<strong>On a lighter note, I am glad that more and more international TV news, reporters (those foreign to the area, that is) have an imporved pronounciation of ?al Qa'eda?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rights? Of course not! We should torture him until we get the info! He has no rights! Lawyer? What on earth does he need one of those for?
A good spot of dehumanising is what's called for! It's the Western way!
(You wish)
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems like you are the only one wishing that was the western way. If he is to be treated inhumanely, then he would be treated better than he wishes other to be treated. But, you just always want to believe the terrorists are angels and the US is evil, don't you?
Besides, what on earth would justify him having a lawyer? At best, he is a prisoner of war...don't think the geneva convention grants them the right to lawyers. But again, that's just the evil of America at work right? Take the stick out of you ass...America isn't as overwhelmingly evil as you imagine it to be.
Seems like you are the only one wishing that was the western way. If he is to be treated inhumanely, then he would be treated better than he wishes other to be treated. But, you just always want to believe the terrorists are angels and the US is evil, don't you?
Besides, what on earth would justify him having a lawyer? At best, he is a prisoner of war...don't think the geneva convention grants them the right to lawyers. But again, that's just the evil of America at work right? Take the stick out of you ass...America isn't as overwhelmingly evil as you imagine it to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tulkas,
1) Just chill with the personals already.
2) A non-selective reading of my posts would reveal I love what America was founded on. My rail wasn't at America (you numbnut) but at people like Scott who would like to throw away all that's good about the place -- such as dealing with problems by fair, transparent moral process. In this case, not removing this guy's fingernails and making sure he's got a lawyer. The point is that THIS IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM THE BADGUYS. It's what we're fighting to preserve, remember?
3) What on earth would he do with a lawyer? Umm. I guess I'm railing at people like you too actually. He's not a prisoner of war. He's a criminal. I'm glad that bastard went down. And yes, he should be treated better then he wishes others to be treated. You might be on his level pal, but I ain't joining you.
The point about reading him his rights and paying for is lawyers is that his lawyer would say, "My client has nothing to say" and that would be the end of that. Whereas under the convention the US has the right to interrogate this guy.
2) A non-selective reading of my posts would reveal I love what America was founded on. My rail wasn't at America (you numbnut) but at people like Scott who would like to throw away all that's good about the place -- such as dealing with problems by fair, transparent moral process. In this case, not removing this guy's fingernails and making sure he's got a lawyer. The point is that THIS IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM THE BADGUYS. It's what we're fighting to preserve, remember?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the US uses torture...bastards!! A lie, but bastard anyway!! A prisoner of war gets no lawyers. It's what who is fighting preserve? Europe? They aren't fighting for anything. Jockeying for position maybe, stalling for internal benefit, likely, desparately trying for international relevance, sure thing, but fighting for western ideals? No.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
3) What on earth would he do with a lawyer? Umm. I guess I'm railing at people like you too actually. He's not a prisoner of war. He's a criminal. I'm glad that bastard went down. And yes, he should be treated better then he wishes others to be treated. You might be on his level pal, but I ain't joining you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
After WW2 the prisonners of wars , aka the nazis and consorts where judged in the famous trial of Nuremberg. Of course the war was finish, at the contrary of Al Quaeda, where the war against terrorism still continue. But speaking of Nuremberg the trial was important it's a testimony for historia, made in good conditions of neutrality, a proof that it was not twisted. These kind of trials are important for the future generation. Impartial trials are the warrant of the respect of the truth.
I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.
<strong>I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair to me. The only thing I don't like about the international courts is their recent willingness, or rather their complacence, to make it a pulpit for some of these criminals.
Come back when you're ready to discuss the issues in the thread and not spit out a bunch of puerile insults at Europe. Very unbecoming, especially when I didn't slag off America. Anger management and reading comprehension. Try it.
In the meantime, let me hit you with the cluestick:
He's not a prisoner of war -- unless 'al-Qaeda' has an internet TLD and international dial code. He's an international criminal. Because, yes, war as defined by the Geneva convention and every single other piece of relevant legislation and precedent says that 'war' is a state between two countries. Sucks doesn't it?
