[Rhodes22-list] political : what constitutes war?...big al delete

R22RumRunner at aol.com R22RumRunner at aol.com
Mon Jun 23 08:48:02 EDT 2008


Herb,
The only reason I ask is because I believe it has a lot to do with how the  
Supreme Court will view the enemy captives we are storing in Cuba. I know it's  
all legal mumbo jumbo, but the Bush administration has walked a fine line (  
albeit very well thought out) by transferring them from Iraq to Guantanimo. It 
 will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
Rummy
 
 
In a message dated 6/23/2008 8:43:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
hparsons at parsonsys.com writes:

there is  no "official declaration of war". Congress passed a bill 
authorizing the  action.

R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> 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)
>  __________________________________________________
> 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