"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow.



Putting on a uniform would make them lawful?

That'd be one step in the right direction.



Fighting an enemy with no uniform, with that enemy attacking from dwellings
and places of worship in urban settings is indeed a daunting task. Add to
that the fact that these nutcases strap bombs on themselves to commit mass
murder and our troops are often under the order of not to shoot unless being
shot at. Too bad some tend not to realize these extreme hurdles our troops
have to overcome. The fact that the civilian and coalition troop death toll
is as low as it is is indeed amazing.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow.



Putting on a uniform would make them lawful?

That'd be one step in the right direction.



How about secret decoder rings?

"Rick" wrote in message
...


Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

They're Americans. They're above the rules.

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Rick" wrote in message
...


Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

They're Americans. They're above the rules.

Such contempt you have for your own people.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow.



Putting on a uniform would make them lawful?

That'd be one step in the right direction.



How about secret decoder rings?

Nope. That'd make them spies. And spies aren't protected by the Geneva
Convention.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:38:13 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and
hiding in civilian buildings.


Call them terrorists or illegal combatants, it's irrelevant. We, George
Bush included, do not determine whether the Geneva Convention applies.
That duty has historically and formally been entrusted to the
International Committee of the Red Cross. Perhaps you would like to read
what they say:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aq_feb2004.htm

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256C5400268136

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Rick" wrote in message
...


Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

They're Americans. They're above the rules.

Such contempt you have for your own people.



No, dr. I just see things for what they are, instead of seeing the world
through some rose-colored glasses that are scratched and covered with 30
years worth of fingerprints.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.



Well, they ARE armed, and our government has huge contracts with the
companies which provide these mercanaries. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that, but don't claim that "unlawful combatants" come only from
evil sources, OK?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:24:36 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:38:13 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and
hiding in civilian buildings.


Call them terrorists or illegal combatants, it's irrelevant. We, George
Bush included, do not determine whether the Geneva Convention applies.
That duty has historically and formally been entrusted to the
International Committee of the Red Cross. Perhaps you would like to read
what they say:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aq_feb2004.htm

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256C5400268136


From the first source: "The information contained in this report is based an
allegations collected by the ICRC in private interviews with persons deprived of
their liberty during its visits to places of internment of the Coalition Forces
(CF) between March and November 2003."

Of course, all these persons deprived of their liberty are upstanding,
trustworthy folk, right?



John H

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