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

Steven Alm stevenalm at gmail.com
Thu Jun 26 00:45:58 EDT 2008 

GV?  Sorry, I'm referring to the Geneva Convention.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Steven Alm <stevenalm at gmail.com> wrote:

> First, sorry, I didn''t mean to duck out of this conversation "But I just
> had to go sailing" for a couple days.  Felt great!  Still sizing up a
> Mississippi trip maybe next month.
>
> Herb, I looked at your link and I scanned the section on POW's and you're
> right--it's very lengthy.  I didn't find what I was looking for.  Please
> point me to the place where it says we have the right and reason to arrest
> and hold anybody we want, for as long as we want, without proof or evidence,
> denying them counsel, denying a trial or even a hearing, allowed to suppress
> evidence...
>
> In other words, point me to place in the GV or anything else for that
> matter that the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional--that you disagree
> with.
>
> I doubt there's any language written into law that settles this matter.
> Like always, it's open for interpretation.  This time, I think I'm in good
> company.  You, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito have lost this one.
>
> Slim
>
> Slim
>
>
> 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