I don't see a real distinction between the evil Canadians eating our bodies or not. In either scenario, they are out to kill all of us and they are not abiding by the rules of war (i.e. - the HCs and the GCs) at all. In that case, then we are truly back to pre-modern rules of warfare as the HCs and GCs explicitly let us off the hook so that we can fight without our hands tied behind our backs.

At that point you get into the pre-modern and medieval ideas of just war, reciprocity, etc. However, none of these ideas are binding in international law today, so far as I am aware.

Another example would be what if the Canadians launched preemptive nuclear strikes at the US with the intent to kill everyone? At that point we certainly have the right to respond in kind to try and survive. The usually accepted rules of war go right out the window.

@The Reality Kid: The laws of war were established to try and make war slightly less horrible. But, they were all established with the understanding that all combatants would be bound with them so that one side would not have an unfair advantage by ignoring the rules. All the rules have escape clauses that allow Parties to basically fight down at the same level as their enemy.

Yes, that is what happened. I, and some others, had a habit of misspelling the name "Omooex" as "Oomex" when we replied to him. The archive of letters are indeed just that. Apparently, during the time I was watching the elections and not reading the comments, I began to take my mispelling as correct. My fault entirely.

And I am usually so careful about calling people by the right name and trying to pronounce it correctly.

I will note the correct spelling and not make that mistake again. I think I might kick up the magnification level of my reading glasses, too!

Now, if I could only figure out who "Garms Balls" is, I'll be set.

As far as I know, I am making no mistake. We are bound by Geneva. al Qaeda cannot be a party to Geneva whether they want to or not. That was decided during the debate over the additional protocols. Not to mention that we did sign those protocols. In case you don't remember, the PLO attempted to sign the additional protocols, and to sign the four 1949 conventions. They were rejected by the Swiss Federal Council as not being a state party. They have since been allowed to sign (1989) since they formed a government in the West Bank and Gaza.

But it was Article 44 of Protocol I which specifies rights for exactly such groups under capture that Doug Feith objected to, by the way. He has since made a career of promoting the idea that the Geneva Conventions are a system of rewards and punishments, and that good treatment of prisoners should be conditioned on prior behavior in combat. That is not the interpretation of the commentaries or the ICRC, nor was it the opinion when it was signed. The Geneva Conventions are a humanitarian social contract, not a system of rewards for good behavior.

What's wrong with the theory (other than the fact that Mr. Feith and his law partner Mark Zell don't believe Palestinians have any rights at all because they are squatters on land given by god to the Israelis) is that there is no way for an unrecognized armed force to get humane treatment whatsoever under your interpretation. Look at the comments I put up earlier by TJAG Thomas Romig. Before an Article 5 hearing, anyone taken prisoner gets all the rights, always. Up until the creative law brigade in the Bush administration decided to say otherwise. But they are not the arbiters of what the Conventions mean.

People here have been debating corporations and laws. One prime difference between real persons and corporations is the corporations do tend to treat laws as systems of punishments and rewards. That isn't the way societies treat them at all. Anyone who thinks otherwise believes that all of us are constantly calculating our best expected gain before obeying anything at all, which just isn't the case with flesh and blood human beings.

Jeez, I look at the two names in your kind correction, Omooex, and I can't tell them apart. This is not good.

Okay, that's it. All the x1.0 glasses are going in the garbage, and I'm going to x1.25 or higher. My vision is deteriorating faster than I can keep up with.

I apreciate your patience and corrections. Thanks.

are always very troubling because everybody knows that lawyers are generally evil ( with the

exception of the lawyer in Erin Brockovitch) but he was kind of dopey at the same time and as

I (and my whole family) were against lawyers from day one (and Glenn had to suffer) I like to be the 'moral dude' on this thread and not somebody who changed from being a Republican imposter to I don't know what. And I decide it is (not great) but acceptable to defend Chiquita

because you just have to substitute the lawyer in Erin Brockovitch (not the bad one - the good one with Eric Holder.

I guess it's okay to have The Snoopy theme song, piano chertoff duo, running around in my bowl of beer nut bowl, or a acorn cranial cavity?

I'm already moral ball juggler? criminal bankrupt.

ask HSS, shirts-off. shush. jschultz. analyze? ay.

jschultz? I'll give you a tube of Rx# Caring Body.

The lotion leaves skin soft, cleans black heads.

Use liberally. I don't use it. It smell of perfume.

Smear on balling balls and juggle twice a day.

free. I now apply to ball-sack, virgin olive oil.

smear on bawling ball and juggle with pizza.

I don't know how you managed to parse it the way you did, but the first sentence in Article 2 clearly says that if you're party to the Conventions, it doesn't matter if your opponent is or not. Now, as you said, if you want to argue that Al Queda is not a "Power", I think that's a lot more interesting argument.