Uh, Raymond, have you forgotten that you were the one joking around the immediate preceding post?


Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
you know g-man this is why non of the other mods like you. yeah, i read the threads on the secret mod forum. try not being such a dick about things. to put it in terms you'd understand:
you're double parking your argument, and trying to block me in. well i won't pay more money to the meter of foolishness.
i'm writing you a citizen's ticket. requiring that you complete at least 200 posts of honesty or pay a 350 honest dollar fine.



If you want me to go back to the forum being deadly serious, just say so. But then don't be suprised if I start moving your own jokey off topic stuff out of here.

But getting back to what we were discussing...


Today's Wall St. Journal has an interesting editorial about how the actions of the terrorists, towards our soliders and otherwise, demonstrate exactly why they don't qualify for Geneva Convention Protections:

    The Pentagon yesterday announced the names of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged with the April 26 kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania. The accusations are grave and, if proved, will almost certainly lead to severe sentences. We suspect no parallel process is taking place among Iraqi insurgents for the weekend murders near Yusufiya of U.S. soldiers Thomas L. Tucker and Kristian Menchaca.

    That's a distinction worth pondering the next time you hear Iraq war critics carp at the U.S. refusal to apply Geneva Convention privileges to enemy combatants. The Convention extends those privileges to combatants who abide by the laws it sets for war, including the treatment of prisoners.

    Combatants who fail to obey those laws--by not wearing distinctive military insignia or targeting civilians--are not entitled to its privileges. If they were, the very purpose of the Convention would be rendered a nonsense. And this is why the U.S. has refused Geneva privileges to the enemy combatants at Guantanamo, which we hope is an argument heeded by the Supreme Court as it decides the Hamdan case.