From: Bill Graham on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:l+pvJHTbVoqKFAU8(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h8dvlt$if4$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
> REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu writes
>>DG wrote:
>>> Then why did he push people
>>> to violate the Geneva Convention?
>>He didn't. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners
>>of war taken on a battlefield for formal battle. It does not apply to
>>terrorists or spies.
>
> This is correct. Terrorist and spies etc come under LOCAL CIVILIAN LAW.
> The are *EITHER* enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention or
> Civilians. In either case due process should be applied and this does
> not include tourture.
>
>>> Why did he commit war crimes?
>>He didn't.
>>Doug McDonald
>
> Just saying he didn't when you are a no one does not count when the
> international organisations say the opposite.
>
> On the other hand Bush admitted it. Water boarding is torture.
>
> Actually Bush and co... devised their own definitions which the rest of
> the world (and many Americans) say are simply made up and have no
> validity.
>
They have all the validity they need. A law against torture means nothing
unless and until you define, "Torture" If you exclude water boarding, then
so be it.

From: Bill Graham on

<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:h8e0r5$iqq$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> Chris H wrote:
>
>> On the other hand Bush admitted it. Water boarding is torture.
>>
>
> Utter bullshit.
>
> Waterboarding is NOT repeat NOT torture. It does
> not result in permanent harm, or even temporary harm.
>
> Of course, al Qaeda and the Taliban do routinely use
> things that are essentially torture. So did Saddam.
>
> The Left of course never worries about such things.
> I WONDER WHY.
>
> Doug McDonald

These guys are more than just "left". They are more than just
Bush-bashers....They are US bashers.....It doesn't matter what we do, it
will be wrong in their eyes....Even if we do something they like, they will
say we are only doing it for ulterior reasons, and don't really believe in
it.

From: Bill Graham on

"DG" <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9i2la59sd3bg7ggkmk1vm298090nm8oopm(a)4ax.com...
> "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>DG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> He tried hard to do the right thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then why did he shred the Constitution?
>>
>>He didn't. Not at all. He wanted to keep the Constitution, that's why he
>>got good people on the Supreme Court.
>
>
> He spied upon Americans.
>
>
>>> Then why did he push people
>>> to violate the Geneva Convention?
>>
>>He didn't. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners
>>of war taken on a battlefield for formal battle. It does not apply to
>>terrorists or spies.
>
>
> Nonsense...
>
>
>>> Why did he commit war crimes?
>>
>>He didn't.
>
>
> Actually he did.
>
"War crimes" are in the eyes of the beholder. Whatever Bush did, the
leftists will define "war crimes" to be short of it. Today, they are busy
redefining "war crimes" to be short of whatever Obama is willing to do. They
aren't sure just where that is, yet.....:^)

From: Bill Graham on

"DG" <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rr4la5tnt65m9bhene9fut6cd36e5ju1d8(a)4ax.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:l+pvJHTbVoqKFAU8(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <h8dvlt$if4$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
>>> REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu writes
>>>>DG wrote:
>>>>> Then why did he push people
>>>>> to violate the Geneva Convention?
>>>>He didn't. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners
>>>>of war taken on a battlefield for formal battle. It does not apply to
>>>>terrorists or spies.
>>>
>>> This is correct. Terrorist and spies etc come under LOCAL CIVILIAN LAW.
>>
>>There is no "local civilian law" on the battlefield.
>>
>>> The are *EITHER* enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention or
>>> Civilians.
>>
>>Wrong. Men who are combatants but captured NOT in the proper uniform of
>>some
>>regular military force have NO RIGHTS WHATEVER under the Geneva
>>Conventions.
>>They can be simply taken out and shot, without trial.
>
>
> So you are alright with the enemy doing that to our soldiers?
>
>
>>That is exactly what
>>the U.S. Army did in World War II, for example to Germans captured that
>>way
>>during the Battle of the Bulge. All perfectly legal under international
>>law
>>and no objection was ever raised about it. It's in accordance with the
>>rules
>>of war as they have been for more than 200 years at least, probably much
>>longer than that.
>
>
> LOL... The Geneva convention was created AFTER WW2. It's not 200
> years old. It didn't apply during WW2.
>
> Slow down and do a search before continually proving yourself a fool.
>
In WW-II spies were routinely shot on site, without any trial whatsoever.
Any enemy not in uniform was the definition of a "spy". Under this
definition, all of the Gitmo detainees could have been shot.....They are
lucky they are still alive.

From: Ray Fischer on
George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>FishHead, you are like a bot fly on dog poop.

Obviously, you are unable to reply in a manner that would be considered
reasonable to most folks: Just insults like a spoiled five year old. You
just can't do any better. Sad.
kerby in <C590C674.1E628%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net