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 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 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.

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.

On 1/8/2010 3:41 PM, John H wrote:
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



Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 3:41 PM, John H wrote:
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



Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 3:41 PM, John H wrote:
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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.

Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 3:41 PM, John H wrote:
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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I
don't see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is
as much of an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.

The ID spoofing has nothing to do with snappy remarks. If it were, you
and your co-ID spoofers on the right would have been disqualified in the
first round.

On 1/8/2010 6:12 PM, Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 3:41 PM, John H wrote:
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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I
don't see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is
as much of an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.


Let's be real here. Neither you nor I have ever posted a "snappy remark"
in rec.boats.