Yorick, do the same for the folks in charge of the prisoners at Gitmo or give THAT a rest. </font>[/QUOTE]Er no... it's proven that they're holding Hicks without trial, want to use evidence gleaned from torture, and have held him as an "enemy combatant" to get around Geneva convention rules. That's all very much proven Micah.

If he WAS a prisoner of war, then he wouldn't need to be tried. However, the US govt. has declared he's an "enemy combatant" specifically to get around the Geneva convention.

Why do we keep having this dicussion?

Best thing said in this conversation yet. Ht the nail on the head. You so need to run for office. I'll vote for you!

Maybe it's my medicine, maybe just the migraine, but, what is the difference between "enemy combatant" and POW? Would "enemy combatant" make him fall under a different set of rules, such as the Hague Convention? If so, then he's really screwed, because by that set of rules, from what I understand, there are no rules governing what happens to him. I would like to think that morals apply there, but my understanding runs to this; they can run him up the flag pole by the short hairs every morning, if that's what they want to do. I actually can't see why he, and others of the Taliban that have been captured, don't fit into that category anyway. Just a point to ponder. After all, they blend right in with the civilians, until they blow up a market place, or drive a car bomb into an embassy. Typical guerilla warfare tactics, which makes them guerillas, which means that the Geneva Conventions don't apply. Even if they did, there's nothing in them that says we have to give him a trial. Paraphrasing; Held until the end of the conflict. If it lasts 50 years, or 1 more, he'd be incarcerated, legally, by the rules set forth in the Geneva Conventions. He fits one or the other category. If he's simply an enemy combatant, then the Hague covers him, if he's an enemy soldier, then the Geneva Conventions do, and either way, nothing calls for a day in court. Am I interpreting them too literally?
To me it's more like somebody wants to slam the US, and this is a perfect excuse. I don't know what the truth is about what's going on in Gitmo, but, all things being equal, neither does anybody else here. For all I know, he could be right, but he could be telling a big story to get some publicity, and some sympathy from a world that's more than glad to point fingers, and say "Look what the Devil US is doing now". Be that as it may, hey, whether he's legally entitled to a day in court or not, let him have one. However, if the results are that he's to be hung at sunset, from the highest tree in the area, I'm expecting to hear how evil the US was for executing a fine man, husband and father. Keep in mind, I have read the accounts of how he abandoned his family to join the Jihad, and the world can protest his demise to their hearts content, just be aware, some of us will know the truth.

Why not ask your local congressman. They're the one's making the distinction, not us.
That's all we're asking for: The truth.

Let's try this approach: Seek Confessions. Announce to the whole world that we will be seeking confessions from these supposed Jihadists. They will have to lie about their cause for Allah, or confess to crimes.

Mr. Accused Terrorist, are you on a Jihad against the U.S. and Israel, and were you in Afghanistan training and/or fighting with the Taliban in pursuit of that Jihad?

If they say yes, we imprison them.

If they say no, we send them home -- where as shamed denouncers of their faith, they will be punished accordingly. Send them back to the land of an eye for an eye and ululating bloodthirsty robed women chanting for their men to stone people to death.

Hmmm... Looks like they're screwed either way if we do that.

Would that work? (Just tossing out ideas here.)

Tsk, tsk, Yorick, careful before you speak. I'd also run on a platform to outlaw triple posting. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-30-2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The koran says that it's okay for a muslim to lie against, or steal from infidels, so he could just as easily be welcomed back as the clever hero who deceived the great satan, and rejoin the jihad as a shining example for the other mujahedeen. That's why i say releasing Hicks is no option, making him disapear seems the best option.

Find me the verse in the koran that says that, or don't quote books you know nothing about.

Find me the verse in the koran that says that, or don't quote books you know nothing about. </font>[/QUOTE]I read it somewhere sometime ago, go find it yourself, i'm not your friggin dog. If i wouldn't have read it, i wouldn't quote it here, so if you're calling me a liar, don't beat around the bush and just say so. Same thing is also in the Torah btw, or don't you believe that either ?

I'm saying there isn't a single verse in the koran that says it's okay to lie or steal from infidels.
Whether you are deliberately lying or are simply mistaken is not for me to know.