Mike Lorrey wrote:
lot hinges on who you label "combatants".
>
> A non-citizen engaged in a conspiracy to aid, abet, give shelter, or
> engage in attacks on our country are 'combatants', and 'illegal
> combatants' at that, since they wear no uniform.
Based on and requiring what level of evidence and proof though?
Surely not simply accusation or suspicion of "knowing
something".
> They made our country a
> combat zone by their attack on civilian targets with hijacked airliners,
> since airliners could be used to attack ANY target here in the US.
Careful. Which "they"? Not all the people round up and held
for sure.
> Because our entire country is now a combat zone, they must live with the
> consequences of their actions. Their actions created this status, thus
Again, which "they".
> every member of their group found within this combat zone is therefore
> an illegal combatant. Because they do not wear a uniform, they try to
Of which group? Having brown skin? Being Muslim and of the
right age and perhaps with an expired visa?
> blend into the law abiding muslim population, they make all muslims
> legitimate targets under the Geneva Conventions. We are demonstrating
Utterly false and terribly wrong-headed.
> incredibly remarkable sensitivity and restraint in the small number of
> the mumlim community we have detained. The Geneva Conventions, read
> literally, DO, in fact, permit us to detain all individuals in the
> country of the nationalities involved in the attacks. The fact that we
> do not demonstrates how civilized we really are.
What country precisely attacked us? It was a terrorist attack.
>
> Once again, I suggest you read the conventions before you continue to
> make a fool of yourself.
I would rather make a fool of myself for respecting human rights
than make a fool of myself insisting on the letter of the law
and calling others fools if they insist on any more than that.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT