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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

"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