In a message dated 1/4/07 9:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the additional rights that actually *pertain* to the conduct of war never have to be invoked at all: we can institute as many of them as we want without worrying about their being too restrictive, because they'll just be suspended once we're in a situation to which they're designed to apply. Good thinking, MDixon. Rights? Constitutional rights have never been given an enemy in any war before. Rules of war agreed to by the Geneva convention must be observed by all, which Al Qaeda is not a signatory to nor chooses to follow. The suspension of Geneva convention rights is totally justified if the enemy chooses not to observe them and obviously Al Qaeda does not observe them and yet will take advantage of them at any opportunity. Who does Al Qaeda answer to when they target civilians, hide among civilians, wear civilian clothing. kidnap civilians, torture them and then behead them? Rules of war are only for those that agree to observe them, both sides. Only a fool would expect one side to observe strict rules while the other side can do as they please.
