At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat)


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

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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/

"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?..