[Rhodes22-list] political : marines in iraq...big al delete

[Steven Alm]

Gosh, Herb, I know few people as argumentative as you.  No, I don't know
everything and your assessment of me is wrong.  If you think "chattel" is
the wrong word, then what?  Speak up.  I know you will.

Slim

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:

> Sorry Slim, you may think you know everything, but if you really think
> that, you're fooling yourself. You either don't know the meaning of
> "chattel", don't know what I think, or are simply lying. You choose for
> yourself, I don't know your mind.
>
>
> Steven Alm wrote:
> > Brad and Herb,
> >
> > You two are clearly on the same page that because this is war and because
> > these guys are idealists rather than nationalists, we have no obligation
> to
> > treat them any better than chattel.  No sirs, I haven't missed the point
> of
> > the article, I just don't like it.
> >
> > Brad, because they treat our boys badly is no reason to do the same.
> > Remember, the world is watching.  Odds are that some of the detainees are
> > innocent.  Herb seems to think that's a small price to pay and we'll just
> > let 'em go when the war is over.  Maybe that's right if the war were over
> > like yesterday but It's going to drag on and on--you know it will.
> >
> > And c'mon, Brad--let God sort it out?  That's not the Brad I know.  LOL
> >
> > Slim, your friendly neighborhood communist
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Steven Alm wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are so many things wrong with that WSJ article, I hardly know
> where
> >>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>> start.  Let's see:
> >>>
> >>> "The writ of habeas corpus, a bulwark of domestic liberty, has been
> >>>
> >> extended
> >>
> >>> to foreign nationals whose only connection to the U.S. is their capture
> >>>
> >> by
> >>
> >>> our military."
> >>>
> >>> Their only connection is that they're in our custody.  How are we going
> >>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>> treat them?  In accordance with our values or not?  Any person, citizen
> >>>
> >> or
> >>
> >>> not, on US soil is afforded ALL the rights of any other US citizen.
>  The
> >>> fact that the detainees are not on US soil is too subversive for me and
> I
> >>> smell a rat.  The military is trying to find a loophole and circumvent
> >>> American-style justice.  The Supremes are saying "No."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Are POW's in "our custody"? Is it your assertion that the writ of habeas
> >> corpus be extended to POWs? BTW, this isn't a case of the military
> >> trying to "find a loophole", this loophole was "found", and USED, with
> >> the SC's blessing, years ago.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court places many
> >>>
> >> roadblocks
> >>
> >>> in the path of a conviction for a crime, and for the loss of liberty,
> or
> >>> even life, that may follow."
> >>>
> >>> Roadblocks?  Since when is getting a fair trial a roadblock?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> We don't try enemy combatants during time of war.
> >>
> >>> "Our motto remains: Let 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man
> is
> >>> convicted."
> >>>
> >>> No.  Our motto is "innocent until proven guilty."
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Umm.... we have LOTS of motto's. Do a little research, that one has been
> >> around a long time, and it's NEVER applied in times of war to "the other
> >> side". Some times, as in the case of FDR and the Japanese Americans, it
> >> didn't even apply to THIS side.
> >>
> >>> "In fighting an enemy, there is no reason for the judicial branch to
> >>>
> >> "check"
> >>
> >>> the political branches."
> >>>
> >>> So is it better to let the military/admin go unchecked?  What a great
> >>>
> >> idea!
> >>
> >>>
> >> That's where "your side" just doesn't get it. The military has NEVER
> >> gone "unchecked". You folks just don't happen to like their checks and
> >> balances. And no, they're not perfect, but then, the civilian checks and
> >> balances aren't either.
> >>
> >>> "The judiciary is not competent to make judgments about who is or is
> not
> >>>
> >> an
> >>
> >>> enemy combatant or, more generally, a threat to the U.S."
> >>>
> >>> The court is not making that judgement.  They're just saying it needs
> to
> >>> adhere to reasonable standards when/if the prisoners are tried.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Guess we all have different definitions of "reasonable". "Your side" is
> >> about to get a reality lesson on "reasonable".
> >>
> >>> "The imposition of the civilian criminal justice model on decisions
> >>> regarding potentially hostile aliens raises a host of questions which
> the
> >>> Court does not even attempt to answer in Boumediene."
> >>>
> >>> Such as--what?  Don't detainees have a right to a fair trial?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Uh, Steve, he listed a lot of them. But yeah, the detainees don't have a
> >> right to a fair trial, while the war is still going on. Do you have
> >> precedent where we try the enemy during war time?
> >>
> >>> "Must military personnel take notes in the field regarding the
> location,
> >>> dress, and comportment of captives for later use in the "trials"
> mandated
> >>>
> >> by
> >>
> >>> the Supreme Court?"
> >>>
> >>> Of course.  Evidence is evidence.  Or should the detainees be subjected
> >>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>> mere hearsay?  "Um...I think he's an enemy so don't ask me for any
> >>>
> >> details."
> >>
> >>>
> >> That's the silliness that this is going to bring. I don't want soldiers
> >> have to take notes on evidence. Actually, I don't even care about a
> >> trial. When the fighting's over, send 'em back home.
> >>
> >>> "Can a detainee file a writ for habeas corpus immediately upon arriving
> >>>
> >> at a
> >>
> >>> U.S. military base like Guantanamo Bay?"
> >>>
> >>> Why not?  Any other low-life crack dealer in the US is afforded that
> >>>
> >> right.
> >>
> >>>
> >> He's said "why not". You've just decided it's all bunk before you began
> >> reading.
> >>
> >>> "In fact, judgments regarding the detention or trial of enemies require
> >>> training, experience, access to and understanding of intelligence."
> >>>
> >>> Agreed.  Who has this training, experience and understanding?  The guy
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>> caught him and just thinks he's an enemy?  Doesn't he deserve council?
> >>>
> >>  This
> >>
> >>> is America!  Try the sons of bitches and let's see!  The military's
> >>> closed-door approach stinks.  It's fascist.  It's secretive and it's
> >>>
> >> Nazi.
> >>
> >>> What are we afraid of?  The truth?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's just it, THIS is America, that ISN'T. Why the name-calling
> >> though? NOT trying combatants has nothing more to do with Facism or
> >> Naziism than your tripe has to do with communism. I
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> "They cannot be reduced to a particular standard of proof in a
> courtroom
> >>> setting. "
> >>>
> >>> Oh my god.  Did he really say that?  Do we need no proof?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Particular standard, hard to read the details when you're foaming at the
> >> mouth though, huh?
> >>
> >>> "God help us if the judiciary makes such a mistake and releases the
> next
> >>> Mohammad Atta into our midst."
> >>>
> >>> That's the whole point of a fair trial.  To prove it one way or the
> other
> >>>
> >> if
> >>
> >>> this guy's a criminal.  Sure, mistakes are sometimes made and trials
> are
> >>> sometimes tainted.  Criminals sometimes get released on technicalities.
> >>> This is no reason to throw out our judicial system and lock guys up and
> >>> throw away the key unless they're found to be enemies in a legitimate
> >>>
> >> court
> >>
> >>> trial.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> No Slim, that is NOT the purpose of a trial, at least not in our
> >> country, and that's the whole issue here, and you miss the point. In our
> >> civilian system, a trial absolutely does NOT "prove it one way or
> >> another". There is no burden on the accused to prove anything. Many
> >> criminals are set free because the system could not prove they were
> >> guilty, within the scope of "the rules" (keep in mind, those rules
> >> include things like mirandizing them, having a search warrant, etc).
> >> They are designed to err on the side of the accused. War is not the
> >> same. That's the whole point of this article, and you, not surprisingly,
> >> missed it.
> >>
> >>> Have we learned nothing from the past?  Did we really need to detain
> >>>
> >> every
> >>
> >>> single Japanese-American in the camps during WWII?  What nonsense.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> There is no comparison to this and the rounding up of the
> >> Japanese-Americans. We didn't round these people up on American soil. We
> >> (or others)  captured them up in the theater of war. They're not
> >> xxxxx-Americans. BTW, you need to check your history books, we didn't
> >> detain "every single Japanese-American in the camps during WWII"; but
> >> then, I suspect a little hyperbole is necessary to support arguments
> >> like this.
> >>
> >>> This whole Gitmo thing is completely unamerican.  I'd bet that some of
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> detainees are in fact guilty of being enemies but we can't, in good
> >>> conscience cattle-call them all to their graves without a shred of
> proof
> >>>
> >> or
> >>
> >>> trial.  The Supremes got it right.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, more hyperbole. None of these folks are being executed. None WERE
> >> to be executed without a trail. Of course, why bother introducing facts
> >> into the equation? You're on a rant, and that's what this decision is
> >> about.
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>