On Apr 24, 11:26 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > The twenty eight detainees were not prisoners of war, in the sense of a foot > soldier, as the clause you are referencing is referring to.
This is part of the spin problem you guys have. The pirate captured recently by the military was turned over to civilian law enforcement in NYC, just as they have been in almost every war we've ever been in. The way you make it sound is that can't happen because there's no jurisdiction of either military or civilian law...it's a new kind of threat that the US has no apparent way of dealing with other than torture and long term detention without legal discourse. What a sad state the former admin left this country in. > Our federal government by the mandate of > the United States Constitution, has a duty to "insure domestic tranquilty, > provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare..." Of who? Iraqi's apparently. > Had the Bush Administration failed to have done as much as they did, we very > well might not be having this converstaion right now. So prove it then. Shouldn't be hard, if they didn't make it impossible to begin with that is. They knew full well that destroying all the videos is destroying proof, and that any video would be grounds for dismissal in *any* court of law *anywhere* because it would be deemed the torture that you say it isn't. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
