"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:


"Jim Watt" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
purports to support it says:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You can find the rest at
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any
justification
for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is
arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived
agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are
detained
in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are
combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
Very
objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration.

Duration of what? the Bush dynasty?

There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians
and there is no war in progress.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Did you forget about the arbitrary part? Your observation there is no war
iss irrelevant and carries no weight. That a state of war exists would be up
to the combatants to decide. The UDHR fails at the word arbitrary.