"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap
about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them
realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the
other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or
elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to
the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will
not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor
in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e
those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's
not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply.
Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this,
are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.



Well, they ARE armed, and our government has huge contracts with the
companies which provide these mercanaries. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that, but don't claim that "unlawful combatants" come only
from
evil sources, OK?


I didn't.



So, if these mercanaries are dragged through the streets behind trucks, or
beheaded on videotape, you'll keep your mouth shut, right? RIGHT?