PDA

View Full Version : America: The Decay of Liberty?



XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 10:52 PM
Even loyal Britain can no longer tolerate America's abuse of human rights at Camp X-Ray




By Neil Mackay



IN the seemingly perpetual war against terrorism, fought in the name of democracy and freedom, it was inevitable that America's hypocrisy in flouting the rule of law and the human rights of the detainees in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay would sooner or later prove to be the sticking point for US allies.
Held without charge; denied the protection of the Geneva Convention by their American military captors; refused the right to legal counsel; facing trial in secret by military tribunal with no right to appeal and subsequent execution -- the unjust behaviour of the Bush administration is a step too far for its Western allies. With nine Britons held at Camp X-Ray, the UK has eventually cracked and openly criticised the US for the gross abuses perpetrated against the 680 alleged terror suspects held in the sweltering wire mesh and wood cages on Cuba.

UK foreign minister Baroness Symons has made it clear that the rule of law must apply to these men -- no matter what offences they may have carried out. 'America has decided that they want to be the detaining power and that they want to hold the trials there. It is up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved. It now behoves the government to vigorously pursue issues about access to lawyers, standards of evidence and any appeals procedures.'

Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP who represents the British detainee Moazzam Begg, described military tribunals as 'totally unacceptable', adding: 'It would be very wrong of us not to put these people on trial in a proper court of law. We are upholders of civilised values and we can't devalue those by not allowing people access to a proper legal system .'

Neil Durkin of Amnesty International said it was impossible for the detainees to get a fair trial. 'It is being done outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, without the protection of the US constitution. They will have no entitlement to lawyers ... It's irregular, improper and concerning.' President Bush ruled on Thursday -- the Fourth of July -- that the first six detainees (including two Britons) should face a military tribunal rather than a proper legal court.

Those who support such a system claim that the US is at war with terrorists who don't fight by the rules, and that enemy aliens can't be afforded the protection of the US judicial system -- the US courts refuse to exercise their jurisdiction as Camp X-Ray is beyond US shores. Nor are they treated like prisoners of war, despite many being caught on the battlefield.

Colonel Will Gunn, the chief military defence lawyer appointed to the military tribunal system, says he will push for proceedings to be as open as possible. He says the US will be judged internationally on the fairness of the trials. The overseer of the tribunals is US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the most sabre-rattling of the hawks in Team Bush.

The Bush administration is ignoring all protests about its attack on the judicial process. The American Bar Association pointed out US hypocrisy by reminding the administration that America has condemned other countries for using military tribunals in the past. They are also worried that the media -- a recognised watchdog which ensures a public and fair trial -- will not be allowed to witness the proceedings.


Nor does Bush seem to care that his government's actions in Guantanamo will damage US relations with allies like Britain and ruin what's left of America's image in the Arab world. Little attention is paid to the fact that holding secret trials undermines American claims that they are fighting the war on terror to preserve US values of liberty.

There have been at least 28 suicides at Camp X-Ray so far. The Americans claim that those held there are the 'hardest of the hardcore', but senior defence officials have said off-the-record that 10% are probably innocent. All were subjected to CIA and MI5 interrogations, and are only allowed out of their cages to shower for five minutes and exercise for 10 minutes once a week. More than 40 detainees have been released, all of whom were in the wrong place at the wrong time, including two farmers in their mid-70s.

Camp X-Ray is the tip of the iceberg of US abuses against modern concepts of justice. At a CIA interrogation centre at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan alleged al-Qaeda members are subjected to 'stress and duress' techniques; aka, 'torture-lite'. They are kept kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, bound and deprived of sleep. Two captives died after beatings at Bagram and painkillers are apparently withheld from injured prisoners. One national security official told the Washington Post: 'If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job.' Bagram is off-limits to the Red Cross.

The total number of those 'missing' through the US prosecution of the war on terror could be as high as 15,000. The US has also sent prisoners to countries like Morocco, which routinely use torture, for interrogation. Against this charge sheet , the US government is arrogantly dismissive. Ultra-hardline US attorney general John Ashcroft -- a committed Christian -- hisses venom at civil liberties campaigners, saying: 'To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil.'


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 10:52 PM
Even loyal Britain can no longer tolerate America's abuse of human rights at Camp X-Ray




By Neil Mackay



IN the seemingly perpetual war against terrorism, fought in the name of democracy and freedom, it was inevitable that America's hypocrisy in flouting the rule of law and the human rights of the detainees in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay would sooner or later prove to be the sticking point for US allies.
Held without charge; denied the protection of the Geneva Convention by their American military captors; refused the right to legal counsel; facing trial in secret by military tribunal with no right to appeal and subsequent execution -- the unjust behaviour of the Bush administration is a step too far for its Western allies. With nine Britons held at Camp X-Ray, the UK has eventually cracked and openly criticised the US for the gross abuses perpetrated against the 680 alleged terror suspects held in the sweltering wire mesh and wood cages on Cuba.

UK foreign minister Baroness Symons has made it clear that the rule of law must apply to these men -- no matter what offences they may have carried out. 'America has decided that they want to be the detaining power and that they want to hold the trials there. It is up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved. It now behoves the government to vigorously pursue issues about access to lawyers, standards of evidence and any appeals procedures.'

Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP who represents the British detainee Moazzam Begg, described military tribunals as 'totally unacceptable', adding: 'It would be very wrong of us not to put these people on trial in a proper court of law. We are upholders of civilised values and we can't devalue those by not allowing people access to a proper legal system .'

Neil Durkin of Amnesty International said it was impossible for the detainees to get a fair trial. 'It is being done outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, without the protection of the US constitution. They will have no entitlement to lawyers ... It's irregular, improper and concerning.' President Bush ruled on Thursday -- the Fourth of July -- that the first six detainees (including two Britons) should face a military tribunal rather than a proper legal court.

