On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:47:08 -0500, Bruce wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:33:01 -0600,
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?

Don't know. Can you figure it out? If so, give the CIA a call.


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

And, I wonder where your head is stuck... no don't answer, it's obvious.


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

So, he shouldn't be tortured then. To whom or where should we return him?



That's the problem. Even Obama doesn't have an answer yet Gitmo was
supposed to be a ghost town over nice months ago!

Bruce

He shouldn't be tortured, nor should he be returned. He should be
placed in a POW camp.

Guantanamo would be ideal. Take away the prisoners' air conditioning,
TV's, and saunas first. Try to make it more 'homey'.
--

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

John H