Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::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
:urports to support it says:
::
::Article 9
::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:
:And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

:2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
: power : ruling by absolute authority

Restrained by the rules already put in place for the holding of these
folks and the conduct of their hearings.

:2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
: tyrannical exercise of power

This would appear to have been the property of the folks being held,
not the folks holding them.

:2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
: other people's wishes:

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

You've proved two things he

1) You can read.

2) Your comprehension isn't up to your reading.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn