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

Steven Alm stevenalm at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 02:49:32 EDT 2008 

Hey, it's only a quarter to two.  Bet I can stay up later than you and argue
this all night.  8-)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:

> It wasn't the use of the word, per se. It was you claim that I think we
> have no more obligation that to treat them as such.
> I disagree. I don't even know which form you mean the word, but none
> apply. I definitely don't think our obligation is limited to treating
> them as property or slaves. Most of the other definitions are pretty
> obscure, but none of them fit what I think our obligations are.
>
> Maybe a better approach would be for you to point out in my comments
> what lead you to believe that of me.
>
> Or, would asking you to back up your comments be too "argumentative"?
>
> Steven Alm wrote:
> > 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
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> __________________________________________________
>

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list