Um, I never said the US was going to torture him. This would make me angry (your putting words into mouth) but I think you can't help it. You're sweet, so I'll just hip you up, fella. The rolleyes of "Huh, so we should read him his rights then?" is the point. We should read him his rights. He has them. It's what prevents us from torturing him, which is one of the logical conclusions of saying he has no rights. Get it? Didn't think so.
Nice sidestepping of the important point that if you WOULD like to treat him no better then he'd treat you, you're sinking to his level. It's ugly down there, munt.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
So the US uses torture...bastards!! A lie, but bastard anyway!! A prisoner of war gets no lawyers. It's what who is fighting preserve? Europe? They aren't fighting for anything. Jockeying for position maybe, stalling for internal benefit, likely, desparately trying for international relevance, sure thing, but fighting for western ideals? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the way, assuming you're centering on Iraq, it's the American public on one side, along with the US administration and the UK government ... and on the other side everyone else. Like, everyone else in the world.
The rest of the world, desperately trying for international relevance.
You've lost your marbles some of you.
Edit: Yeh, OK Mika, the Israelis like war. Happy now?
After WW2 the prisonners of wars , aka the nazis and consorts where judged in the famous trial of Nuremberg. Of course the war was finish, at the contrary of Al Quaeda, where the war against terrorism still continue. But speaking of Nuremberg the trial was important it's a testimony for historia, made in good conditions of neutrality, a proof that it was not twisted. These kind of trials are important for the future generation. Impartial trials are the warrant of the respect of the truth.
I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come back when you're ready to discuss the issues in the thread and not spit out a bunch of puerile insults at Europe. Very unbecoming, especially when I didn't slag off America. Anger management and reading comprehension. Try it.
In the meantime, let me hit you with the cluestick:
He's not a prisoner of war -- unless 'al-Qaeda' has an internet TLD and international dial code. He's an international criminal. Because, yes, war as defined by the Geneva convention and every single other piece of relevant legislation and precedent says that 'war' is a state between two countries. Sucks doesn't it?
Um, I never said the US was going to torture him. This would make me angry (your putting words into mouth) but I think you can't help it. You're sweet, so I'll just hip you up, fella. The rolleyes of "Huh, so we should read him his rights then?" is the point. We should read him his rights. He has them. It's what prevents us from torturing him, which is one of the logical conclusions of saying he has no rights. Get it? Didn't think so.
Nice sidestepping of the important point that if you WOULD like to treat him no better then he'd treat you, you're sinking to his level. It's ugly down there, munt.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh Harald. Stop wetting your pants.
1) You hate America. Saying otherwise don't make it so. You 'love' America only if they act exactly as you wish. Otherwise, they are evil, led by an evil man, with evil eyes. You may say you love America, but that bullshit and you know it. You say it so that your anti-american arguements can seem to hold water. " I love America, I am only trying to imrove her"
2)You throw personals all the time, but don't like it when they are at you...grow up and deal with it.
3)Umm..did you really say to stop hurling insults at Europe? Dude, get a grip...have you noticed your own insults, implied and open, at the US?. Another example of your "Europeans may critisize anyone, but anyone saying something about the relevancy of Europe is a racist pig" line of reasoning from your own thread a while back.
4)So area codes and TLD's make a state? Welcome to the 21st century...some threats aren't just criminal, they are actual acts of war. The group declared war and attacked...just cuz they don't have a single country to act from doesn't make it any less of a war. Land ownership of a group attacking your doesn't change your response.
5)You sure as hell were trying your damndest to imply that the US would be using torture on this guy...you get easy deniability afterwards, using double speak and all.
6)Yes, It's The US against the world. Oh, I mean US and UK against the world. Oh, I mean US and UK and Spain against the world. Oh, forgot, it's US/Uk/Spain and Austrailia against the world, well, soon France too if they get paid off enough, mebbe Russia..no, no that's it, well maybe Canada. ...no, it's relavancy against Anti-american zealots like you. If it wasn't for the posturing of the current American Admin, NOTHING WOULD BE HAPPENING IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW. That is the side you are on, the side of doing nothing. When Bush started pushing for this, you were firmly on the other side, so don't deny it now. Just admit, no matter what Bush proposes, you will oppose it, because he is Bush and he is American. Admitting that now will save many people lots of time arguing with you when they first understand your deeply rooted hatred of America.
