Replies

To: HarryCaul

He should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention; shot on the spot as an illegal combatant.

23 posted on 07/16/2008 7:38:50 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)

To: JimRed

He asked to be shot. The US forces refused to do so, and patched up the places where they had shot him in the back twice.

33 posted on 07/16/2008 11:04:19 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)

To: JimRed

***He should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention; shot on the spot as an illegal combatant.***

But they have rights! The Supreme Court said so!

*barfs*

40 posted on 07/16/2008 3:28:28 PM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)

To: JimRed

Do you happen to have the date of when we became an “Occupying Power” of Afghanistan under the Hague/Geneva Conventions? I can’t find it.

43 posted on 07/16/2008 4:48:23 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)

To: JimRed

He should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention; shot on the spot as an illegal combatant.

Absolutely!

Why the heck aren’t we doing that?

55 posted on 07/19/2008 9:38:04 AM PDT by eleni121 (EN TOUTO NIKA!! +)

To: JimRed

He should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention; shot on the spot as an illegal combatant.

Great. Another "expert."

The Geneva Conventions do not allow summary executions of anyone - whether "lawful" or "unlawful"- without the benefit of a trial.

56 posted on 07/19/2008 8:30:03 PM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794