[Rhodes22-list] political : marines in iraq...big al delete
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Jun 23 04:19:47 EDT 2008
Slim, of course it's our right. We're at war. The Geneva convention
doesn't apply here. You do understand that the GC is a treaty (actually,
several treaties), and only applies to those that signed it? What's the
point of signing a treaty if the "other side" is going to give the same
"benefits" to those that DON'T sign it?
Even though in this case the "other side" hasn't signed on to the
treaties, I'll address your question about the GC.
There are four treaties. The third and fourth are applicable to your
question. There is debate about whether or not those in Gitmo are POW's,
so I'll include both, but that's easy, because this requirement is the
same for both POW's and civilians. They are to be released at the end of
the conflict.
Steven Alm wrote:
> "We hold them until the war is over."
>
> Is that our right? Do we have license to hold people without Habeus Corpus
> indefinitely? I'm no military expert and you seem to be so clue me in
> here--does the Geneva Convention allow for this? Or are all bets off
> because they're not in uniform and not necessarily nationals?
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry Slim, it's not. It's treating them as prisoners of war. In which
>> war have we tried POWs during the war? We don't. We hold them until the
>> war is over.
>>
>> We don't put them to work. We don't sell them. We don't trade them for
>> other property. We hold them. Thats the nature of war. While your
>> description might be accurate, your conclusion is totally off base. The
>> way we treat them is far form that of what people would do to "property".
>>
>>
>> Steven Alm wrote:
>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> It was these two statements that jumped out at me:
>>> "We don't try enemy combatants in time of war." and
>>> "Actually, I don't even care about a
>>> trial. When the fighting's over, send 'em back home."
>>>
>>> That's treating them as if we own them.
>>>
>>> Slim
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Steven Alm <stevenalm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> 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