Re: Ineresting Editorial

["Mike Rush" <mike.rush@veriomail.com>]

I do not recall a referance to a 'state' in the convention.  When refering
to 'groups' in the convention they are referred to as 'High Contracting
Parties', 'government',  'an authority', or similar encompassing terms.

Take what you hear on the TV with a good sense of skepiticism (sp?).  I
think the news folks distill things down to something they think we
'simpletons' can understand.

Mike Rush


----- Original Message -----
From: <WMSteed@aol.com>
To: <suehovey@moscow.com>; <thansen@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Ineresting Editorial


>
> In a message dated 1/30/02 1:18:11 AM, suehovey@moscow.com writes:
>
> << one might consider their rights under the Geneva Convention, why we are
>
> not according them POW status >>
>
> My understanding from the media of the Geneva Convention is that it is
> between States.  For what "State" were these persons fighting?  Some, I
hear,
> are British, some, Saudi.  Were we at war with Britain or Saudi Arabia?
If
> so, they should be POWs and held under the Geneva convention until we end
the
> war with their home countries.  We certainly have not been at war with
> Afghanistan or Pakistan.  The interim leader of Afghanistan said yesterday
he
> is happy with the way they are being treated.
>
> Again, will someone please tell me which of their human rights have been
> violated?
>
> Walter Steed
>