From: "Robert G Lewis" 

IF I recall correctly the Conventions do provide for ways to remove
protection from individuals. THAT would the proper way to remove protection
from those who don't qualify for them, by following the conventions.

Bob Lewis

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:43603199{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You miss my point John, whether we follow it or not, they won't.
>
> We're supposed to be better than them...
>
>>nor am I for giving those GC considerations to POWs that don't qualify for
>>them
>
> I sure am, it's the right thing to do.
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43601d34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You miss my point John, whether we follow it or not, they won't. That's a
>> fact. So using that argument, that they'll mistreat our POWs because we
>> don't, as a point for why we should, isn't relevant. > not for torture, nor am I for giving those GC considerations to POWs that
>> don't qualify for them>
>>
>>
>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>> news:5f60m1hu2optq0mf1b1tcqu5o9jhtvobj2{at}4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:55:22 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>Has any other country at any time, in any war, ever
followed the Geneva
>>>>Conventions in their treatment of our prisoners of war? Has any
>>>>stateless
>>>>terrorist group ever done so? Do you really think if we
hire bi-planes
>>>>to
>>>>tow banners across the world that we absolutely follow the Geneva
>>>>Conventions in all cases, even when not warranted, that any
less heads
>>>>will
>>>>be cut off on video?
>>>
>>> That's irrelevant.
>>>
>>> We are signatories to the Geneva Convention.  We, the United States of
>>> America, are either a principled nation whose word can be trusted or
>>> we are liars and cheats.
>>>
>>> Which do you prefer we be?
>>>
>>>>the reasoning above is simply faulty
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5