Tom Watson wrote:
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?


Ah yes, the sleight-of-hand continues. You conveniently forgot to mention
that the US - indeed a great many nations - are not signatories to this
convention (Nor should any sane society be.). When the best arguments
you propose are based on partial and/or misleading authority, you truly
are in a lost end game. There *is* a good argument (or two) to be made
for the position you and the rest of the ideological Left want to get
to, but I'm not going to teach you how to make it. The homework will
be good for you.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/