Why not negotiate with the insurgents? - they're not terrorists, Condi

[rivertext]

By definition terrorists attack innocent civilians -- not capture soldiers in battle (or mercenaries).

On a more practical basis the reason for not negotiating with terrorists who hold civilians hostage is that it is so easy for terrorists to capture civilians that you don't want to encourage that sort of thing.

On the other hand it is very difficult to capture heavily armed soldiers who never travel except in a group, have quick access to reinforcements and who sleep in a fortress. All that exchanging hostages will do is encourage the insurgents not to kill the few of our soldiers that they do capture. What is Condi's or Bush's problem with that? Are they sacrificing our soldiers lives to the fiction that the war ended a year ago?

[wtmusic]

1. oh they're all freakin' words anyway

insurgents, terrorists, paramilitarists (remember that one?), fedayeen, whatever. Anything but ordinary people defending their own country.

We'll certainly never hear our heroes described as 'invaders' or 'conquerors', which is far more accurate.

[Mikimouse]

2. PLease note, however...

that the press has been very careful NOT to use the word capture when describing the actions of the Mahdi army. They constantly use the word kidnapped, a term which carries with it a far more heinous implication. Ah, yes, the wonderful world of semantics.

[AZCat]

3. Aren't our guys being held actually P.O.W.s?

I don't know the operating definition of a P.O.W. so I am asking for clarification from those DUers who know this stuff.

Aren't the military (at least) personnel being held by the Iraqis actually P.O.W.s, as compared to their commonly described status as kidnappees or hostages?

[Bridget Burke]

4. Definitions have gotten hazier....

What about the men imprisoned in Guantanamo? Prisoners of War?

What Geneva Conventions?

[AZCat]

5. This Tuesday the SCOTUS will hear arguments about one of the Gitmo cases

Interesting stuff from an AP article at www.findlaw.com

Major Terrorism Cases Await High Court

By ANNE GEARAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Within the space of a few days this month, the Supreme Court will hear major cases challenging the death penalty, White House secrecy and the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects.

The justices finish hearing cases for the term in late April and then begin the work of cranking out dozens of rulings before the session ends in late June.
<snip>

The next day the court hears two cases about the legal rights of foreign fighters held indefinitely at a U.S. military prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration claims the prisoners cannot challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court will release an audiotape of that argument immediately afterward, so it may be used in news coverage. No television cameras are allowed inside the courtroom.
<snip>

So at least we'll have audio to analyze and debate, even if the ruling isn't released until this summer.