On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:31:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

(References to Mr. Moore having the dietary habits of a housefly
regretfully snipped.)

It is a time-honored canon of war that nonuniformed combatants
enjoy essentially no protection other than the good will of their captors.
This is Reality ... as opposed to the Lefthink that opposes it...

"The 1979 First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
(Protocol 1) seeks, among other things, to effectively bring legal
combatant status to forces not adhering to the uniform and certain
other regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which arguably
can include terrorists. The definition of an "international armed
conflict" would include "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting
against colonial domination and alien [foreign] occupation and against
racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration
on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations." (From article 1[4])"


Is it about the canons, or the cannons?





Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/