> On Aug 19, 1:19 am, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Aug 16, 6:19 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>

>>> On Aug 17, 3:45 am, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:

>

>>>> On Aug 16, 12:16 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

>

>>>>> What do you love about America?

>

>>>>> That is my question:

>

>>>>> What do you love about America?

>

>>>> One late Christmas night, I was stopped by a Sheriff's
>>>> Deputy while driving home from a friend's place.  After
>>>> the usual checking of license and registration, he
>>>> pretended to be convinced I possessed marijuana.  I
>>>> did have the long-haired maggot-infested dope-smoking
>>>> FM-type look Oxycontin Rush used to talk about.  Anyway,
>>>> I told him I didn't possess any such thing.  He asked , "so
>>>> can I search your car?  If you don't have anything to hide..."
>>>> I told him, "I don't have anything to hide, but this is America,
>>>> and I don't have anything to prove either."

>

>>>> That's what I love about America: not having anything to
>>>> prove to a cop.

>

>>> Cop? Whats a cop. We have 'elders of the tribe' and they are all
>>> incredibly wise, but heaven help you if you try to steal their
>>> 'stash' :-).

>

>>> In Quantanimo it works well. No need to prove anything...

>

>>> BOfL

>

>> Sucks to be a foreign "illegal combatant," eh?

>

>> But those guys are really PoWs, in spite of what
>> the Administration says.  As such, all they should
>> have to give is name, rank and serial number... just
>> like the Geneva Convention says.  At least it ain't
>> the good old days of WWII, when they threw civilian
>> American citizens in interment camps.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> re: pow treatment under the geneva conventions
>
> the prisoners & prisons of al qaedae  are (surely) not being inspected
> by the red cross
>
> because this is not a "traditional war" & "traditional enemy," the
> admirable civilized norms of the geneva conventions (imho) should not
> legalistically apply,
>
> the usa is trying to adapt to the explicit enemy threats, tactics,
> and the implied perceived menace
>
> plus the enemy seems to be sometimes winning in afghanistan & iraq
> because the enemy's "low standards" by way of killing innocents and/or
> non-combattents is seemingly the enemy'strademark un-Geneva means of
> operation
>
> "war morality" should be a two way street, otherwise it's an
> idealistic, admirable though crazy-absurd concept
>
> i do acknowledge gitmo et cetera are ad hoc, and are very imperfect
> adaptations- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -