"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that
far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

i don't think they are. they are not signatories to the GC. they do
not wear uniforms. while i agree they can be tried in federal court,
i don't think they're covered by the GC

I don't know the law well enough to make a definitive statement. I doubt
anyone here can. My impression is that they don't need to be wearing a
uniform or be signatories, but I could be wrong. In any case, it's about
human rights, and how we treat the worst among us that defines us as a
people.


Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

cheny is nothing but a massive horsecock.


Don't defame horses. He's spineless and um...

--
Nom=de=Plume