| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Someone who makes sense
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a 'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257 Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send terrorists here. Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles. -- Nom=de=Plume 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. 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? Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of terror. Such a good liberal you are. Listen dummy... he was not stopped before he got to the US. He's not a battalian, he's one person. He broke Federal law while in US territory. He should be tried in a court of law. The best way to proceed, the one with the most likely positive outcome is Federal Court. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far? Makes no difference. That wasn't the point. It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument. You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our defensive capabilities? Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however. Again, totally the point. 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. No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing something right. No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual argument. Exactly. Just a statement of fact. Yes, that your diabribe is lacking. That's certainly a statement of fact. Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your head out of Cheney's posterier. Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally. Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney. Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet you approve. ?? Cheney is a criminal and a liar with zero credibility. Obama is the president. Why don't you blame the Shoe Bomber on him. Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any chance? Drop dead (metaphorically speaking of course). -- Nom=de=Plume |
Someone who makes sense
"thunder" wrote in message
t... 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. Ah... my mistake. I was thinking unlawful combatant. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Someone who makes sense
nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a 'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257 Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send terrorists here. Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles. -- Nom=de=Plume 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. 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? Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of terror. Such a good liberal you are. Listen dummy... he was not stopped before he got to the US. He's not a battalian, he's one person. He broke Federal law while in US territory. He should be tried in a court of law. The best way to proceed, the one with the most likely positive outcome is Federal Court. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far? Makes no difference. That wasn't the point. It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument. You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our defensive capabilities? Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however. Again, totally the point. 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. No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing something right. No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual argument. Exactly. Just a statement of fact. Yes, that your diabribe is lacking. That's certainly a statement of fact. Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your head out of Cheney's posterier. Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally. Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney. Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet you approve. ?? Cheney is a criminal and a liar with zero credibility. Obama is the president. Why don't you blame the Shoe Bomber on him. Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any chance? Drop dead (metaphorically speaking of course). Why metaphorically? Herring serves no useful purpose. The world would be better off with fewer right-wing racists like herring. Herring: drop dead. |
Someone who makes sense
On 1/9/2010 3:40 PM, Jim wrote:
John H wrote: On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote: On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote: And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!! A woman went to her doctor for advice. She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she was not sure that it was such a good idea. 'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.' The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?' 'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?' -- John H. You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you like receiving it? Projecting, Harry? -- John H. "The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control." I think Harry is trying go get hooked up. If I could get it up, I would try to get hooked up too. |
Someone who makes sense
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H
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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google) |
Someone who makes sense
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 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. |
Someone who makes sense
"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 |
Someone who makes sense
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:51:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. i've read the relevant sections of the GC. it does say that only recognized governments can be signatories (which therefore excludes the taliban which was recognized by almost no one). and it does say soldiers, to be protected, have to wear uniforms. human rights are a separate, but broader area. i agree they deserve humane treatement. the cheney crew forgets that, if we abandon law for 'enemy combatants' there's nothing to stop us from doing so for american citizens. we're americans. we're a people of law |
Someone who makes sense
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:51:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. i've read the relevant sections of the GC. it does say that only recognized governments can be signatories (which therefore excludes the taliban which was recognized by almost no one). and it does say soldiers, to be protected, have to wear uniforms. human rights are a separate, but broader area. i agree they deserve humane treatement. the cheney crew forgets that, if we abandon law for 'enemy combatants' there's nothing to stop us from doing so for american citizens. we're americans. we're a people of law Someone here was recommending taking them as prisoners of war, thus recognized war, thus GC? Who knows. This has nothing to do with Rudy's demand that we torture the Underwarer for some period of time, I suppose to satisfy Rudy's bloodlust. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Someone who makes sense
On Jan 9, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. |
Someone who makes sense
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. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Someone who makes sense
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:30:31 -0500, Jim wrote:
