[Rhodes22-list] political : what constitutes war?...big al delete
R22RumRunner at aol.com
R22RumRunner at aol.com
Mon Jun 23 07:32:21 EDT 2008
Question? I don't believe that the United States has officially declared war
on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it was a
"police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war was WWII.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Rummy
In a message dated 6/23/2008 4:24:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
stevenalm at gmail.com writes:
gotta link?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:
> 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
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> 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
__________________________________________________
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list