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

[Herb Parsons]

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
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>