, of course, from the standard brown-and heathen connection. Did we have ANY right to go into Afghanistan, rather than work through their legal channels? I think not. I mean, the Taliban weren't exactly duely elected, and a lot of people will be glad to see them gone, but still...we're supposed to be the role model. What will the little countries think?
The whole thing stinks, and what really sucks is that the US has the economic leverage over so many international organizations that they can't really act effectively. We're the biggest kid on the block, so the "play fair" rules stop applying as soon as we say so--which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.
I always wanted to see those giant Buddhas and the accompanying inscriptions; I actually teared up when they said they destroyed them all.  They should cane the bastards who did that. Everyone else should be treated civilly, but I want a crack at those wankers.
P.S. as a passport-owning US citizen, I read my senator the fucking riot act. In person, no less. Which did precisely dick, 'cause I'm an anarchist registered to vote in Kentucky.  |
|
|
