[Rhodes22-list] political : marines in iraq...big al delete
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Jun 23 03:30:48 EDT 2008
You might win, but I doubt it. I seldom go to bed before two.
Steven Alm 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
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list