They are combatants: illegal combatants, but combatants nonetheless. It?s an area of ?law? that terrorists have used to the full advantage, and which needs immediate attention. Lacking clear guidance, I would apply Islamic Law. Seems like the fairest thing to do, for all sides.
1) You hate America. Saying otherwise don't make it so. You 'love' America only if they act exactly as you wish. Otherwise, they are evil, led by an evil man, with evil eyes. You may say you love America, but that bullshit and you know it. You say it so that your anti-american arguements can seem to hold water. " I love America, I am only trying to imrove her"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He also loves Israel and Jews. He is Jewish after all, don't you know.
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?</strong><hr></blockquote>The Bush Administration wouldn't agree with you that he's a POW. Even most of the Taliban weren't POW's according to them (and I disagree with that view). But I think everyone agrees that he's not a soldier in an army as defined by the Geneva convention - openly carrying arms and wearing a uniform - and therefore he's not a POW.
Well, read a posting up and you may actual get a clue as to what I was responding to. Powerdoc was discussing the teartment of WW2 POW's after the war and how that could compare to treatment of Al'Queda prisoners. My response was to the same comparative situation. Nurenberg trials were after the war and the prisoners were granted lawyers. During the actual war, prisoners did not get lawyers. Was the explained in simple enough terms for you thsi time?
Dude, pull the stick out of your ass already, it's gotta be cramping you up by now.
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we agree, POWS , after the war, like in the Nuremberg's trial.
Comments
<strong>Looks like he's been having a bad day.
Before:
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
dude on the right looks like..... JIMMY VIVINO <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
<strong>On a lighter note, I am glad that more and more international TV news, reporters (those foreign to the area, that is) have an imporved pronounciation of ?al Qa'eda?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm going to need some sound bites...
<strong>
Rights? Of course not! We should torture him until we get the info! He has no rights! Lawyer? What on earth does he need one of those for?
A good spot of dehumanising is what's called for! It's the Western way!
(You wish)
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems like you are the only one wishing that was the western way. If he is to be treated inhumanely, then he would be treated better than he wishes other to be treated. But, you just always want to believe the terrorists are angels and the US is evil, don't you?
Besides, what on earth would justify him having a lawyer? At best, he is a prisoner of war...don't think the geneva convention grants them the right to lawyers. But again, that's just the evil of America at work right? Take the stick out of you ass...America isn't as overwhelmingly evil as you imagine it to be.
To give the US an opportunity to prove that this man was responsible for acts of terrorism and thereby justify his punishment.
You do still think that your standards are better than those of the terrorists don't you?
<strong>
Seems like you are the only one wishing that was the western way. If he is to be treated inhumanely, then he would be treated better than he wishes other to be treated. But, you just always want to believe the terrorists are angels and the US is evil, don't you?
Besides, what on earth would justify him having a lawyer? At best, he is a prisoner of war...don't think the geneva convention grants them the right to lawyers. But again, that's just the evil of America at work right? Take the stick out of you ass...America isn't as overwhelmingly evil as you imagine it to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tulkas,
1) Just chill with the personals already.
2) A non-selective reading of my posts would reveal I love what America was founded on. My rail wasn't at America (you numbnut) but at people like Scott who would like to throw away all that's good about the place -- such as dealing with problems by fair, transparent moral process. In this case, not removing this guy's fingernails and making sure he's got a lawyer. The point is that THIS IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM THE BADGUYS. It's what we're fighting to preserve, remember?
3) What on earth would he do with a lawyer? Umm. I guess I'm railing at people like you too actually. He's not a prisoner of war. He's a criminal. I'm glad that bastard went down. And yes, he should be treated better then he wishes others to be treated. You might be on his level pal, but I ain't joining you.
