--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. >
You would fit well in BUsh's Administration, MDixon...
