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

Brad Haslett flybrad at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 08:08:52 EDT 2008 

Herb,

Whoops, forgot to include the links.  Must have been the hour.

Brad

 http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/06/that-guy-who-lives-in-my-neighborhood.html


On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:

> I know you're going to think this is nuts, but it's just the way my
> brain runs sometimes (and please, feel free to take that as a clear
> indication that I AM indeed, nuts.)
>
> Travel back with me, if you will, to 1978. Harrison Ford is just
> beginning to ride the wave of success from Star Wars, and plays one of
> the heroes in this sequel (17 years coming) to The Guns of Navarone -
> Force 10 From Navarone.
>
> Sorry to spoil it for those of you that haven't seen it, but it HAS been
> 30 years....
>
> Our heroes have to destroy a bridge. Unfortunately, their munitions
> expert tells them it can't be done. Not with the explosives they have.
> So, they come up with a new idea, blow the dam upriver from the bridge,
> and let the water take it out. And it works. In a fun, and amazing, and
> spectacular fashion, it works!
>
> One problem.
>
> It's clearly a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
>
> No Supreme Court intervention needed, it's just a flagrant violation.
>
> Now, I know it didn't really happen, but this is Hollywood making Heroes
> out of people that flaunt the Geneva Conventions!!! Wow, who'dathunkit?
>
> Seriously though, the treaties have a lot less to do with how we treat
> POW's or enemy combatants, and are much more concerned with other
> matters, but you'd never know that, because most people's "knowledge" of
> it is what they heard on MSNBC or read in Newsweek..
>
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Herb,
> >
> > No reason to read it!  I'm taking the opposition position, "if yer fer
> it,
> > I'm agin it"!  The Obambi child will see the reality on day one after the
> > parades and the parties are over.  He really pisses me off for playing
> the
> > race card and sane and rational people like Ron Lipton really, really,
> piss
> > me off for playing the same card in a back-handed way that even they as
> > "sane and rational people" don't recognize.
> >
> > I'm joking about not reading the material -I read everything.  Gawd
> forbid I
> > kick anyone "in the stomach" and they can't kick back.
> >
> > I try to keep my comments above the line but that last response and
> comment
> > by Lipton was about as chickenshit as they come.  CHICKENSHIT!  I know
> that
> > deep down my vocabulary will find a more descriptive term but that term
> will
> > do for now.
> >
> > CHICKENSHIT!
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Prepare for a long night of reading. I'd read it before (kind of silly
> >> to argue that something is or isn't "against the Geneva Convention" if
> >> you haven't read it, wouldn't you agree), so I had a rough idea where it
> >> was. It's harder to understand than the constitution.
> >>
> >> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView
> >>
> >>
> >> Steven Alm wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> 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