The Rhodes 22 Discussion Group
Back to Member
Go to Thread
R22RumRunner at aol.com
political : what constitutes war?...big al delete
2008-06-23; 08:48:02 EDT
Member Since
2002-09-17
Posts: 4946
Herb, The only reason I ask is because I believe it has a lot to do with how the Supreme Court will view the enemy captives we are storing in Cuba. I know it's all legal mumbo jumbo, but the Bush administration has walked a fine line ( albeit very well thought out) by transferring them from Iraq to Guantanimo. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Rummy In a message dated 6/23/2008 8:43:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hparsons at parsonsys.com writes: there is no "official declaration of war". Congress passed a bill authorizing the action. R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:See the original archive post
> 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 > __________________________________________________ > > > > __________________________________________________ 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)
Message to Webmaster:
To use your email application to send a messsage to the webmaster rather than this form, .
Post to the Rhodes 22 Email List:
Sending Post:
Your post is being sent... 