On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:41:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:05:27 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In
June,
the Supreme Court ruled that - despite the administration's
arguments
to the contrary - prisoners were entitled to challenge their status
as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.


Without delving into partisan politics, I was glad to see this
ruling.
If you are trying to convince the world that you are acting out of
morality, as we often do, then it is important to act morally, and
one
of the ways you do this is by honoring international treaties and
conventions on matters such as these - even if your opponents do not.



BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States -
to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to
Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Precisely right.

It's only practical to abide by the Geneva Convention when you're
fighting
an enemy that is a signatory to the agreement, and actually abides by
it
themselves. Terrorists do not abide by the Geneva Convention, aren't
signatories to the agreement, and should not be entitled to its
protections...particularly because they themselves don't abide by the
accepted "rules of war".



Sorry. You either obey the law and treaties or you do not.

As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The
GC
specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states that
they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

That's a canard, a bull**** issue.


No, it's *the* issue. It wouldn't allow for liberal bitching and
whining however, so I can understand your comment.

Welcome back, JohnH!


That was a slip. Those in the know will know what a slip is. It's not
a slip for a boat. But, since the words are the same, it's boating
related.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message news:FHqkd.81248$R05.47381@attbi_s53...
Basskisser,
Have you noticed that most people are no longer starting OT political rants?

It makes for a much friendlier rec.boats.

Have you noticed that you are still getting involved in "OT political rants"?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:35:55 -0500, JohnH wrote:


As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The
GC specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states
that they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

That's a canard, a bull**** issue.


No, it's *the* issue. It wouldn't allow for liberal bitching and whining
however, so I can understand your comment.

Well, then perhaps we should get it right. "Illegal combatants" are not
covered under the Third Geneva Convention, but they are covered by the
Fourth Geneva Convention. They are afforded rights, just not the same
rights afforded "legal combatants".

Yeah, but I am not starting any.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message
news:FHqkd.81248$R05.47381@attbi_s53...
Basskisser,
Have you noticed that most people are no longer starting OT political
rants?

It makes for a much friendlier rec.boats.

Have you noticed that you are still getting involved in "OT political
rants"?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:07:53 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:35:55 -0500, JohnH wrote:


As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The
GC specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states
that they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

That's a canard, a bull**** issue.


No, it's *the* issue. It wouldn't allow for liberal bitching and whining
however, so I can understand your comment.

Well, then perhaps we should get it right. "Illegal combatants" are not
covered under the Third Geneva Convention, but they are covered by the
Fourth Geneva Convention. They are afforded rights, just not the same
rights afforded "legal combatants".

And they're getting them. So. Stop whining. Tell us about your last
fishing trip. Did you catch anything worthwhile?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 10 Nov 2004 05:33:40 -0800, atl_man2@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped the crap.

Some judges are dip****s.
Some people are dip****s, also, thinking they know more about the law
than a judge, who has been to law school, worked for law firms for
years, then been in public service for years, and has the opinions of
many other judges, and politicians.

How big is that Chapparel?
17'-6"

What kind of engine are you running?

135 hp Evinrude.