[Rhodes22-list] political : what constitutes war?...big al delete
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Jun 23 08:43:11 EDT 2008
there is no "official declaration of war". Congress passed a bill
authorizing the action.
R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> Question? I don't believe that the United States has officially declared war
> on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it was a
> "police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war was WWII.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Rummy
>
>
> In a message dated 6/23/2008 4:24:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> stevenalm at gmail.com writes:
>
> 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
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
> __________________________________________________
> 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