From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:442ae0ec{at}w3....
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:442acf3a{at}w3....
>> The Germans were treated as POW's and subject to the Geneva Convention.
>
> As they should have been.  The same is not true for enemy combatants who
> aren't part of a nation state's forces, aren't in uniform, and aren't
> covered by the Geneva Convention.

Look at the conventions. I think they have a mechanism to remove
protection. Until then they are covered. You ( nor I ) decide who is and is
not covered.


>
>> They
>> were also released.
>
> After a cessation of hostilities.  Enemy combatants will be released when
> the terrorists unconditionally surrender just like the Germans were
> released
> when Germany unconditionally surrendered.  The congress is free to declare
> victory and cancel their declaration of war any time they wish, which
> would
> also be another way for these enemy combatants to be released.  Just elect
> enough surrender monkeys to make the vote happen.

And just WHO are these 'terrorists' ? How will they surrender ? Who is their leader ?

>
>
>> They were treated well enough that they became if not
>> friends then at least not enemies. Wonder if ANY of the current detainees
>> will feel that way.
>
>
> That's already happened many times over.  Further, we treat them far
> better
> than any muslim country treats its criminals and other prisoners.  We also
> don't execute them for not converting to christianity.
>

Really ? Guess the released detainees haven't gotten the message yet , or
those who we admit have no ties but still haven't released.

>
>>
>> WWII was also a war between nations. This is a 'war' on a tactic.
>
> Tactics don't have bombs; hierachical structures; world wide networks of
> funding.  You're just spouting bullsit that is not based in reality or any
> understanding of what is happening and what we are facing.  Again congress
> can declare the war over and terminate its declaration of war any time it
> likes.  Should they share your concerns.
>

Yes it is a very poorly, ill defined war on a TACTIC. Terrorism is nothing
more than a tactic. Numerous nations have used this tactic. I'd say the use
of the Atomic Bomb was a terrorist tactic, designed ( justifiably) to scare
the Japanese into surrendering. As were the firebombing of Tokyo and
Dresden. But the use of terror is nothing more than a tactic.

We are now in a never ending war on a tactic. With a 'world wide
battlefield' if a terrorist were to visit your house YOU could be picked up
( or killed it has happened in Iraq).

We can have war on a nation, even an organization but a TACTIC ?

Reality is that this is a tactic design to secure a political objective.

>> How many of the detainees were caught on a battle field and how many were
>> just picked up ? If the statements are correct then this person doesn't
>> appear to have been picked up on a battlefield where US Troops were
> anyway.
>
> He admits he was on the battlefield with Bin Laden as Bin Laden's personal
> driver and one of his bodyguards.  That fact is NOT in question.  The
> battlefield for this war is world wide by the way.
>
>
> Gary
>

However he was NOT picked up on a battlefield, if the story is true. If you
want to expand this include ever being on a battlefield best not to visit
Shiloh or Gettysburg. Then again with this 'world wide battlefield'.......

If there is no battle is it a battlefield ?

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