Those who support such a system claim that the US is at war with terrorists who don't fight by the rules, and that enemy aliens can't be afforded the protection of the US judicial system -- the US courts refuse to exercise their jurisdiction as Camp X-Ray is beyond US shores. Nor are they treated like prisoners of war, despite many being caught on the battlefield.

Colonel Will Gunn, the chief military defence lawyer appointed to the military tribunal system, says he will push for proceedings to be as open as possible. He says the US will be judged internationally on the fairness of the trials. The overseer of the tribunals is US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the most sabre-rattling of the hawks in Team Bush.

The Bush administration is ignoring all protests about its attack on the judicial process. The American Bar Association pointed out US hypocrisy by reminding the administration that America has condemned other countries for using military tribunals in the past. They are also worried that the media -- a recognised watchdog which ensures a public and fair trial -- will not be allowed to witness the proceedings.


Nor does Bush seem to care that his government's actions in Guantanamo will damage US relations with allies like Britain and ruin what's left of America's image in the Arab world. Little attention is paid to the fact that holding secret trials undermines American claims that they are fighting the war on terror to preserve US values of liberty.

There have been at least 28 suicides at Camp X-Ray so far. The Americans claim that those held there are the 'hardest of the hardcore', but senior defence officials have said off-the-record that 10% are probably innocent. All were subjected to CIA and MI5 interrogations, and are only allowed out of their cages to shower for five minutes and exercise for 10 minutes once a week. More than 40 detainees have been released, all of whom were in the wrong place at the wrong time, including two farmers in their mid-70s.

Camp X-Ray is the tip of the iceberg of US abuses against modern concepts of justice. At a CIA interrogation centre at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan alleged al-Qaeda members are subjected to 'stress and duress' techniques; aka, 'torture-lite'. They are kept kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, bound and deprived of sleep. Two captives died after beatings at Bagram and painkillers are apparently withheld from injured prisoners. One national security official told the Washington Post: 'If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job.' Bagram is off-limits to the Red Cross.

The total number of those 'missing' through the US prosecution of the war on terror could be as high as 15,000. The US has also sent prisoners to countries like Morocco, which routinely use torture, for interrogation. Against this charge sheet , the US government is arrogantly dismissive. Ultra-hardline US attorney general John Ashcroft -- a committed Christian -- hisses venom at civil liberties campaigners, saying: 'To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil.'


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 11:44 PM
Source?

<hr width="50%" align="left">c.787
Murphy's Law: If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
c.787@charter.net

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:37 AM
Haha, Neil Mackay also wrote an article that Bush is trying to conquer the world. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh well, doesn't matter, we no longer need to read anything MNG writes. The message is clear. America is evil, everything Bush does is something wrong, everyone is right as long as they are against the current America. Damn, I live in America, I'm so sad now. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:16 AM
So human rights abuses conducted by the good ol US of A are okay by you demon?
Do you have a rebuttal? A point?
Are you simply posting again to 'hear yourself speak' as usual?
Or are you just ****ging MNG because he posts articles critical of our govts action under Bush, and specifically regarding the 'war on terror'?


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:35 AM
No, I didn't even read the article. I never really claimed anything about the article itself Gandalf. I simply snickered at it. You're the only one that seems to jump in and point fingers and say that I'm doing such and such, since you're an expert in human psychology and all, I guess people should really listen, or care about your opinion about my actions and all. Because I know I do, your word is my benchmark to know if I'm doing something right.

Good show mate!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:55 AM
c.787 wrote:
- Source?

Heinz ketchup please, no wait make it K1.

Seriously though did you miss Neil Mackay's name listed at the top?

If thats not enough, knock yourself out:

http://www.sundayherald.com/35083

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>


Message Edited on 07/06/0310:56PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:03 AM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- No, I didn't even read the article. I never really
- claimed anything about the article itself Gandalf. I
- simply snickered at it. You're the only one that
- seems to jump in and point fingers and say that I'm
- doing such and such, since you're an expert in human
- psychology and all, I guess people should really
- listen, or care about your opinion about my actions
- and all. Because I know I do, your word is my
- benchmark to know if I'm doing something right.

Ah Demon you are a true master of the art of Speaking Without Saying Anything.

In any case, if you read that article carefully (and I realise you are an expert in law) you may see the implicit argument. That is, if you consider the Founding Fathers to be true Americans and you understand that the system of law and government originally laid down was based on certain principles. These principles include but are not limited to: the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the Rights of Englishmen and the Rules of War (later formalized in the Geneva Conventions). The point is that George Bush is violating all of these principles in his War on Terror and therefore the inescapable conclusion is that he is an Anti-American and a firm enemy of liberty and all of the ideals upon which America was founded.


Now go on with what you weren't saying.

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 07:26 AM
Oh no, I'm skipping any more whining about Iraq, Bush, America, etc. Haha, nothing anyone says will change anyone's mind, I'd rather talk about how gay T3 was. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:58 PM
Point fingers?
Just trying to elicit an intelligent comment from you. Again, my mistake.


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

Message Edited on 07/07/0309:00AM by Gandalf_is_dead

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:12 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Oh no, I'm skipping any more whining about Iraq,
- Bush, America, etc. Haha, nothing anyone says will
- change anyone's mind, I'd rather talk about how gay
- T3 was.

With gay you mean bad?



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:43 PM
buccaneer wrote:
- Demon_Mustang wrote:
-- Oh no, I'm skipping any more whining about Iraq,
-- Bush, America, etc. Haha, nothing anyone says will
-- change anyone's mind, I'd rather talk about how gay
-- T3 was.
-
- With gay you mean bad?

Buc's right Demon. At no point during the movie was the sexual preference of either Terminator established, although I think it is pretty clear that Connor likes girls.

