Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

" wrote in message
link.net...

snip
So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained under a
different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

I personally go check every fact and figure, when Steve disagrees with me.
Of course, perhaps your ego is bigger than mine.

Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information, are not held at the facilities in MCS
Guantanamo Bay. They are being held in EPW camps in various
locations within Iraq.

The people detained at Guantanamo Bay are, Individuals Not
of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts, IOW Illegal
Combatants.
As defined by the following from FM 27-10 Law of Land
Warfare.
Quoted as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed by the laws of war for recognition as
belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit
hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not
to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and
sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facilities,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles
104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
committed,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the
danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may,
however, be imposed.

A fact that you have conveniently disregarded.

I personally go check every fact and figure, when Steve
disagrees
with me. Of course, perhaps your ego is bigger than mine.


Then you missed at least one and probably two or three facts
when you did your checking.
As to egos, I wouldn't know. I'm just one of the guys who
captured and or processed some of the detainees held at MCS
Guantanamo Bay.

Snark

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

The Gitmos are NOT POWs. If they were, certain rights would be available to
them. POW status is give to those that fulfill that status. And since
Afganistan is no longer considered a War, POWs would have to be released.
They don't have rights because they took up arms outside of the rules that
would make them soldiers. Terrorist do not get the same rights. Now, if
Cuba were to sue to instate their own laws since it's their property it
might be different. But I doubt very seriously that any there would want to
be under Castros laws. It might make a very long, slow, painful death.
Wait, that might not be a bad idea afterall.

"Admin" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

The Gitmos are NOT POWs.

Right, that is what I wrote.

Do you have a reading disability?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:17:41 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

Of course they are not. Since only lawful combatants can become POWs
the people in Gitmo are internees.

However, the comment (see above) was discussing Iraqi soldiers.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:17:41 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

Of course they are not. Since only lawful combatants can become POWs
the people in Gitmo are internees.

However, the comment (see above) was discussing Iraqi soldiers.


Some people in Gitmo were not combatants of ANY kind. Also, the Geneva
Accords allow for non-uniformed irregulars with no formal chain of command,
to take up arms against invaders (the US military), and STILL be accorded
POW status.

Fact is, due to the secrecy surrounding the facility, we have no idea who is
who.

Tarver Engineering wrote:
" wrote in
message

link.net..
..

snip
So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Is this just your opinion? Or can you back it up with
facts?

Snark