Someone who makes sense
On 1/10/2010 9:23 AM, 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. Me, I'll just continue to spoof harry's ID here.
|