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:48 PM
for some reason i really dont care about the "detainees" at "camp X-ray." maybe i should- but i dont. if it was proven that they had other people being held there that had nothing to do with terror groups (like reporters with dissenting opinions, opponents of the Bush administration, etc.) maybe then id care.


_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:16 PM
Olegious wrote:
- for some reason i really dont care about the
- "detainees" at "camp X-ray." maybe i should- but i
- dont. if it was proven that they had other people
- being held there that had nothing to do with terror
- groups (like reporters with dissenting opinions,
- opponents of the Bush administration, etc.) maybe
- then id care.

It was proven. Several people were released earlier this year two of whom were a pair of 70 year old farmers and some British aid workers. It is estimated by camp commanders that some 10% may be innocent.

Bear in mind that these people have been locked up without charge for a year and a half. Without charge man! This a fundamental contradiction of the basic principles of law upon which the United States was founded. Do you think it will stop here?

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 04:50 PM
I think the machines like toasters /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:04 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Even loyal Britain can no longer tolerate America's
- abuse of human rights at Camp X-Ray
-
-
-
-
-
- By Neil Mackay
-
-
-
-
- IN the seemingly perpetual war against terrorism,
- fought in the name of democracy and freedom, it was
- inevitable that America's hypocrisy in flouting the
- rule of law and the human rights of the detainees in
- Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay would sooner or later
- prove to be the sticking point for US allies.
- Held without charge; denied the protection of the
- Geneva Convention by their American military
- captors; refused the right to legal counsel; facing
- trial in secret by military tribunal with no right
- to appeal and subsequent execution -- the unjust
- behaviour of the Bush administration is a step too
- far for its Western allies. With nine Britons held
- at Camp X-Ray, the UK has eventually cracked and
- openly criticised the US for the gross abuses
- perpetrated against the 680 alleged terror suspects
- held in the sweltering wire mesh and wood cages on
- Cuba.
-
- UK foreign minister Baroness Symons has made it
- clear that the rule of law must apply to these men
- -- no matter what offences they may have carried
- out. 'America has decided that they want to be the
- detaining power and that they want to hold the
- trials there. It is up to us to have a very vigorous
- discussion with the US about securing a fair trial
- for the individuals involved. It now behoves the
- government to vigorously pursue issues about access
- to lawyers, standards of evidence and any appeals
- procedures.'
-
- Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP who represents the
- British detainee Moazzam Begg, described military
- tribunals as 'totally unacceptable', adding: 'It
- would be very wrong of us not to put these people on
- trial in a proper court of law. We are upholders of
- civilised values and we can't devalue those by not
- allowing people access to a proper legal system .'
-
- Neil Durkin of Amnesty International said it was
- impossible for the detainees to get a fair trial.
- 'It is being done outside the jurisdiction of the
- Supreme Court, without the protection of the US
- constitution. They will have no entitlement to
- lawyers ... It's irregular, improper and
- concerning.' President Bush ruled on Thursday -- the
- Fourth of July -- that the first six detainees
- (including two Britons) should face a military
- tribunal rather than a proper legal court.
-
- Those who support such a system claim that the US is
- at war with terrorists who don't fight by the rules,
- and that enemy aliens can't be afforded the
- protection of the US judicial system -- the US
- courts refuse to exercise their jurisdiction as Camp
- X-Ray is beyond US shores. Nor are they treated like
- prisoners of war, despite many being caught on the
- battlefield.
-
- Colonel Will Gunn, the chief military defence lawyer
- appointed to the military tribunal system, says he
- will push for proceedings to be as open as possible.
- He says the US will be judged internationally on the
- fairness of the trials. The overseer of the
- tribunals is US deputy defence secretary Paul
- Wolfowitz, one of the most sabre-rattling of the
- hawks in Team Bush.
-
- The Bush administration is ignoring all protests
- about its attack on the judicial process. The
- American Bar Association pointed out US hypocrisy by
- reminding the administration that America has
- condemned other countries for using military
- tribunals in the past. They are also worried that
- the media -- a recognised watchdog which ensures a
- public and fair trial -- will not be allowed to
- witness the proceedings.
-
-
- Nor does Bush seem to care that his government's
- actions in Guantanamo will damage US relations with
- allies like Britain and ruin what's left of
- America's image in the Arab world. Little attention
- is paid to the fact that holding secret trials
- undermines American claims that they are fighting
- the war on terror to preserve US values of liberty.
-
- There have been at least 28 suicides at Camp X-Ray
- so far. The Americans claim that those held there
- are the 'hardest of the hardcore', but senior
- defence officials have said off-the-record that 10%
- are probably innocent. All were subjected to CIA and
- MI5 interrogations, and are only allowed out of
- their cages to shower for five minutes and exercise
- for 10 minutes once a week. More than 40 detainees
- have been released, all of whom were in the wrong
- place at the wrong time, including two farmers in
- their mid-70s.
-
- Camp X-Ray is the tip of the iceberg of US abuses
- against modern concepts of justice. At a CIA
- interrogation centre at Bagram airbase in
- Afghanistan alleged al-Qaeda members are subjected
- to 'stress and duress' techniques; aka,
- 'torture-lite'. They are kept kneeling for hours, in
- black hoods or spray-painted goggles, bound and
- deprived of sleep. Two captives died after beatings
- at Bagram and painkillers are apparently withheld
- from injured prisoners. One national security
- official told the Washington Post: 'If you don't
- violate someone's human rights some of the time, you
- probably aren't doing your job.' Bagram is
- off-limits to the Red Cross.
-
- The total number of those 'missing' through the US
- prosecution of the war on terror could be as high as
- 15,000. The US has also sent prisoners to countries
- like Morocco, which routinely use torture, for
- interrogation. Against this charge sheet , the US
- government is arrogantly dismissive. Ultra-hardline
- US attorney general John Ashcroft -- a committed
- Christian -- hisses venom at civil liberties
- campaigners, saying: 'To those who scare
- peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,
- my message is this: your tactics only aid
- terrorists, for they erode our national unity and
- and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to
- America's enemies and pause to America's friends.
- They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent
- in the face of evil.'
-
-
-
Sorry but when they came to our land and killed 3000 of our citizens they lost all rights. Notice we didnt detain All Afghans? Besides they are treated a lot better here then if they where under Osama bin Ladin....He sends them out to die.

