Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.

I thought all the romantic creative writing in this genre was in the Cold Warrior Nominations thread, Ali! ;)

I don't think I've read that one.

Cold War Warrior of 2008 nominations. I'm trying, with little success, to stay out of that one. So far all I'm managing is to avoid is any substantive remark that might, um, influence the selection process. :cool:

I've just read it. So far you're the only official nominee. I think someone should nominate Radar personally.

A Supreme Court ruling in this country would not keep a U.S. diplomat from being expelled from a foreign country if he violates the law. And whether or not a U.S. diplomat is an enemy combatant or a criminal in another country depends on what that country's courts say, not ours.

How can you lose a war when the people that are in favor of fighting it haven’t determined what constitutes victory? Will the war be won if we manage to pacify Iraq- or would the GWB’s the world find another country to invade in the name of fighting terrorism?

As long as we fight “terrorists” we will not win. Our enemy is not terrorists, but rather Islam, which is inherently hostile to American ideals. Killing a terrorist will simply mean another Moslem is waiting to take his place.

It isn't the POW's home country's climate that must be duplicated, but rather the climate of the place where the POW was captured. Germany is neither subtropical or arid, but some places in the Mediterranean are so the U.S. had POW camps for Germans in subtropical Florida and the arid West.

Chances are the closest classification that someone like Bin Laden could have under the U.S. Constitution is pirate. Congress can make laws to punish piracy as well as laws to both define and punish offences against international law. It can also make laws regulating captures made on land and water. Some of Congress’ power has been delegated to the Geneva Convention by treaty. If our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are considered acts of war under international treaties that the U.S. has signed, then the people we capture in Afghanistan and Iraq are POWs as far as the international community is concerned. But if these people don’t have POW status, then they are under the regulation of Congress because of Congress’ enumerated powers. This status would put them under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and this would give them U.S. legal due process rights.

Excellent point. All 1 billion or so followers of Islam are basically just terrorists-in-waiting. Let's switch to indiscriminately killing "moslems" until they all decide to love America.

How quick we are to deny rights to others.

I would rather the US take the moral high ground instead of gerrymandering around who deserves rights and who doesn't.

Placing the blame on all members of a particular religion didn't work out so well for the Nazis.

Yes. I know about Godwin. It's still a valid analogy.

Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government? They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.

Because that's one of the principles that America was founded on. You don't know that any given person incarcerated in Guantanamo is guilty of murdering anyone unless and until they have a chance to a fair trial.

It often seems to me that those who are loudest in wanting to protect our country are the quickest to forget what made it worth protecting in the first place.

Actually, the wimps here would be the people who would be afraid to try them openly in a court of law. Either you have evidence against them or you don't.

Like O.J.