[Askel5]

My comments -- that Rumsfeld's playing fast and loose with the letter of Geneva, particularly where concerned the basic, universal "human rights" on which those protocols were based could only serve to PUT OUR TROOP'S IN HARM'S WAY -- were grossly misunderstood by certain FReepers with a third-grade reading level who let their passions for purging get the best of them.

Here you go ... Why not have these former Prisoners of War, military officers and other among the many far more erudite sources who filed briefs Amicus Curiae in the Gitmo case make the same point?

Granted ... they're just a bunch Losers, like me and the dissenting judges such as Scalia. But the point's still valid ... particularly where we're talking about a decision made by the same Court that upholds "Roe."

[Poohbah]

Anyone arguing that terrorists (i.e., non-uniformed personnel not fighting on behalf of a recognized army) rate any protections under the Geneva Convention is a jihadist sympathizer. Any lawyer who presses suit advocating such in any court should be disbarred at a minimum, and they should be thoroughly investigated for potential subversive behavior.