<strong>
2) A non-selective reading of my posts would reveal I love what America was founded on. My rail wasn't at America (you numbnut) but at people like Scott who would like to throw away all that's good about the place -- such as dealing with problems by fair, transparent moral process. In this case, not removing this guy's fingernails and making sure he's got a lawyer. The point is that THIS IS WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM THE BADGUYS. It's what we're fighting to preserve, remember?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the US uses torture...bastards!! A lie, but bastard anyway!! A prisoner of war gets no lawyers. It's what who is fighting preserve? Europe? They aren't fighting for anything. Jockeying for position maybe, stalling for internal benefit, likely, desparately trying for international relevance, sure thing, but fighting for western ideals? No.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
3) What on earth would he do with a lawyer? Umm. I guess I'm railing at people like you too actually. He's not a prisoner of war. He's a criminal. I'm glad that bastard went down. And yes, he should be treated better then he wishes others to be treated. You might be on his level pal, but I ain't joining you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
After WW2 the prisonners of wars , aka the nazis and consorts where judged in the famous trial of Nuremberg. Of course the war was finish, at the contrary of Al Quaeda, where the war against terrorism still continue. But speaking of Nuremberg the trial was important it's a testimony for historia, made in good conditions of neutrality, a proof that it was not twisted. These kind of trials are important for the future generation. Impartial trials are the warrant of the respect of the truth.
I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.
<strong>I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair to me. The only thing I don't like about the international courts is their recent willingness, or rather their complacence, to make it a pulpit for some of these criminals.
Come back when you're ready to discuss the issues in the thread and not spit out a bunch of puerile insults at Europe. Very unbecoming, especially when I didn't slag off America. Anger management and reading comprehension. Try it.
In the meantime, let me hit you with the cluestick:
He's not a prisoner of war -- unless 'al-Qaeda' has an internet TLD and international dial code. He's an international criminal. Because, yes, war as defined by the Geneva convention and every single other piece of relevant legislation and precedent says that 'war' is a state between two countries. Sucks doesn't it?
Um, I never said the US was going to torture him. This would make me angry (your putting words into mouth) but I think you can't help it. You're sweet, so I'll just hip you up, fella. The rolleyes of "Huh, so we should read him his rights then?" is the point. We should read him his rights. He has them. It's what prevents us from torturing him, which is one of the logical conclusions of saying he has no rights. Get it? Didn't think so.
Nice sidestepping of the important point that if you WOULD like to treat him no better then he'd treat you, you're sinking to his level. It's ugly down there, munt.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
So the US uses torture...bastards!! A lie, but bastard anyway!! A prisoner of war gets no lawyers. It's what who is fighting preserve? Europe? They aren't fighting for anything. Jockeying for position maybe, stalling for internal benefit, likely, desparately trying for international relevance, sure thing, but fighting for western ideals? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the way, assuming you're centering on Iraq, it's the American public on one side, along with the US administration and the UK government ... and on the other side everyone else. Like, everyone else in the world.
The rest of the world, desperately trying for international relevance.
You've lost your marbles some of you.
Edit: Yeh, OK Mika, the Israelis like war. Happy now?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
After WW2 the prisonners of wars , aka the nazis and consorts where judged in the famous trial of Nuremberg. Of course the war was finish, at the contrary of Al Quaeda, where the war against terrorism still continue. But speaking of Nuremberg the trial was important it's a testimony for historia, made in good conditions of neutrality, a proof that it was not twisted. These kind of trials are important for the future generation. Impartial trials are the warrant of the respect of the truth.
I am for a trial, undoubtely. But i am not for an immediate trial. US have the right to wait until the end of the war against AL Quaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?
TULKAS?!??!
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?!
They are not POW's. They are CRIMINALS.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Oh dear Tulkas. Dearie dearie me.
Come back when you're ready to discuss the issues in the thread and not spit out a bunch of puerile insults at Europe. Very unbecoming, especially when I didn't slag off America. Anger management and reading comprehension. Try it.
In the meantime, let me hit you with the cluestick:
He's not a prisoner of war -- unless 'al-Qaeda' has an internet TLD and international dial code. He's an international criminal. Because, yes, war as defined by the Geneva convention and every single other piece of relevant legislation and precedent says that 'war' is a state between two countries. Sucks doesn't it?
Um, I never said the US was going to torture him. This would make me angry (your putting words into mouth) but I think you can't help it. You're sweet, so I'll just hip you up, fella. The rolleyes of "Huh, so we should read him his rights then?" is the point. We should read him his rights. He has them. It's what prevents us from torturing him, which is one of the logical conclusions of saying he has no rights. Get it? Didn't think so.
