"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

"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

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.

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.

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)

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.

"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

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

"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

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.