|
well... the case really isn't a clear departure from the geneva conventions. it is a very ambitious interpretation of existing law that a bit self-serving. it could be a violation, but it hasn't been proven as such yet.
this is the gray area i'm talking about. with something as vital as human rights on the line, there must be no confusion or room for interpretation subject to political whims. the government is taking a small area of international law and doing something with it that it probably wasn't intended to even though there is no law spelled out against it. a fleshing-out of these kinds of vagaries would be helpful i think.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|