Nice sidestepping of the important point that if you WOULD like to treat him no better then he'd treat you, you're sinking to his level. It's ugly down there, munt.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh Harald. Stop wetting your pants.
1) You hate America. Saying otherwise don't make it so. You 'love' America only if they act exactly as you wish. Otherwise, they are evil, led by an evil man, with evil eyes. You may say you love America, but that bullshit and you know it. You say it so that your anti-american arguements can seem to hold water. " I love America, I am only trying to imrove her"
2)You throw personals all the time, but don't like it when they are at you...grow up and deal with it.
3)Umm..did you really say to stop hurling insults at Europe? Dude, get a grip...have you noticed your own insults, implied and open, at the US?. Another example of your "Europeans may critisize anyone, but anyone saying something about the relevancy of Europe is a racist pig" line of reasoning from your own thread a while back.
4)So area codes and TLD's make a state? Welcome to the 21st century...some threats aren't just criminal, they are actual acts of war. The group declared war and attacked...just cuz they don't have a single country to act from doesn't make it any less of a war. Land ownership of a group attacking your doesn't change your response.
5)You sure as hell were trying your damndest to imply that the US would be using torture on this guy...you get easy deniability afterwards, using double speak and all.
6)Yes, It's The US against the world. Oh, I mean US and UK against the world. Oh, I mean US and UK and Spain against the world. Oh, forgot, it's US/Uk/Spain and Austrailia against the world, well, soon France too if they get paid off enough, mebbe Russia..no, no that's it, well maybe Canada. ...no, it's relavancy against Anti-american zealots like you. If it wasn't for the posturing of the current American Admin, NOTHING WOULD BE HAPPENING IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW. That is the side you are on, the side of doing nothing. When Bush started pushing for this, you were firmly on the other side, so don't deny it now. Just admit, no matter what Bush proposes, you will oppose it, because he is Bush and he is American. Admitting that now will save many people lots of time arguing with you when they first understand your deeply rooted hatred of America.
<strong>HELLO!?
TULKAS?!??!
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?!
They are not POW's. They are CRIMINALS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are combatants: illegal combatants, but combatants nonetheless. It?s an area of ?law? that terrorists have used to the full advantage, and which needs immediate attention. Lacking clear guidance, I would apply Islamic Law. Seems like the fairest thing to do, for all sides.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
Oh Harald. Stop wetting your pants.
1) You hate America. Saying otherwise don't make it so. You 'love' America only if they act exactly as you wish. Otherwise, they are evil, led by an evil man, with evil eyes. You may say you love America, but that bullshit and you know it. You say it so that your anti-american arguements can seem to hold water. " I love America, I am only trying to imrove her"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He also loves Israel and Jews. He is Jewish after all, don't you know.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
No, but I view him as a prisoner of war. He and his group have openly declared war on the US and all non-believers (you too). You say his is not a prisoner of war. Besides an attack, a declaration of war, armed confrontation, military command and conrol structure, on going hosltilities between groups, what exactly is your defintion of a war and then a prisoner of war. Does war have to be between 2 countries only?</strong><hr></blockquote>The Bush Administration wouldn't agree with you that he's a POW. Even most of the Taliban weren't POW's according to them (and I disagree with that view). But I think everyone agrees that he's not a soldier in an army as defined by the Geneva convention - openly carrying arms and wearing a uniform - and therefore he's not a POW.
<strong>HELLO!?
TULKAS?!??!
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?!
They are not POW's. They are CRIMINALS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, read a posting up and you may actual get a clue as to what I was responding to. Powerdoc was discussing the teartment of WW2 POW's after the war and how that could compare to treatment of Al'Queda prisoners. My response was to the same comparative situation. Nurenberg trials were after the war and the prisoners were granted lawyers. During the actual war, prisoners did not get lawyers. Was the explained in simple enough terms for you thsi time?
Dude, pull the stick out of your ass already, it's gotta be cramping you up by now.
<strong>
And while the war still going on, the POW's go lawyers? Did they have the right to plead the 5th while being interogated?
POW's take during hostilities ARE NOT TO BE TRIED! That would in itself be a violation of Geneva conventions. Can you imagine Saddam putting UN soldiers on trial during Gulf War1?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we agree, POWS , after the war, like in the Nuremberg's trial.