[Rhodes22-list] political : what constitutes war?...big al delete
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Jun 23 09:35:29 EDT 2008
I believe the SC has already addressed the issue of the "declared war".
R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> 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)
> __________________________________________________
> 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