 | | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what? —John Grubber
|
| | | (...) hasn't come up in this forum before. (...) treated fairly? (...) Dubya conveniently avoided having to worry about that distinction by not actually declaring war. The 'war on terror' is a colloquialism, a title for a foreign policy inititive (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what? —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | "John Grubber" <jgrubber2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:GqCuAF.n30@lugnet.com... snip (...) Several of them are British. Hardly as you describe. Though many in the UK would say 'serve them right' lawrence (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Yes, but that is just about the only thing they can say about the issue. Interestingly, I heard Rumsfeld say quite clearly yesterday that they were "terrorists". Comments like that should help make in future jury impartial... not! Scott A (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