All I can say is GO BUSH '04

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:19 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

-
- Bear in mind that these people have been locked up
- without charge for a year and a half. Without
- charge man! This a fundamental contradiction of the
- basic principles of law upon which the United States
- was founded. Do you think it will stop here?

also bear in mind that these people where combatants or in some way supporters of the Taliban and Osama bin Ladin. For the 10% percent that are mistakenly detain. Sorry, it wasnt fair for the 3000 citizens to die because of some crazed long bearded goat either.

....the fundamental contradiction of the basic principles of law founded by America is for American Citizens.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:59 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
--
-- Bear in mind that these people have been locked up
-- without charge for a year and a half. Without
-- charge man! This a fundamental contradiction of the
-- basic principles of law upon which the United States
-- was founded. Do you think it will stop here?
-
- also bear in mind that these people where combatants
- or in some way supporters of the Taliban and Osama
- bin Ladin. For the 10% percent that are mistakenly
- detain. Sorry, it wasnt fair for the 3000 citizens
- to die because of some crazed long bearded goat
- either.

I guess that makes us as bad as them then.
-
- ....the fundamental contradiction of the basic
- principles of law founded by America is for American
- Citizens.

No they are universal laws for all humans. This is necessary because otherwise, if you are going to make arbitrary exceptions then there is no protection for American citizens. By the way American citizens have already been grabbed and held without charge under the gov't's new powers.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:07 AM
"Buc's right Demon. At no point during the movie was the sexual preference of either Terminator established, although I think it is pretty clear that Connor likes girls."

Haha /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif My apologies, yes, I meant stupid and bad.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:26 AM
MNG: while i agree that youre right to be distrusful of a secret detention center i doubt that youll get much support for your ideas, most Americans believe that their government cannot do evil or unethical acts.


_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 01:45 PM
Olegious wrote:
- MNG: while i agree that youre right to be distrusful
- of a secret detention center i doubt that youll get
- much support for your ideas, most Americans believe
- that their government cannot do evil or unethical
- acts.

You are absolutely right and I think that is the most important achievement of the US Mandatory Public Education system. Americans are taught to accept the unquestioned glory and intrinsic goodness of the US government.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:06 PM
MNG: i dont know where you went to school but the public school system in California (at least where i went) is filled with ultra-left wingers who teach a lot of anti-Americanisms.


_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:24 PM
Olegious wrote:
- MNG: i dont know where you went to school but the
- public school system in California (at least where i
- went) is filled with ultra-left wingers who teach a
- lot of anti-Americanisms.

Well, I guess I didn't go there.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 09:37 PM
Olegious wrote:

- MNG: while i agree that youre right to be distrusful
- of a secret detention center i doubt that youll get
- much support for your ideas, most Americans believe
- that their government cannot do evil or unethical
- acts.

I think most Americans understand that to fight terrorists effectevely you have to take away their rights so they will understand that if they are involved in any terrorist activities life for them would be very hard. That is what I feel
- _______________________________________
-
- "Generals dont run; during peace this prompts
- laughter, during war this prompts panic."



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 12:02 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- Olegious wrote:
-
-- MNG: while i agree that youre right to be distrusful
-- of a secret detention center i doubt that youll get
-- much support for your ideas, most Americans believe
-- that their government cannot do evil or unethical
-- acts.
-
- I think most Americans understand that to fight
- terrorists effectevely you have to take away their
- rights so they will understand that if they are
- involved in any terrorist activities life for them
- would be very hard. That is what I feel

Who cares what you feel? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Anyway, don't you have to at least determine that they are terrorists before you take away their rights?

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 12:55 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-Who cares what you feel?
- Anyway, don't you have to at least determine that they are terrorists before you take away their rights?


*Looking at the people in Camp X-ray*, "Nope, Aparently not." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




"Brave Rifles!"

- Matt
"The spirit of the Cav is reason enough to fight!"

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/guidon666/BR.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 12:59 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

-
- Who cares what you feel? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nobody/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
- Anyway, don't you have to at least determine that
- they are terrorists before you take away their
- rights?

call it an educated guess but someone on the other side where the guilty are hiding takes a shot at you, somehow you disarm him and take him away. He is from their side so we take him and question him until we are satisfied that he is inocent. Takes too long? oh well they shouldnt have (for the use of a better word) fornicate with us.
-


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 03:13 AM
California schools are a disgrace. They don't teach their kids about sex education, but instead, teach them about homosexual relationships. Wow, great idea, let's influence little gullable, influential kids to believe that it's normal in nature for people of the same sex to, well "come together." Yes, that's exactly what we need to teach our children.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif That is so sad, California needs to be started over, those people over there are such whack-jobs.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:36 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
-
--
-- Who cares what you feel?
-
- Nobody

Hey man *takes Hornet by the shoulder and wipes a tear from his eye* I care, man, I care.
--
-- Anyway, don't you have to at least determine that
-- they are terrorists before you take away their
-- rights?
-
- call it an educated guess but someone on the other
- side where the guilty are hiding takes a shot at
- you, somehow you disarm him and take him away. He is
- from their side so we take him and question him
- until we are satisfied that he is inocent. Takes too
- long? oh well they shouldnt have (for the use of a
- better word) fornicate with us.

