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
 

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.

Someone who makes sense
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Determining whether someone is a lawful combatant is very easy. Use the
definitions of the Geneva Conventions.