Posted on 10/22/2006 3:19:49 AM PDT by aculeus
BTTT
Good for him. I hope, truly, that they live 'happily ever after.'
Five years isn't really quickly. I'm glad he had sense enough to wait awhile so he could grieve. Lots don't do that. They marry far too soon and then it's usually a disaster.
Hah! With the choices women have these days, they're better off staying single (smile).
Good grief! He's a very handsome and distinguished man. Women often like to marry older men because they're more settled and sensible than young ones.
Which is why Israel has been in a perpetual state of war since 1948. The only way a war can end with any certainty is that one of the parties wins, and the other is defeated. It's that simple. As I stated before, wars are fought for specific reasons and objectives. If that objective isn't reached, then the war isn't really over.
No, what they committed was murder and they should hang for it, not be accorded the rights of an enemy combattant captured in the course of war.
If that's the case, then it was a law enforcement issue from the start, and I suppose that we should have tried to extradite Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and the rest. Sending in the military was the wrong thing to do, since it was a criminal matter, not an act of war. And "they" certainly couldn't be hanged for "it" without a criminal trial.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Before you can offer an enemy combattant the rights of a POW, you need to capture him first. And this was the first time you used the term. I used a different one: "Unlawful combattant." If we're fighting an enemy who wears a uniform and attacks military targets, then yes, since they're following the "rules of war," so should we. But since these were "unlawful compattants," we're under no such compulsion. As such, they have no rights whatsoever. No criminal rights, no rights under the UCMJ, and certainly no rights under the Geneva Conventions. But either way, you're missing the point again. Murder can be committed during wartime and warfare. But in those cases, it's the military who investigates, tries, and punishes the suspects. But granting the terrorists the title of "murderes" moves their actions into the civilian world of courts, grand juries, and lawyers. That's NOT a good thing.
You may not like the rules of war - but most military - and I am a retired officer - live and die by those rules. Your vote doesn't count.
Bzzzt. Your opinion certainly has no more weight than mine. That's your opinion, and I've got mine. Congratulations on being a retired officer. It worked so well for John Kerry. And it certainly doesn't invalidate my opinion. The terrorists did not follow the "rules of war" when they attacked the United States. Given that fact, we're under no obligation to follow those rules when we fight them. Especially when they flaunt those rules. We saw a wonderful example of that just recently as the terrorists won the war between Israel and Hizbollah. Israel, and the US, are in effect fighting these wars with one hand tied behind our backs. And the enemy is expecting us to continue to do so. The only way we will defeat them is to fight them the way we fought WWII. And that's to take the attack to them, and in such a way as to make sure that they will never want to try this nonsense again.
Mark
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
I've heard it said that when a man is widowed, he's more likely to remarry if his previous marriage was happy - he'd be more likely to try to reach that state of fulfillment again.
God bless them both.
I wish them happiness! How great that he found love again.
The LEgal Times piece is worth reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.