Well Hornet I promise never to fornicate with you, you sound tough. What you say makes sense but it has taken 18 months for the first six to be questioned. Don't you think they deserve a speedy trial? Thats a basic legal right.

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:09 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Who cares what you feel?
--
-- Nobody
-
- Hey man *takes Hornet by the shoulder and wipes a
- tear from his eye* I care, man, I care.

LOL. I laughed pretty hard at that, You're a dark horse, MNG. I'll enjoy a days drinking in your company.

About this whole mess at Camp X-Ray...

I'm sorta with Hornet on this one. By all means have the camp exist as a taster for hell on earth, but I very much doubt how anyone could justify holding two 70 year-old farmers for such a long time. Maybe they thought they were Taliban ringleaders or something.

I dunno. Still, 90% of detainees in that camp are extraordinarily dangerous. Sifting the innocent from sociopaths is never an easy job.



http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:28 PM
Slackbladder wrote:
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
-- Hornet57 wrote:
--- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--- Who cares what you feel?
---
--- Nobody
--
-- Hey man *takes Hornet by the shoulder and wipes a
-- tear from his eye* I care, man, I care.
-
- LOL. I laughed pretty hard at that, You're a dark
- horse, MNG. I'll enjoy a days drinking in your
- company.
-
- About this whole mess at Camp X-Ray...
-
- I'm sorta with Hornet on this one. By all means
- have the camp exist as a taster for hell on earth,
- but I very much doubt how anyone could justify
- holding two 70 year-old farmers for such a long
- time. Maybe they thought they were Taliban
- ringleaders or something.
-
- I dunno. Still, 90% of detainees in that camp are
- extraordinarily dangerous. Sifting the innocent
- from sociopaths is never an easy job.

Well thats just it - they didn't have to justify it. They just grabbed them. The poor guys were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up. Surely you cannot condone an arbitrary authority that grabs people at random for a crime that they in all likelihood were not involved with. You are aware that this is the kind of authority David Blunkett would like to introduce in Britain. This means no one would be safe - not even you.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:38 PM
MNG wrote:
- Well thats just it - they didn't have to justify it.
- They just grabbed them. The poor guys were in the
- wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up.
- Surely you cannot condone an arbitrary authority
- that grabs people at random for a crime that they in
- all likelihood were not involved with. You are
- aware that this is the kind of authority David
- Blunkett would like to introduce in Britain. This
- means no one would be safe - not even you.

I'm wondering if the FBI was involved with this at all. Surely some of the finest interrogators in the US of A can find out whether that 70 year old farmer is telling fibs or covering his *** in a time that takes something less than 18 months.

BUT, MNG, the simple fact remains that the US are getting weapons-grade intelligence from this camp. The toughest nuts in A-Q are not going to hold out forever. In our haste to appear "humane" we may inadvertantly release someone that we really dont want wandering around. It may be a simple question of logistics as to how many people can be effectivly interrogated at any one time. Camp X-Ray contains 680 people all found in the middle of a war-zone which is in turn filled with people who would happily pilot a 747 into the building of your choice. Not a crowd of people you would want to entertain at a party.

Interrogation is an intense process, lasting weeks at a time. Ten men might be put through the "interrogation mill" at a time for as long as it takes to break them in half, but you still have 670 other guys sitting around doing nothing. If the average prisoner is put through a fortnight of rigorous interrogation before being judged "Innocent" or "Guilty" and ten prisoners are subject to this at any one time, it would take just over two and a half years before the whole camp is "worked over"

With an estimated 10% innocence rate, maybe the 18 month gap between incarceration and freedom finally has a reason for existing.

Regarding Blunkett, I believe he wants the police to have the power to detain a person for 7 days without charge under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Hardly 18 months.

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 02:27 PM
Slackbladder wrote:
- Regarding Blunkett, I believe he wants the police to
- have the power to detain a person for 7 days without
- charge under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
- Hardly 18 months.

7 days or 18 months is only a difference of degree. The fact is this violates your rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. I personally know people in England who have been detained without charge for six months without an Act of Parliament. One day in jail is hell. The reason it has taken 18 months is because the US government does not have the manpower or the know-how to determine whether all of these people are innocent or guilty. So they are being tortured until they break and hopefully, actually have something useful to say. You think it takes 18 months to force some one to say what you want them to say? And when Blunkett arbitrarily says 7 days do you trust him not to increase it in the future (as long as he has a good reason of course)? And why do we have Prevention of Terrorism Act? We weren't even attacked!!! This is all about increasing the power of the state over the individual. Terrorism is like religion in the Middle-Ages - a useful concept to frighten the populace into submission.

And are you so sure about the intelligence coming from this camp? Do you trust the intelligence services after the Iraq debacle? I'm sure a FBI interrogator could tell that a farmer is just a farmer but unfortunately the FBI has its hands full with crime. But this is not about intelligence or justice - its about venguence.

I must admit, Slackbladder, to be a little concerned at your casual dismissal of the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights. Do you know what humanity went through to get these protections for us? Thousands of years of oppression and now we dismiss them with wave of a hand.


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>


Message Edited on 07/10/0309:37AM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:51 PM
MNG wrote:
- 7 days or 18 months is only a difference of degree.

Touche. While I do not disagree with you on this issue, the UK police already have the power to detain without charge for 72 hours. This rule was devised when police work was very different from today. Expecting modern police to work within the boundaries of an past time is not the most efficient manner of management. The police must have time to construct their case and make a formal charge while a suspect is in their custody. Without this buffer zone, the police would be hard pressed to do their job.

With the advent of forensic science and other technology-oriented evidence gathering, 72 hours is simply not enough. Many suspects have been released from custody before decisive evidence is properly analysed. I think 7 days is the correct, proper time limit to impose. Anything longer would be unnacceptable, granted. I would also wish for special "holding" centres built with the expectation that the person incarcerated may be innocent.

