skippy the bush kangaroo: what part of "wrong" is confusing these people?

Thursday, May 18, 2006

what part of "wrong" is confusing these people?

..."there is a debate over the difference between a prisoner of war under the geneva convention and an unlawful combatant in a situation that is different from the situation envisioned by the geneva convention." rumsfeld told the senate appropriations committee's defense subcommittee. "and those issues are being wrstled with at the present time"... [yahoo! news]

ho-kay...

the third geneva convention covers prisoners of war, and it basically says that pows shall be treated humanely. which means you can't sic german shepherds on them; you can't strip them and handcuff them to railings in contorted positions; you can't shove feeding tubes down their throats if they don't feel like eating; you can't attach their testicles to a diehard battery; and no, you can't beat them to death either, too bad. i think rummy has obtained a grip on this concept, though, going solely by his choice of words. good thing, too -- he needed a miracle in his life bad.

unlawful combatants, captives who aren't defined as pows, are covered under the fourth geneva convention. they are described as those who, "at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals." nationals of countries not bound by the convention and citizens of neutral or allied countries in such conflicts are excluded from protected person status -- and this, apparently, is what the wrestling marathon is all about.

for which i propose a simple solution: adhere to the third geneva convention anyway, and avoid looking like a clueless @$$#o!e before the members of a senate subcommttee later.

(full version at incredulous blogwhore's medley...)

posted by Jim Yeager at 2:58 AM |