mnealtx 0 #26 June 23, 2004 From the wikipedia definition of "combatant": Quote A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: 1. In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance. 2. Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them. 3. Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government. 4. Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism. A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war. A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed. Your truck driver is not in the military chain of command - his orders come from his company, not directly to him from the military. (Assuming you're talking about your everyday truck driver). From what I'm given to understand from talking with some people that are there on the ground, the security contractors are in the same boat - they do not fall directly under command of the military. Therefore, neither are combatants for purposes of the Geneva Convention - as if the Iraqi insurgents or Al Quaeda cared about them (the Geneva Conventions, that is) in any way other than what benefit THEY can get out of it. Hope the info helps -Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #27 June 23, 2004 In anticipation of this very scenario, I asked the smart people here about the status of contractors... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1111239#1111239 A while back. Hope the answers help the discussion. By the way, you'll like it at San Marcos, really good people out there.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #28 June 23, 2004 QuoteSomething about not being able to play with toy planes? Hey, lets not bash toy airplanes...I have 11 of them. My latest is a biplane with a 68" wingspan and it weighs about 18 pounds and spins an 22 inch propeller using a 5hp gas motor... Toy planes are cool."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 June 23, 2004 You might want to look at the kinds of contractors we have over there. The interrogators come to mind. They meet all the criteria you posted. I'm sure there are many others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #30 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteSomething about not being able to play with toy planes? Hey, lets not bash toy airplanes...I have 11 of them. My latest is a biplane with a 68" wingspan and it weighs about 18 pounds and spins an 22 inch propeller using a 5hp gas motor... Toy planes are cool. Very nice Pitts. What's the engine? It's remarkable how some people are willing to accept infringement on the activities of others without realizing that it's the thin end of the wedge (or camel's nose under the tent).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #31 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? By the time YOU wake up to the incremental loss of liberties under this "compassionate conservative" government, it will be too late. You only seem to have a problem if it affects you personally, and have no regard for others' activities that are being restricted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #32 June 24, 2004 QuoteVery nice Pitts. What's the engine? G62 (overpowered I know) QuoteIt's remarkable how some people are willing to accept infringement on the activities of others without realizing that it's the thin end of the wedge (or camel's nose under the tent). Thats a hard question. At some point the ability to do as you please has to be tempered. Otherwise murder would be ok. The question is not IF some personal liberties should be sacrificed....But the real question is WHAT is acceptable loss. It seems that most people are OK with any amount, and others seem to not be OK with any amount. The problem is that to be a member of society SOME MUST be given up for the greater good of all. The really funny thing I see is that some bitch about people having to give up certain personal liberties (Such as the right for subway cops to stop and search you) but want to limit other rights (Such as the right to carry a personal weapon). In my opinion if you are against one type and for another...You are being hypocritical. I am OK with just about any amount of infringment as long as its been approved as legal. I have faith that the system of checks and balances in this country will keep the most zelous ideas from comming to pass. At some point that may prove wrong...But until then I will give the system the benefit of the doubt. As for your model rockets....Well I think that some regulation would be needed....Such as getting a permit to allow you to use them. What is the limit? Can you NOT have them, or has it been made hard to get them? Like I said it should be easy to show that a Physics Professor that has been involved in model aviation for 20+ years has a reason to want a big honking model rocket engine. It would be less easy to show why a guy with no model rocket experience suddenly wants the most powerful engine he can get. The question is what level is OK. Unless you think there should be NO limits at all...Then 12 year olds should to allowed to drink, and parents should be allowed to beat their children."