The Goat Pen

eCat wrote:

eCat wrote:so you're OK with us keeping them locked up for more than a decade (why should I ask, of course you are)

eCat wrote:you know POW's were enemy combatants, how would you feel about Americans still being in captivity in Vietnam - you know, since the American soldiers were freedom fighters for South Vietnam in the police action?

innocentbystander wrote:

eCat wrote:so you're OK with us keeping them locked up for more than a decade (why should I ask, of course you are)

you know POW's were enemy combatants, how would you feel about Americans still being in captivity in Vietnam - you know, since the American soldiers were freedom fighters for South Vietnam in the police action?

American POWs in Vietnam were enemy combatants. they were NOT illegal combatants.

read s-l-o-w-e-r

now, do you even know what an illegal combatant is?

eCat wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

eCat wrote:so you're OK with us keeping them locked up for more than a decade (why should I ask, of course you are)

you know POW's were enemy combatants, how would you feel about Americans still being in captivity in Vietnam - you know, since the American soldiers were freedom fighters for South Vietnam in the police action?

American POWs in Vietnam were enemy combatants. they were NOT illegal combatants.

read s-l-o-w-e-r

now, do you even know what an illegal combatant is?

no, please educate me on the difference between a legal enemy combatant and an illegal one. I'm keenly interested in this.

Bill Whittle wrote:Now to hear some fellers tell it, the entire idea of "Unlawful Combatants" came to Sith mastermind Darth Rover in a vision, and he instructed his familiars Chimpy McBushitler and Torture Master Rumsfeld to use it as an excuse to begin the unjustified savagery that is such an essential part of the American character.

Absent from this worldview is' well' just about everything.

During the actual Major Combat Operations of Iraqi Freedom, US generosity and grace toward defeated elements of the Iraqi regular army was in the highest tradition of the US Military, which is justifiably well-known for its benevolence toward a defeated adversary on the battlefield. Surrendering Iraqi regular units were given rations and medical care, and their officers were allowed to keep their sidearms as a show of respect and authority. I have not seen or heard of a single case of anything less than exemplary conduct regarding enemy regular-army soldiers.

So why were the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Fedayeen insurgents treated so differently? Why the hoods and shackles? Why the humiliation at Abu Graib?

It is not because these men shot at US soldiers. Regular Iraqi units, NVA units, North Korean Units, Germans, Japanese, Confederates and Redcoats have shot at American soldiers and upon their surrender their treatment has been, on the whole, exemplary. Why are these different?

It is not because they are opposing us. It is to put it as bluntly as possible, because they are cheating, cheating in a way that none of the above ever did.

They have willfully and repeatedly broken the covenant of Sanctuary.

Let's speak to the Perennially Outraged

Bill Whittle wrote:as if they were the fully grown, post-pubescent children they pride themselves on being.

What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?

That's right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn't.

And why do soldiers wear uniforms?

It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier's uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!

And that's one of the things a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.

Now if that's all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does -- the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.

By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population.

And this Sanctuary is as old as human history. The first civilized people on Earth, these very same Iraqis, who had cities and agriculture and arts and letters when my ancestors were living in caves, wore uniforms as soldiers of Babylon. This is an ancient covenant, and willfully breaking it is unspeakably dishonorable.

eCat wrote:read up on Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 and tell me what it means to you

innocentbystander wrote:

eCat wrote:read up on Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 and tell me what it means to you

i don't give a FUCK what Boumediene v Bush says. i know what an illegal combatant is (and now so do you) so stop digging your heels in the ground and swallow your fucking pride

you are WRONG eCat. get over it.

Jungle Rat wrote:Steel chairs? Really? Nobody paid attention to wrestling back in the 80s. They still don't now. Sorry. Dork .

BigRedMan wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:Steel chairs? Really? Nobody paid attention to wrestling back in the 80s. They still don't now. Sorry. Dork .

Vince Mac, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, and Ted Turner would beg to differ.

Now, fling your poo at someone and let the big boys handle this conversation.

BigRedMan wrote:IB is now hitting people with steel chair shots. People, just stay down!!!!

If he brings out the sledgehammer, game over!!!!