"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:23:41 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:33:01 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if
he
flew in on an American airliner.
How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is
not
well defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?
Actually, enemy, or legal, combatant is rather well defined, as are the
protections given to them. Which is why, the Bush administration
devised
their new terminology, "unlawful combatant" to avoid those protections.
John, as per usual, is playing fast and loose with his definitions.
This
last perpetrator does not meet *any* of the definitions of a "lawful
combatant" under the Geneva Conventions. If he did, he would have
protected status, and could not be held personally responsible for
violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws of war.

With whom are we at war? Was this individual a member of that group
performing a mission in accordance with the group's objectives?

You liberals need to get your heads out of the sand.

His 'protected status' should be in accordance with the protections
accorded prisoners of war.

I think the guy should be allowed to complete his mission inside one
of those bomb detonation chambers on wheels. Or forced to spend the
night with nom de plume.

If given the latter, he'd be begging for waterboarding!
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.


Poor Jim. He's so constricted. Looks like you can relieve him.

--
Nom=de=Plume