"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?


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.

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.


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.

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.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.
--

John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

John H wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.

You don't need to filter Plum. She is here with you in your space, as
your guest. She should leave if she doesn't like the company.

"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

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 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.

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.

Miss de la plume stated she is an attorney. You wouldn't want to be
advising her on the law, would you?

"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

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.

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.