- You think it takes 18 months to force some one to say
- what you want them to say?

No, I think it takes about a fortnight. maybe a month, but you cant interrogate everybody all the time. Therefore, some must wait their turn.

- why do we have Prevention of Terrorism Act? We
- weren't even attacked!!!

Does the IRA ring any bells? Does the story of the A-Q cell planning to park a plane on Parliament House arrested in Italy ring any bells? We ARE a target and must update our law enforcement ROE to counter a modern threat.

- This is all about
- increasing the power of the state over the
- individual. Terrorism is like religion in the
- Middle-Ages - a useful concept to frighten the
- populace into submission.

I agree with you on this. The creation of a Department of Domestic Security and the TIA database is very frightening. I am in favour of updating the rules in which law enforcement must work, but there must be constraints. It is a sobering thing to see this happen before our very eyes.

- And are you so sure about the intelligence coming
- from this camp? Do you trust the intelligence
- services after the Iraq debacle?

The two are very different things. Intelligence derived from a Camp X-Ray inmate is useful. Descriptions of A-Q operatives, specialties, missions to be undertaken. All useful stuff.

The war in Iraq was driven by politics, not intelligence chiefs. They were either (a) acting on orders or (b) knew something that was judged too awful/controversial for public to accept. Either way, intelligence comes away from this with their hands clean.

- But this is not about intelligence or
- justice - its about vengence.

Hardly a substantive statement. That is opinion. Unless you can validate that, that is the way it stays. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- I must admit, Slackbladder, to be a little concerned
- at your casual dismissal of the Geneva Conventions
- and the Bill of Rights.

You've got to be casual when you do this. Looking serious gives the impression you are joking.

- Do you know what humanity
- went through to get these protections for us?
- Thousands of years of oppression and now we dismiss
- them with wave of a hand.

I'm hardly proposing that we wipe the slate clean, but I am of the opinion that the current legislation is inadequate to deal with the scale of the threat posed. Unless you fancy living in a world like the West Bank writ large, that is.

*twang*

http://www.jc3.homestead.com/files/sig_slackbladder.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:43 PM
Slackbladder wrote:
- MNG wrote:
-- 7 days or 18 months is only a difference of degree.
-
- Touche. While I do not disagree with you on this
- issue, the UK police already have the power to
- - detain without charge for 72 hours.

I think the problem is not the amount of time but the efficiency of the authority handling the job. 72 hours should be enough given technology. And people should be compensated for their time. A simple "sorry mate, turns out you're innocent" is not enough. My friend was in a special "holding" center and it turned out he was innocent. But the problem I have is not the 7 days but with the government these things always creep up higher ("maybe we should bump this up a day or two, with modern technology, it now seems that 7 days is not enough"). It has just been bumped up from 4 days to 7!

What are the boundaries of a past time? Which time? Five minutes ago? Last week? Four million years ago? You are not being arbitrary again are you? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-
-- why do we have Prevention of Terrorism Act? We
-- weren't even attacked!!!
-
- Does the IRA ring any bells? Does the story of the
- A-Q cell planning to park a plane on Parliament
- House arrested in Italy ring any bells? We ARE a
- target and must update our law enforcement ROE to
- counter a modern threat.

We made ourselves a target by getting involved. But you and I are not a target. To A-Q we are just collateral damage. It is the State that is their target.
-
-- And are you so sure about the intelligence coming
-- from this camp? Do you trust the intelligence
-- services after the Iraq debacle?
-
- The two are very different things. Intelligence
- derived from a Camp X-Ray inmate is useful.

How do you know? If its so damn useful why is it taking two years to get it? Is two year old intelligence still timely?


- Descriptions of A-Q operatives, specialties,
- missions to be undertaken. All useful stuff.
-
- The war in Iraq was driven by politics, not
- - intelligence chiefs.

Let me get this straight. You trust the men that lied to you about Iraq, who are currently violating established human rights in Cuba to compile intelligence that you will never see about A-Q suspects who will in all likelihood, never harm you. You think this is not also driven by politics? These are politicians we are talking about. Your faith in their integrity is touching, my young friend /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
-- But this is not about intelligence or
-- justice - its about vengence.
-
- Hardly a substantive statement. That is opinion.
- Unless you can validate that, that is the way it
- stays.

I left my validation stamp at home!


-- Do you know what humanity
-- went through to get these protections for us?
-- Thousands of years of oppression and now we dismiss
-- them with wave of a hand.
-
- I'm hardly proposing that we wipe the slate clean,
- but I am of the opinion that the current legislation
- is inadequate to deal with the scale of the threat
- posed.

Which threat? The threat from A-Q or the threat from Big Brother? The fact that you propose legislation (Act of the State) presupposes you favour the expansion of government intrusion into our lives. So the State protects you from terrorists that are far less likely to kill you than McDonalds but who protects you from the State?


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 03:23 PM
Slacky, just FYI

"The three known defendants are being held with as many as 680 other foreign captives at Camp X-Ray at Washington's Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba where, according to a series of court decisions, none of them enjoys the basic due-process rights required by the US constitution.

Most of the captives there were seized in Afghanistan during and after the US-led military campaign that ousted the Taliban government in late 2001. Some, however, were seized as part of the US "war on terrorism" well after the anti-Taliban campaign and in countries other than Afghanistan.

Of the hundreds who have been held at Guantanamo, only about 40 have been released and repatriated. Camp officials admit that many of those who continue in captivity held low-ranking positions in the Taliban and whose intelligence value, if any, ran out long ago. In April, the administration acknowledged that three of the prisoners were between the ages of 13 and 15. "

From the following depraved and lustily liberal source:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EG09Ag01.html


<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 07:02 AM
It seems that we have overlooked the fact that 3000 of our citizens were murdered. Now, I wans't there so i can't vouch for the terror and pain and hopelessness they and their families endured because some religious fanatics do notlike the way we do business or conduct ourselves on the world playing field.
I personally have no qualms about any of them being held for whatever period of time it takes to get what information we need to either stop this crap or put one hell of a dent in them.
So two old men were kept incognito for a period of time. Some say they must be innocent, perhaps they are-perhaps they are not. These are assumptions we are all making without being in possession of the facts. that is our right, i guess and it makes for good dialogue, but, unless i am mistaken, there are still some 'Old" men in hiding throughout the world who joyously sent many thousands to the gas chambers a few years ago. you may have heard about it-or perhaps read it somewhere.,

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 04:35 PM
Leep wrote:
- It seems that we have overlooked the fact that 3000
- of our citizens were murdered. Now, I wans't there
- so i can't vouch for the terror and pain and
- hopelessness they and their families endured because
- some religious fanatics do notlike the way we do
- business or conduct ourselves on the world playing
- field.
- I personally have no qualms about any of them
- being held for whatever period of time it takes to
- get what information we need to either stop this
- crap or put one hell of a dent in them.

I don't think there is a single one of us does not feel for the people and families of those who died in 9/11. I was lucky that neither members of my family or friends some of whom were at the scene when it went down.

But two things Leep, and once again always great to hear from you, first implicit in your "our citizens" comment is that American life is more important than foreign life. Afterall tens of thousands of people have died in foreign countries as a direct result of our ensuing actions.

Second, do you think it is wise to suspend due process arbitrarily for hundreds of people who in all likelihood had no fore-knowledge of 9/11 and know nothing useful that they can tell us just because of... well I honestly do not know why. Further, Americans have also been held without charge for the same reasons but because they were held be civilian authorities and not the military they were eventually released

I suppose I am saying Leep, is that how long do you think it is before these principles of suspending due process, the Writ of Habeas Corpus etc. is turned against us as it has been in the past.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 08:42 AM
MNG: I guess I still have to take the position that I stated earlier. Perhaps it is because I come from an earlier time when honor and truth and decency and family were more than just the buzz words politicans use to try to influence our "Good" citizens to cast yet one more vote for their particular brand of iniquity. Not necessarily my own generation, but that of my fathers' and his fathers'. I hate to admit it-but in my earlier years I witnessed what I have to believe the onset of the fall of all that our fathers and their fathers held to be true and honest.
It was slow but steady, and has led us to where we are today.
You make your always articulate arguments partially based on your statement that "In all liklihood they had no fore-knowledge of 9/11"
There is no way to know if this is true or not- but I tend to agree that all there are not guilty-at least not to the same degree. I would, however , submit to you that None of them has lost any sleep over what happened. We are not well liked in the world-some of it is our fault- by the permissive society we live in, some hate us because we are superior in warfare- technology, the space program, education, the production of food and a myriad of other aspects of life as we know it.
The moral decay of our country has led us to some of the problems we face today in our society. I am ashamed at what happens in our country at times.

I know that few here are religious or believe in a God or a higher power- but since I do- I have to view this from the Lord's perspective. (Assuming I have the slightest idea of what that is-though I believe that I do -due to the reading of the Book)

Larry Burkett died yesterday-as an aside-for those who may be familiar with Focus On The Family: He will be missed. Damn, Damn cancer.

It is sometimes difficult to make the transition from the worldy troubles we face to the world that God had planned for us-it is even more difficult to try to make an explamation to someone who either has no interest or belief in such. I have found though, for the most part, that even those who do not have a belief system at all here usually will extend a litle lattitude to this writer. For which I am grateful. Though I have to be mindful that I do not cross that invisible line drawn in the sand for fear that I will offend someone with what I believe in. Though, for the life of me, I do at times find it exceedingly difficult to understand why one can get so upset an what I or another believer states, especially if they do not believe themselves-a little convuluted I know.
I have to tread lightly here because even those that do not believe have come to mean something to me and I have no wish to insult their intelligence or sensabilities.
For-there are many here -of both tenets that can run me up a pole and make me scratch my head in perplexity before I can come up with a intelligent response to their arguments.
In response to your question, before I rambled on with my own train of thought-a risk you always take whenever anyone has the temerity to ask me anything: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am not really concerned with that possibility MNG: whatever happens will happen and we will just have to deal with it. If some of us-our people, are in the same position as these are-we will just have to take what we are given. They will not leave us alone until we show them that if they hurt us-they will be hurt more. Not just hurt-but preferably taken off the battlefield permanently.
A dead snake bites no one. And-these people Hate us, it is not a benign situation.
I really do miss the sixties:
And- I do feel sorry for the younger ones that never knew or experienced the wonder of those times-especially for those of us who were fortunate enough to live in the more rural areas. You don't know what you missed and those of us that lived it have that to draw on and keep us strong. Our morals- our outlook- our respect for others-especially the older ones -and our belief system in our God all comes from that time. I thank Him for it and I wish that all of you could have been there with me.

we were poor most of the time-but didn't care- we had Strong family ties that exist to this day.We had mothers and fathers that stayed together-for the most part-because that's what adults did. If you made your bed, you slept in it- and if you had kids to raise-you stayed together and did it. Not because it was necessarily what you wanted, but because that was what you did back then.
If we had more of that today-all over the world: There would be less of the crap floating around there is now:

Ok-= Speech over- sermon concluded- good to talk with you again and if you and Slack do get together-remember- there is One man back here in old Montana who would give quite a bit to be there too and meet and share thoughts with you- have one for me. Kudos:

Leep Out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 05:33 PM
Leep wrote:
-
- The moral decay of our country has led us to
- some of the problems we face today in our society. I
- am ashamed at what happens in our country at times.

