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)