In article .com,
Hatfield wrote:

All depends on whether they were in military uniform or not. Anyone in
combat on the battlefield who is dressed as civilian, or not otherwise
clearly displaying his side by recognizable military insignia, has
forfeited all his international rights, and is a criminal according to
international law.

That means that any group that's too poor to afford more than one
set of clothes will always be regarded as terrorists. How very
Republican.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
m II wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

If we called them terrorists, we would have to shoot them. Take your
choice.

I see you leave no option for open trials in a public court. Public servants in
a free society shouldn't have to hide everything they do from the tax paying
public. having gulags out of your country in order to circumvent your own laws
is NOT right or moral.

mike


They are not soldiers, as Iraq doesn't have a legitimate army now

Excuse me Iraq does have a legititmate army these days, we have spent
enough money training it

that their old movement is gone. That leaves terrorists or enemy
combatants. Take your pick. We can detain enemy combatants, while a
terrorist places no value on life. Not yours, mine or his. They are
cowards who think they will gain fame and glory by dying while killing
others. They are mentally ill. They do nothing productive for the rest
of the world. They kill people, destroy property and the lives of those
around them at every turn.

They are not citizens of the US so they have no rights on US soil.
They could only be tried for war crimes in the US. If they are freely
released back to Iraq, they will rejoin the fight. What good will that
do?

It IS A VERY GOOD IDEA to keep them elsewhere. They can't escape and
harm our citizens, or rejoin the fight. Or do you prefer the killing to
go on for decades? Do you know anything about how a military HAS to
operate to be effective, and minimize death on both sides of the battle
line? The last thing most soldiers want to do is kill. It affects them
for the rest of their lives and it can even drive some of them to
suicide, even though it was a kill or be killed situation.

Grow up, find a yourself a working set of balls and learn more about
the real world. It can be and quite often it is a deadly place. I
think that we waited too long to start rooting out terrorists. A lot of
people would still be alive if they were found and killed early on.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

an_old_friend wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


They are not soldiers, as Iraq doesn't have a legitimate army now

Excuse me Iraq does have a legititmate army these days, we have spent
enough money training it.


The people in prison are not part of what is to become a the new
Iraqi army. Yes, one is being trained but it still needs a lot of work
and I'm sure they don't want people they can't trust serving with them.

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~computersforvets/

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
m II wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


If we called them terrorists, we would have to shoot them. Take your
choice.

I see you leave no option for open trials in a public court. Public servants in
a free society shouldn't have to hide everything they do from the tax paying
public. having gulags out of your country in order to circumvent your own laws
is NOT right or moral.

mike



They are not soldiers, as Iraq doesn't have a legitimate army now
that their old movement is gone. That leaves terrorists or enemy
combatants. Take your pick. We can detain enemy combatants, while a
terrorist places no value on life. Not yours, mine or his. They are
cowards who think they will gain fame and glory by dying while killing
others. They are mentally ill. They do nothing productive for the rest
of the world. They kill people, destroy property and the lives of those
around them at every turn.


But that is exactly what a lot of the world thinks about the US now. Invading
another country that did nothing to deserve it, except for the sin of having
oil, was about as low as a government can go. I can see the Germans in WWII
calling the Polish resistance 'enemy combatants'. Calling something a name you'd
like it to be, doesn't make it so.

The attack on Iraq and Afghanistan was and is an abomination perpetrated by evil
doers for their own private and corporate gain. You know it. Don't fight the
truth. Give in to the *good* side of the Force..



mike

Hatfield wrote:
#26 David: ""Rumsfeld claims many of these ''detainees'' were snatched
off the battlefield but refuses to treat them as prisoners of war.
Can't do that. ""

All depends on whether they were in military uniform or not. Anyone in
combat on the battlefield who is dressed as civilian, or not otherwise
clearly displaying his side by recognizable military insignia, has
forfeited all his international rights, and is a criminal according to
international law.


So, the thousands of snipers now in the pay of the US government are
international criminals?





mike

m II wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
m II wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


If we called them terrorists, we would have to shoot them. Take your
choice.

I see you leave no option for open trials in a public court. Public servants in
a free society shouldn't have to hide everything they do from the tax paying
public. having gulags out of your country in order to circumvent your own laws
is NOT right or moral.

mike



They are not soldiers, as Iraq doesn't have a legitimate army now
that their old movement is gone. That leaves terrorists or enemy
combatants. Take your pick. We can detain enemy combatants, while a
terrorist places no value on life. Not yours, mine or his. They are
cowards who think they will gain fame and glory by dying while killing
others. They are mentally ill. They do nothing productive for the rest
of the world. They kill people, destroy property and the lives of those
around them at every turn.


But that is exactly what a lot of the world thinks about the US now. Invading

the only true thing in this dreck alot of the world does hate the US,
they did before Iraq, I don't care if they Hate US as long as they fear
US

another country that did nothing to deserve it, except for the sin of having
oil, was about as low as a government can go. I can see the Germans in WWII
calling the Polish resistance 'enemy combatants'. Calling something a name you'd
like it to be, doesn't make it so.

They were and the resistance was not entitled to any favorable
treatment, The detainees could lawfully have been shot when taken


The attack on Iraq and Afghanistan was and is an abomination perpetrated by evil
doers for their own private and corporate gain. You know it. Don't fight the
truth. Give in to the *good* side of the Force..

bull****



mike

Mark Zenier wrote:

In article .com,
Hatfield wrote:

All depends on whether they were in military uniform or not. Anyone in
combat on the battlefield who is dressed as civilian, or not otherwise
clearly displaying his side by recognizable military insignia, has
forfeited all his international rights, and is a criminal according to
international law.

That means that any group that's too poor to afford more than one
set of clothes will always be regarded as terrorists. How very
Republican.

Damn, you sure are stupid.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 17:49:34 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article .com,
Hatfield wrote:

All depends on whether they were in military uniform or not. Anyone in
combat on the battlefield who is dressed as civilian, or not otherwise
clearly displaying his side by recognizable military insignia, has
forfeited all his international rights, and is a criminal according to
international law.

That means that any group that's too poor to afford more than one
set of clothes will always be regarded as terrorists. How very
Republican.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

Good point Mark, but if THAT isn't the case, we will think of some
other way to categorize them as terrorists, which justifies ANY
torture we want to give them. If those were Americans we would
be thumping the table really hard... or WOULD we?

Except that it's exactly the opposite of what you said, (although
the results are bad). The court refused to be activist and said
that how Emminent Domain works in each State is up to that State
and not a matter for the Federal government.

Actually, the Supreme Court simply refused to make a blanket rule
stating that "economic development" is never a "public purpose." They
were being asked to interpret the "public purpose" clause in the Fifth
Amendment to take away all discretion concerning "economic development"
and, thank goodness, they refused to do so. It is up to local
governments to make their own policies concerning eminent domain for
economic development. So, just as it has been for over 200 years, it is
up to citizens to participate in the process, not just bitch about what
happens when they don't.

How do you expect ignorant, public schooled dropouts and public university
graduates to know that? ;-)

"Brian Running" wrote in message
So, just as it has been for over 200 years, it is
up to citizens to participate in the process, not just bitch about what
happens when they don't.