"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.