Comments on: Ankle biter http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:04:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eagle1 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-2/#comment-237434 Eagle1 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:37:09 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-237434 Funny, I wasn't going to vote for Dr. Butler for president just because he was a POW either. But, if he had <i>willingly</i> gone over the wall with Midshipman McCain, then, by golly, I just might have considered him. Too bad for him. Funny, I wasn’t going to vote for Dr. Butler for president just because he was a POW either. But, if he had willingly gone over the wall with Midshipman McCain, then, by golly, I just might have considered him.

Too bad for him.

]]> By: Larry http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-2/#comment-237379 Larry Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:09:04 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-237379 DNO, Lex. That's what kills me about the whole Guantanamo situation. If any of those screaming about our "illegal detentions" there would actually READ the damn convention, they might figure out that, as you said, the convention deals very specifically with the issue of lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants (uniformed militaries, recognized militias, partisans wearing identifiable articles) are protected under the Convention. Unlawful combatants are not; in fact, the Convention makes it clear that unlawful combatants (like terrorists who use women and children as shields), once caught, are fully at the mercy of the local commanding officer of the opposing armed forces. That officer has complete latitiude in his treatment of said prisoners, up to and including field courts martial and summary executions. The US has been amazingly restrained in its treatment of terrorists (unlawful combatants). It is becoming apparent that this restraint will not be recognized or rewarded by anyone. I guess those who so vehemently oppose Guantanamo would prefer these unlawful combatants be dealt with as they were in times past. DNO, Lex. That’s what kills me about the whole Guantanamo situation. If any of those screaming about our “illegal detentions” there would actually READ the damn convention, they might figure out that, as you said, the convention deals very specifically with the issue of lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants (uniformed militaries, recognized militias, partisans wearing identifiable articles) are protected under the Convention. Unlawful combatants are not; in fact, the Convention makes it clear that unlawful combatants (like terrorists who use women and children as shields), once caught, are fully at the mercy of the local commanding officer of the opposing armed forces. That officer has complete latitiude in his treatment of said prisoners, up to and including field courts martial and summary executions. The US has been amazingly restrained in its treatment of terrorists (unlawful combatants). It is becoming apparent that this restraint will not be recognized or rewarded by anyone. I guess those who so vehemently oppose Guantanamo would prefer these unlawful combatants be dealt with as they were in times past.

]]> By: lex http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-1/#comment-237377 lex Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:00:59 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-237377 Self parody, brother. The fact that McCain was a shitty plebe <em>40 years ago</em> is a "compelling discourse"? A man who attacks another is himself immune from counter-attack? Character doesn't matter in a president? Geneva conventions on the treatment of lawful combatants apply to <em>unlawful</em> combatants? Read more. Self parody, brother. The fact that McCain was a shitty plebe 40 years ago is a “compelling discourse”?

A man who attacks another is himself immune from counter-attack?

Character doesn’t matter in a president?

Geneva conventions on the treatment of lawful combatants apply to unlawful combatants?

Read more.

]]> By: iceman http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-1/#comment-237375 iceman Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:54:38 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-237375 Butler offered us a compelling discourse as to why McCain shouldn't be playing the POW card every time something comes up. What do you offer us? An attack of the author? Come up with a sound reason as to why being a POW matters in a Presidential debate. And while you're at it figure out why a person who claimed to be tortured for 5 years voted to suspend Geneva conventions for military combatants. Butler offered us a compelling discourse as to why McCain shouldn’t be playing the POW card every time something comes up. What do you offer us? An attack of the author? Come up with a sound reason as to why being a POW matters in a Presidential debate. And while you’re at it figure out why a person who claimed to be tortured for 5 years voted to suspend Geneva conventions for military combatants.

]]> By: MaxDamage http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-1/#comment-426288 MaxDamage Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:03:06 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-426288 Jimmy, you have a knack for telling yarns, or if you wish to take a few liberties with it a sea story. Please, do continue! - Max Jimmy, you have a knack for telling yarns, or if you wish to take a few liberties with it a sea story.

Please, do continue!

– Max

]]> By: lex http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/comment-page-1/#comment-426314 lex Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:46:15 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/03/27/ankle-biter/#comment-426314 That was a really good story, JJ - thanks for that. That was a really good story, JJ – thanks for that.

]]>