Nightingale

LOL! That's silly! There are much worse (and much more interesting) things you could be looking at on the internet.

As far as I know, they have only two purposes: 1. to be cute 2. to be hawk food

Say when, and I'll send $20 your way. It's not much, but every bit adds up.

It would depend. Prosecution would have to prove that Bush knew what was going on at Guantanamo, and they may or may not be able to do that. ultimately, prosecution would really depend on another country catching him and demanding he be held accountable. I really doubt that would happen. No, Bush being given bad advice isn't a defense, but I think it's the main reason why he did what he did. Someone told him what he wanted to hear, and he went with it.

Ugh... I wouldn't give if I wasn't feeling well. Giving blood usually leaves me feeling awful. Tired, no energy... if you're already sick, why go through that? Expecially for A+. They always seem to have a surplus. Family members are just sometimes more comfortable receiving blood from someone they know. I see where you're coming from, that people might lie or understate a medical condition, but they ask those questions for a reason. Of course, I don't have any medical conditions that would prevent me from donating, aside from the tattoo, so I wouldn't have any reason to lie, and I guess I'm looking at it from that perspective.

A+ I don't give, because the red cross here always seems to have extra A+. I got a tattoo not too long ago, so the red cross doesn't want me anyway. Also, if I don't donate regularly, I will always be able to donate if a family member needs blood (most of my family is A+ and my brother is AB+. My dad is O+, so I couldn't donate for him, but I could for anyone else).

I think Bush was following some very bad advice.

Ooohhhh... I liked the peanut butter ones.

You can get big league chew and fun dip at pretty much any little league refreshment stand, or at costco. i've even seen them at Albertsons.

A+

So do I, when I'm not sick.

I have a few of the packages from before they changed the flavors... perhaps I can be bribed to bring them to Prairie.

Well, my grades in classes that have papers instead of finals have all been at least .5 higher than my grades in final exam classes. I think a lot of it is that I had to write a 50 page paper for pretty much every grad school class I took for my masters, plus 120 page screenplays as an undergrad, so I'm used to writing and I'm good at it. The final exams are so much pressure... your entire grade is based on 3 hours of your life. And I've had the flu for six of my final exams so far. At least with a paper, you don't run the risk of one bad day ruining your GPA.

Hehe. Well, if I wasn't bitching about papers, I'd be bitching about cramming for tests. I think I actually spend longer preparing for an exam than I do writing a 25-35 page paper.

No. They replaced them with melon flavor in the 5 flavor pack.

Gatorade Lemon Ice Black Currant Snapple (maybe still in England, but not here) Lime lifesavers

Dude, you went to the wrong law school. I've written exactly one paper my entire time in law school. Most law schools just have comprehensive exams at the end of the semester.... Brie I'd much prefer writing a paper to taking an exam. The 35 page paper is a directed research project... write 35 pages, get 3 credits. A lot easier than going to class and cramming for an exam, I think. I'm doing another one next semester. The 25 page paper is optional. We can write the paper or take the exam. Makes more sense to me to take the paper... no stress about cramming for the exam, no uncertainty about what I'll be tested on, just do research and write a paper. Much easier. The smaller papers are for a client counseling class. The papers are sample communications to clients, which I think is a very valuable skill to learn. So, no, I don't think I chose the wrong law school because I write papers.

As much as I would love to cut class and go jump, first off, I have no money, and second, I'm taking 14 credits this summer, so I don't even have time to sleep if I want to get everything done. I'm at Chapman in Orange. I'm ready to kill something. In the next two weeks, I have a 35 page paper, a 25 page paper, and 3 smaller papers due. I'm going to go scream now.

Yes, but we can't just kill them unless it is necessary. See quote from Geneva 1, above. You can't always get a clean kill on the field of battle. You're always going to have a few that surrender, a few that are wounded, and a few that are captured by other parties and turned over to you.

If they are from a country that is a party to the convention (most are), they are still afforded protections under the convention, no matter where they are caught. So, no. It doesn't make a difference.

The convention doesn't "kick in." The convention is binding at all times when there are people that are in any kind of custody that fall in to the protected persons category, when they are being held by a state that is party to the convention. "Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." -Geneva 4, Art. 1 As for why states don't usually just kill the other party: "Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." -Geneva 1, Art. 50 So, if the killing isn't justified for military goals, it's a war crime. That's why some of the Nazis and Rwandans ended up on trial for war crimes. Just because you're in a conflict doesn't mean you can kill anyone you want to just because you don't like them or the restrictions placed on imprisoning them.

When the state that they are a national of becomes a party to the convention. In the case of Afghanistan, that would be 1949, Iraq in 1956.

Hmm... The convention is a contract between governments about the treatment of the nationals of those countries. The convention doesn't really say anything about how the individual nationals are supposed to behave, if that's what you're asking. What it does say is: "Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention" -Geneva 4, Art. 8 "All protected persons who may desire to leave the territory at the outset of, or during a conflict, shall be entitled to do so...Those persons permitted to leave may provide themselves with the necessary funds for their journey and take with them a reasonable amount of their effects and articles of personal use.." -Geneva 4, Art. 35 "Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention." -Geneva 4, Art. 45

Thank you. No prob.

A protected person is anyone who is a national of a country that is a party to the conventions.