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

Mon Jun 23 02:56:44 EDT 2008

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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>
>