Continue to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result?? Isn't that a definition for insanity??

Did you actually read the WSJ article?

The U.S. has employed forms of military commissions in past conflicts, most recently World War II, when hundreds of Axis officials and soldiers were tried for offenses such as crimes against humanity and mistreatment of American prisoners of war. But those trials took place after fighting had ended and before the introduction of stricter courtroom and evidentiary standards, as laid out by the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and other laws....

In November 2005, the administration formally charged Mr. Khadr with conspiracy, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. The charges stem from Mr. Khadr's classification as an unlawful combatant, or a person who has no right to commit acts of war; if he was adjudged to be part of a regular army, his actions likely would be considered legal under the rules of war.

BTW - Squeaky... why couldn't you stay on subject rather than jumping off into this?? Could it be you have no answers to my argument??

Now unless we divert the thread to answer ppj's questions we are OT.

nice try ppj glad that you have disagreed with your own advice.

My recommendation would be death by hanging.

And your reading comprehension is still at 6th grader with ADD.

Under an order President Bush issued in November 2001, Mr. Khadr could claim few of the rights afforded defendants in civilian courts or courts-martial...

Prof. Ahmed says murder by an unprivileged belligerent "has never been recognized as a violation of the laws of war," and was instead "invented" by the Bush administration. The other charge, aiding the enemy, makes no sense, the law professor adds, because Mr. Khadr owes no allegiance to the U.S. Lastly, because Mr. Khadr was 15 at the time of the alleged crime, he should be treated as a juvenile, says Prof. Ahmad, following historic precedent.

His attorneys allege Mr. Khadr was subjected to years of abuse, including being used as a "human mop" to clean up urine, being shackled until he soiled himself, and being threatened with deportation to Egypt, where he would be raped.

The case against Mr. Khadr is now one of many held up by the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Bush administration's original commission plan.

Likewise with a "war for oil." What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had.

Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

There would have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis.

As I also detail in The Bush Agenda, U.S. oil companies - previously all but shutout of Iraq's oil sector, are on the verge of winning Iraq's oil prize.
...
In August 2004, the U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minster of Iraq, Ayad Allawi (a former CIA operative), submitted guidelines for a new petroleum law recommending that the "Iraqi government disengage from running the oil sector" and that all undeveloped oil and gas fields in Iraq be turned over to private international oil companies using PSAs. Allawi's proposal is the basis of the current proposed oil law and could potentially give foreign companies control over approximately 87 percent of Iraq's oil.
...
This month, Petroleum Economist Magazine reported that U.S. oil companies put passage of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over their entry into Iraq. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, reserves that are cheap to exploit and worth literally trillions of dollars. U.S. oil companies want in, but on their own terms. They are, quite simply, trying to get the best deal possible out of a war-ravaged and occupied nation. They are also holding U.S. troops hostage. Let's face it, once they get their lucrative contracts, they will still demand protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 140,000 American troops?

I must again bring forth your standard method of operation, again in your own words.

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

The world doesn't work like.