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? By the time YOU wake up to the incremental loss of liberties under this "compassionate conservative" government, it will be too late. You only seem to have a problem if it affects you personally, and have no regard for others' activities that are being restricted. Hey.. I'm sensitive to your activities. I mean today it's model airplanes, tomorrow it could be model trains. Slippery slope, right ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 June 24, 2004 Very rational post, Ron. Give me a minute to let it sink in .... ok.. I agree with you, but have a question. Don't you consider public opinion and civil disobedience to be one of those checks and balances that you mention? I do. I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons that kind of activity and freedom of speech were built into our government. Just because someone doesn't hold a political office or isn't a servant of the system doesn't mean they aren't a part of government. All of society is part of gov't, or should be. That's the intent behind gov't of, by, and for the people. The reason I ask is because you say you have no problem with any rule as long as it's lawful. But there are plenty of rules that come along that are deemed unlawful later. If noone made a stink about them then they would never be challenged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 June 24, 2004 QuoteI agree with you I have a new sig line!!!!!! QuoteDon't you consider public opinion and civil disobedience to be one of those checks and balances that you mention? As long as its legal. I don't think we want the KKK hanging blacks do we? Or a group of people (even if they are the majority) discriminating against race sex, or religion? So while Public opinion is a PART of the checks and balances....It still has to be legal. QuoteI'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons that kind of activity and freedom of speech were built into our government. Just because someone doesn't hold a political office or isn't a servant of the system doesn't mean they aren't a part of government. All of society is part of gov't, or should be. That's the intent behind gov't of, by, and for the people Agreed, you can vote against things you don't like, and vote for things you do like...You can also LEGALLY protest things, or support things if you wish. Thats part of the gov't by the people for the people. QuoteBut there are plenty of rules that come along that are deemed unlawful later. Then the system worked right? I have faith that any unjust rules will go away, and only the just ones will stay. But to protest against one form of personal freedom (Like my right to carry a legal weapon) while lamenting the legal search of people on a public transportation system is ironic. And it shows a serious lack of a foundation. How can a person be against anothers right to carry a weapon legally, and also against the right for the police to legally search someone? If you were all about personal freedom then you would support my right to carry a weapon and be against the right for the police to search me. But many times you are against the police right to search someone, AND against my personal right to carry a weapon....It just does not hold water. I'm for the right for you to carry a weapon as long as its legal, and FOR the right for the police to search us as long as its legal. QuoteIf noone made a stink about them then they would never be challenged. Oh no, please make a stink....But stay on topic...you either are FOR personal rights, or against them...You can't pick and choose the rights that are OK. You are FOR personal freedoms even if you don't agree with them...Or you are against them even if you agree. Me? I am FOR personal freedoms till they endanger others...So you can carry a gun, but its OK for the police to search you. You can drink till you are stupid...But you had better not get behind the wheel. You can engauge in any sexual acts you want as long as the other person is legal, and consenting....If its a minor, or its rape then your ass is grass. Everyday I have to have my bag Xrayed and go through a metal detector to get to my desk....I'm OK with that. If I was not, I could go get another job...If I am not OK with getting hit with a random search, then I could not take the train."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 June 24, 2004 QuoteHow can a person be against anothers right to carry a weapon legally, and also against the right for the police to legally search someone? If you were all about personal freedom then you would support my right to carry a weapon and be against the right for the police to search me. But many times you are against the police right to search someone, AND against my personal right to carry a weapon....It just does not hold water. i hope that was the figurative "you". I've been one of the most outspoken proponents of gun ownership on here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 June 24, 2004 Quotei hope that was the figurative "you". I've been one of the most outspoken proponents of gun ownership on here. Yes, but I don't get it either way. Also people don't bitch about having to get screened to get on a plane...But they will bitch about getting screened to get on a train?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? By the time YOU wake up to the incremental loss of liberties under this "compassionate conservative" government, it will be too late. You only seem to have a problem if it affects you personally, and have no regard for others' activities that are being restricted. Hey.. I'm sensitive to your activities. I mean today it's model airplanes, tomorrow it could be model trains. Slippery slope, right ? Maybe, or maybe oral sex with your wife or GF, or Habeus Corpus (oh, that's gone already), or to write about John Kerry on DZ.com. Who knows what Bush and Ashcroft will outlaw next?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)