On 1/9/2010 3:40 PM, Jim wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote: On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote: And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!! A woman went to her doctor for advice. She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she was not sure that it was such a good idea. 'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.' The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?' 'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?' -- John H. You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you like receiving it? Projecting, Harry? -- John H. "The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control." I think Harry is trying go get hooked up. If I could get it up, I would try to get hooked up too. Well, slammer, you sure got the last part right. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Someone who makes sense
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 9, 8:23 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. And the broken record continues to play. |
Someone who makes sense
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. |
Someone who makes sense
D.Duck wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Jan 9, 8:23 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. And the broken record continues to play. Your broken record isn't any different...you come here only to snipe. |
Someone who makes sense
Harry wrote:
D.Duck wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Jan 9, 8:23 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. And the broken record continues to play. Your broken record isn't any different...you come here only to snipe. Gotcha... |
Someone who makes sense
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. But since he's not, send him over to my house. I'll figure out something to do with him. You remember the address? 2015 something. Sheesh. I forget the rest. |
Someone who makes sense
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. |
Someone who makes sense
|
Someone who makes sense
|
Someone who makes sense
|
Someone who makes sense
"John H" wrote in message
... 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? 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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Someone who makes sense
"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 |
Someone who makes sense
nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... 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? 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? Now loogie has to get in the game spoofing mizz plume. your loogie logic is unmistakable. |
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. |
Someone who makes sense
On 1/10/2010 9:20 AM, D.Duck wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Jan 9, 8:23 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. And the broken record continues to play. Of course, I have nothing to add here. I just whine. |
Someone who makes sense
On 1/10/2010 9:48 AM, D.Duck wrote:
Harry wrote: D.Duck wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Jan 9, 8:23 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:44:15 -0800 (PST), John H 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. how many cop cars do we have in yemen? 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? the last time that happened was in 1812. please let me know if it happens again, m'kay? Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war, which is what the little ****ers are. 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. bush tried richard reid, the shoe bomber, in federal court. so why you bitchin' about obama? (Sent through Google)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Because Obama is a liberal, which can do no good ever, and Bush is a conservative which can do no bad ever. That's John's M.O. And the broken record continues to play. Your broken record isn't any different...you come here only to snipe. Gotcha...But all I have to offer are snipes about other posters. |
Someone who makes sense
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:14:31 -0500, BAR wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:05:06 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote: On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote: And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!! A woman went to her doctor for advice. She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she was not sure that it was such a good idea. 'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.' The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?' 'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?' -- John H. You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you like receiving it? Projecting, Harry? He's jealous. I mean I'm jealous. Spoofing's a real mental bitch. -- America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. John H |
Someone who makes sense
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 |
Someone who makes sense
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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 It's a complicated problem. I think transferring them to the prison in Illinois is a good first step. He's going to close Gitmo, but it's going to take longer. Every day it remains open is bad for the US. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Someone who makes sense
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 |
Someone who makes sense
On Jan 11, 10:11*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... 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 It's a complicated problem. I think transferring them to the prison in Illinois is a good first step. He's going to close Gitmo, but it's going to take longer. Every day it remains open is bad for the US. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some of these right wingers are just militant fools. They don't realize, for instance, that a greater percentage of convictions of terrorist have come from non-military courts than from military courts. Could it just be that the AG wants to ensure conviction? No, he's a liberal, and liberals just want whats bad for the country...... |
Someone who makes sense
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 It's a complicated problem. I think transferring them to the prison in Illinois is a good first step. He's going to close Gitmo, but it's going to take longer. Every day it remains open is bad for the US. Sure it is. So why did Obama jump in front of his teleprompter and promise that the Gitmo detention center would be closed within a year as his first "declaration" after he was sworn in. He had/has no idea how to do it the right way. That has been his MO from the beginning. I'm not convinced there is a need at this point. Bruce (Catching up on posts) |
Someone who makes sense
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... 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 It's a complicated problem. I think transferring them to the prison in Illinois is a good first step. He's going to close Gitmo, but it's going to take longer. Every day it remains open is bad for the US. Sure it is. So why did Obama jump in front of his teleprompter and promise that the Gitmo detention center would be closed within a year as his first "declaration" after he was sworn in. He had/has no idea how to do it the right way. That has been his MO from the beginning. I'm not convinced there is a need at this point. Bruce (Catching up on posts) Wow... you're not convinced! Call the presses. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com