0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 12:42 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Few prisoners of war have mail privileges anywhere.


From the Geneva Convention:

Quote:
ARTICLE 71
Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. If the Detaining Power deems it necessary to limit the number of letters and cards sent by each prisoner of war, the said number shall not be less than two letters and four cards monthly, exclusive of the capture cards provided for in Article 70, and conforming as closely as possible to the models annexed to the present Convention.


I stand corrected Walter, and thank you. I still think few prisoners of war have mail privileges, but I'll drop the 'anywhere' from my previous statement.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:02 pm
Might be today, by certain countries. Especially those known to neglecting the Geneva Conventions.

( Definately not valid for WWII POW's.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:26 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Might be today, by certain countries. Especially those known to neglecting the Geneva Conventions.

( Definately not valid for WWII POW's.)


My parents ran the commissary at a POW base in New Mexico during WWII. I don't know if mail was allowed by the prisoners there or not. All were German. My Mom became good friends with several of the prisoners and wrote for years to two of the boys when they went back home but lost track of them when the Berlin wall went up.

I know when some of Rommel's troops came in though, it was a whole new deal on the base and security was much tighter and all privileges were virtually eliminated. They were some mean customers. I don't think they would have been allowed to write home while the war was still going on though, but I can't say for certain that was the case.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:33 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Might be today, by certain countries. Especially those known to neglecting the Geneva Conventions.

( Definately not valid for WWII POW's.)


I wonder if Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Tom Fox, or Daniel Pearl were inspected by the Red Crescent for living conditions and mail call. I wonder how many cards and letter and packages they received while being held prisoner.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:43 pm
There were not being held prisoner. They were being held hostage. There is a difference.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:47 pm
Intrepid wrote:
There were not being held prisoner. They were being held hostage. There is a difference.


What do you see as the essential difference?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:47 pm
Intrepid wrote:
There were not being held prisoner. They were being held hostage. There is a difference.


I understand it all totally now. Lets call the guys at Gitmo hostages why don't we? The thought processes of libs continually amaze me with even more bizarre thinking beyond the imaginable!!!!!!!!

Oh Ticomaya, I see you posted same time as I, but you are far more diplomatic and than me.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:53 pm
okie wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
There were not being held prisoner. They were being held hostage. There is a difference.


I understand it all totally now. Lets call the guys at Gitmo hostages why don't we? The thought processes of libs continually amaze me with even more bizarre thinking beyond the imaginable!!!!!!!!

Oh Ticomaya, I see you posted same time as I, but you are far more diplomatic and than me.

Kidnapees, perhaps.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:

I wonder if Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Tom Fox, or Daniel Pearl were inspected by the Red Crescent for living conditions and mail call.


What country was it again that took them as POWs?

The Red Crescent - like any (other) national Red Cross organisation - doesn't inspect POW's camps, btw, but only the International Red Cross.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 01:56 pm
okie wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
There were not being held prisoner. They were being held hostage. There is a difference.


Okie wrote
Quote:
I understand it all totally now. Lets call the guys at Gitmo hostages why don't we?


Hey now you may be on to something here. Can we do that? If we make them hostages instead of prisoners, it opens up all sorts of possibilities. To many on the Left, the taking of hostages is a perfectly legitimate diplomatic process. At least those taking them certainly aren't condemned to the extent that those who try to do something about it are condemned. And those same folks on the Left who rarely if ever condemn the way the Terrorists treat their hostages might be as concilatory toward their own country if we had hostages instead of prisoners. We could do any damn thing to them that we wanted to do, don't you think?

Evenso, I think they would get better treatment than most prisoners get around the world, but they wouldn't get so much Country Club guest treatment.

E-mail that idea on to the Pentagon why don't you. Smile
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:01 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

I wonder if Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Tom Fox, or Daniel Pearl were inspected by the Red Crescent for living conditions and mail call.


What country was it again that took them as POWs?

The Red Crescent - like any (other) national Red Cross organisation - doesn't inspect POW's camps, btw, but only the International Red Cross.


If the scum that killed the guys above are not representatives of a country, then they do not get POW status when captured by American forces and therefore are not eligible for rights under the Geneva conventions. Simnple enough.

I, too, may like the hostage idea. Lets stop taking prisoners and merely take hostages. They apparently, are not eligible for any sort of rights and their lives are easily forfeited.

We should start with that Sadr Fella. Take him hostage and tell his followers that when they throw down their arms and get with the prgram, we will let him go.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:04 pm
At least you're finally being honest about how you feel.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:05 pm
That's the thing. We need a whole new classification for these thugs that murder innocent women and children as a matter of policy. They aren't prisoners of war when they are out of uniform and the Geneva Convention says so doesn't it?

They can be shot as spies as I recall if caught as a combatant out of uniform in your territory.

It is problematic though when we go get them someplace else. So if they aren't prisoners of war and they aren't hostages, then we need a new term for them. Ican has a lot of good terms for these thugs. We ought to use one of them. Smile
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:05 pm
How could we have overlooked this brilliant idea for so long????? But then maybe to defeat terrorists, we need to start thinking more like them?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:06 pm
Exactly. And it would only take one little law from Congress to make it a done deal.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:08 pm
Biting my tongue.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:11 pm
okie wrote:
How could we have overlooked this brilliant idea for so long????? But then maybe to defeat terrorists, we need to start thinking more like them?


Maybe they think like us.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:16 pm
Fox evidently never heard of FEMA. It is charged with helping with disasters. Bush, however, loaded it up with political hacks, making it a total failure with respect to Katrina and Rita.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:23 pm
plainoldme wrote:
okie wrote:
How could we have overlooked this brilliant idea for so long????? But then maybe to defeat terrorists, we need to start thinking more like them?


Maybe they think like us.


Maybe. Please cite all the instances in which we have

1) Shelled residential neighborhoods for the stated purpose of disrupting lives, injuring, maiming, or killing as many civilians as we could.
2) Publicly and in the most cruel manner videotaped the beheading hostages for the edification of the general public.
3) Subjected our women to burkas and subject to severe beatings or executions if they showed a little too much skin or did anything women were not allowed or talked back to a man.
4) Proudly declared that we were teaching our child to be a suicide bomber to the glory of Allah.
5) Bombed crowded busses or maket places or other places with large numbers of people hoping for as much blood and mayhem as posssible?
6) Brutally tortured to death, then dismembered enemy combatents and left them to terrorize whomever found them.
7) Tortured to death our prisoners and then burned their bodies in public view to the laughter and wild applause of those observing.
8) Announced that a group of people, not enemy combatents, had no right to exist and vowed to wipe them off the face of the earth.
9) Flew passenger liners loaded with civilians into buildings trying to kill as many people as possible and disrupt a nation's economy.
10) Tried to board up to twenty airliners with the ingredients of bombs to combine and blow up over populated areas?

These are just a few things we would have to be doing for them to 'think like us'. Do you think that's the case?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 02:24 pm
Instead, I'll cite incidents of Foxfyre exhibiting a sense of humor:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 07:32:39