Just becuase he was affiliated with "the enemy," how does that equal combatant?  This seems like exaggerated internment, as it were.   Justin Schwartz <jkschw@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> >The stories say he was in the planning stage only....now how would that be >different from what we are doing with Iraq? Cuteness aside, talking about >blowing up the US is not a crime (let's ignore any recent "interpretations" >by the DOJ shall we?). So, unless they can point to an action taken in >furtherance, on what basis can they hold the guy? Justin any thoughts, as >I would think you see appeals from federal conspiricay and RICO stuff? > > That in part is why they are holding him as a military prisoner. If they had to bring him before a judge with that sort of crap, he judge would throw out the "charges" and let him go. Beside's, he's a PR lowlife without a family any civilized people can connect with. jks _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the ! ea! siest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl">Sign-up for Video Highlights</a> of 2002 FIFA World Cup