YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Point proved. Why does the US have to exempt its own citizens from
the
claimed routine?

Because being a citizen they are gurenteeded the constitutions
protection,
it isn't an issue of terrotioial jusrtiction.
being a citizens gives the constitution jusrisdiction.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Where's the "but only as long as they are citizens of the United States"
exemption?

How many US citizens are detained in Guantanamo?

None?

Well in case you didn't figure it out, an american wouldn't fall under
the
GC accords protection from the american goverment,

_None_ of the detainees are protected by the GCs, Jim. The US Government
has decided that "because we say so" is sufficient to deny GC
protection.

It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
any other detainee is his nationality.

"Duh" yourself.


Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge. He did so as i understand it
under the threat that they might charge him
with treason. Treason is one of the few crimes that carry the death
penalty.


Jim
is in federial jail

In message , Jim writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
any other detainee is his nationality.

"Duh" yourself.

Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge.

He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?

As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.

He did so as i understand it
under the threat that they might charge him
with treason. Treason is one of the few crimes that carry the death
penalty.

Under US law, which explicitly doesn't apply to the Gitmo detainees. Why
wasn't Lindh left there to be punished along with his allies? Why does
US law apply to him and _only_ him?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Jim writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
any other detainee is his nationality.

"Duh" yourself.

Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge.

He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?

As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.



There's a few Irish blokes detained in N Ireland who may disagree (or
actually agree) with you. I support the british treatment of their
terrorists. I support our treatment of ours.

In message , Jeffrey
Smidt writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?

As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.

There's a few Irish blokes detained in N Ireland who may disagree (or
actually agree) with you.

Name three, Jeffrey.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam