Justices insist on 'civilized' war on terror: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Fixed source) |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=July 2, 2006 | |date=July 2, 2006 | ||
|url=http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/atoz/article_1198821.php | |url=http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/atoz/article_1198821.php | ||
|quote="And, of course, al-Qaeda never need to sign the Conventions now, do they? As the ultimate beneficiaries of the progressive mindset, they get all the benefits with none of the obligations. We’re bound, they’re not. If you’re captured with the severed head of a U.S. soldier in your knapsack, you’re covered by Geneva – and, as your victim learned a mile back up the road, it’s too late for him to call his lawyer. " | |quote="And, of course, al-Qaeda never need to sign the Conventions now, do they? As the ultimate beneficiaries of the progressive mindset, they get all the benefits with none of the obligations. We’re bound, they’re not. If you’re captured with the severed head of a U.S. soldier in your knapsack, you’re covered by Geneva – and, as your victim learned a mile back up the road, it’s too late for him to call his lawyer." | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{opinion|Hamdan v. Rumsfeld|Supreme Court was correct in its ruling|against}} | {{opinion|Hamdan v. Rumsfeld|Supreme Court was correct in its ruling|against}} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:41, September 18, 2006
This is an opinion item.
| Author(s) | Mark Steyn | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | The Orange County Register | |||
| Date | July 2, 2006 | |||
| URL | http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/atoz/article_1198821.php | |||
| Quote |
|
Add or change this opinion item's references
This item argues against the position Supreme Court was correct in its ruling on the topic Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.