My point is - we have had people taken and executed and we have had people taken and resqued - Ms Lynch - we do not know what would have happened to her, do we.

-- Old Joe

Your "point" is shit because Jessica Lynch wasn't "rescued". To have been "rescued" she would had to have been in danger from the people who were caring for her. Jessica Lynch was being well taken care of. Jessica Lynch was the victim of a Pentagon staged 'B' movie of propaganda. You're as stupid as the day is long to still believe otherwise. Or, as dishonest as the day is long to pretend to believe otherwise.

I'm going with Bill Owen's route now. That would be using the good judgment that he has displayed by deciding to not bother with you and your disgusting attachment to murder and torture.

Jessica Lynch. Are you going to answer that one, or are you going to pretend that the question hasn't been asked of you -- twice?

I did click the link and I did not have time to read all 143 sub sections.

You're being disingenuous, just as you almost always are in your replies. And to top it off you have s for brains if you think that the sentence I've quoted doesn't just simply make you sound like the lying creep that you are. You don't need to read 143 subsections to have your answer. You just need to read at all.

Once again I challenge you - how would you handle an enemy terrorist if you apprehended him?

I've already answered your stupid "challenge". Except I used a well thought out and long adhered to and agreed upon document rather than waste my time reiterating to a moron who has no other purpose in life but to remain blissfully ignorant so that he can "challenge" others who choose not to be ignorant.

The young female soldier we rescued survived

-- Old Joe

Was that a reference to Jessica Lynch? Because if so then this is more evidence (proof, in fact) that you do not pay attention, that you are susceptible to the most ludicrous talking points and fantasy stories, and that you don't bother to learn or are incapable of learning the truth, even years after it has been revealed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2

but you put forth little to advance the discussion.

-- Old Joe

Do you mean to tell us that you were too gawddamned lazy to click the link that I posted and then read what was written there? Because if you had done so you could not in good faith beleive the shit you wrote in the quote above.

Idiots have no problem with Obama killing nearly 400 people (mostly civilians) in Pakistan. As a non-American I see no reason why the same "rationale" used to "justify" Reaper attacks on civilian areas in a country with whom America is actually allied, cannot be applied to blowing up a cafe in Montreal because Obama and Cheney have "intel" that Muhammed Al Libi is "believed to be" having a coffee with Carlos the Jackal or something. If Louis Leblanc et famile get turned into red mist and guts on the ground. Oh well. Sorry. Try to do better next time!

-- Bill Owen

I agree. And Old Joe should take that word I put in bold personally because his "logic" is precisely the "logic" that you have described.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

* Treat him as a non-uniformed enemy which I call a spy - he is then interrogated and summarily shot because he is ununiformed on the battlefield in a declared war - I see no need for indefinite detention in option two.

"Are we clear?" A Few Good Men

-- Old Joe

It has always been clear to me that you possess no ability to think and have only talking points and bull shit to guide your 'moral' standards. So, consequently, if it were up to you, we would have been responsible for not only the murders of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's since the beginning of your "declared war", and responsible for all those who have been displaced since your "declared war" but also responsible for the many who were turned over to us for money by war lords or even just ahole neighbors. Many of those were released before you were able to murder them. Those are the fortunate ones.

Are we clear? I read you to be someone who has no ability to think beyond the idiocy that is provided to him by other idiots. That's how phony "declared wars" happen. A country full of idiots and assholes allow it.

Give the finger wagging bit a rest, sparky. Electro Robot has a history of posting garbage until banning occurs only to return to post garbage under another name. Was 'Violent Quaker's' comment on topic?

Yet the thought occurs to me - if you apprehend a terrorist on the battlefield (which needs some definition - but lets say on non US ground) -

[...]

Life isn't always as simple as the blogosphere - it seems to me.

-- Old Joe

"Non U.S. ground". That's your definition of "the battlefield". That's your definition of where 'the enemy' can be located and apprehended and then put away into 'indefinite detention'. But yet with simpleton thinking such as that you've gone on to say that "life isn't always as simple as the blogosphere". As though 'the blogosphere' can be defined as some monolithic entity as opposed to newspapers, magazines, tv and radio talk as some superior and more diverse more complicated and, yes, Serious producers of conversation and education. But 'the blogophere'? Pffft. With "snakes" such as Greenwald roaming 'the blogophere' how could anyone with an IQ above that of a snake take it seriously, right?