I see but I think that suspending basic human right are merely a symtom of this moral decay. Today its foreigners and tomorrow its us. Also, what position are we now to protest the poor treatment of US troops should they be captured?

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 06:48 PM
I just cannot get too excited about someone's "Rights" being impaired by whatever degree, Kind of like worring that the hay will go bad after the barn and all the horses burn down or up -whichever you prefer. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You seem to insist on giving them the same consideration that we afford others, both here and on the world stage. I think history has shown-both our own and the worlds- that this is not always an intelligent path to trod upon. Limits , my friend, they are always with us. Sometimes self imposed, by a sense of decency, honor, breeding- mutual self respect- Then there are those that have to have limits imposed upon them with and by force.

If you come into my home and attack my family, which is what they did on 9/11 but on a much grander scale- then do not stand with mouth agape when like punishment is meted out upon you-well- you know i don't mean the you literally.
History is a fascinating subject: Perhaps it could be called merely a compilation of facts and figures that are bundled in the proper sequence, protected to insure their integrity- then carefully meted out in the doses that can be handled in a palatable manner.
Interesting that you could label religion with the same brush, is it not?

Meandering- a problem i know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Spend too much time on and around rivers and streams.

If-to address your last concern- we are treated shabbily when our troops are captured, Well , Hell is War. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Life is less than fair and as long as people are in the positions that make these kinds of life changing-nay-world changing decisions-this is what we will endure.

One would think that fron someone who is a Christian, that you could expect me to be mouthing all the platitudes that are expected from us. Though, that would be a bit presumptious. Lol I have found that those are decidedly in the minority. As any historian could cheerfully tell you- more people have benn done away with in the name of religion than any other reason.
Which, Gandalf, yourself and many others have pointed out in the past.
A sad commentary on our world in general, but there you have it.

I have learned that you have a good heart and a sense of decency and justice. Unfortunately, those of us who feel that we too share those commendable traits are not always attuned to how you view events.
How then do we rationalize and or separate our beliefs from those of others who are just as adamant that theirs are the ones that should, and do, carry the banner of truth?
Trying to write with CNN in my ears. One problem I suffer from when i respond, i do so by setting down and just writing it as it enters my mind. Probably not the best method and just as probably i do a certain disservice to my friends who may just be foolish enough to plod through this. I need to start taking the time for quiet reflection and to garner my thoughts to insure that what i put down here is as literate and accurate as i can possibly make it- So forgive any ramblings.
Thanks for the quick answer:

And take care;

leep Out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 12:19 PM
"California schools are a disgrace. They don't teach their kids about sex education, but instead, teach them about homosexual relationships. Wow, great idea, let's influence little gullable, influential kids to believe that it's normal in nature for people of the same sex to, well "come together." Yes, that's exactly what we need to teach our children."

1. You wont turn gay by people telling you that gay people exist. So, dont worry Mustang.

2. Being gay is normal in the way that it has always been a part of humanity. Gay people have existed for thousands of years. They do no harm, they are no threat to you, what are you scared of Mustang?

"It seems that we have overlooked the fact that 3000 of our citizens were murdered. Now, I wans't there so i can't vouch for the terror and pain and hopelessness they and their families endured because some religious fanatics do notlike the way we do business or conduct ourselves on the world playing field.
I personally have no qualms about any of them being held for whatever period of time it takes to get what information we need to either stop this crap or put one hell of a dent in them."

So you would be OK if it was your father, brother or relative they were holding, without giving you a chance to meet them? Without prosecuting them? Without confirming if they were guilty or not?

You would accept that your neighboor was dragged away, accused of being a terrorist, but never formally accused or put to trial?

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 12:59 PM
No, Long...DM's right.

Instead, we'll teach 'em Ancient History...

Athens
Rome
Sparta

Ooops...we can't teach about those...they were all poofs!


The reason children need to be educated about homosexual relationships is so that they realise that being gay isn't wrong, isn't an illness, and is nothing to be afraid of.

We're not talking about making people gay, we're talking about removing homophobia.

<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:23 PM
longinius wrote:
-
- 2. Being gay is normal in the way that it has always
- been a part of humanity. Gay people have existed for
- thousands of years. They do no harm, they are no
- threat to you, what are you scared of Mustang?

Yeah Demon. What are YOU afraid of?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:33 PM
I don't even know why this has turned into a partisan issue; as far as I can see, there should not be any difference in opinion between the right and left wings on the subject of detainment of prisoners.

All arguements over the matter with any sentient and rational human being should be ended with reflection on the central tenit of our judicial system: innocent until proven guilty. Full stop.

What on earth does the US have to lose from charging these people in an open court with all the trimmings? If they really are guilty, an American court should find them guilty and sentence them appropriately. If they're not found guilty, they walk free. Easy.

Some contributors are saying that given the involvement of A-Q in 9-11, anybody picked up in Afghanistan should face the music any damn way we please. An understandable feeling, under the circumstances, but how do we know they're involved? The only way to find out is in a fair trial. It's probably worth reflecting on the thousands of completely innocent Afghans (not to mention Iraqis) that have been inadvertantly torn to pieces in the US effort to bring A-Q to justice. Their families probably feel the same way you do.

In my final paragraph I'd just like to reflect on something somebody mentioned previously about removal of civil liberties being neccessary to protect the population at large, justifying the extension of UK anti-terrorist laws by saying 'what about the IRA'? Well, indeed; what about the IRA? The IRA in their current incarnation have been at war with the UK government for about the last 30 years (keep it simple; forget about the factions) and have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. They have not been supported by the Irish government or the Irish people (the political wing of the IRA, Sein Fein, typically get about 1-2% of the vote in the Irish elections), and are largely responsible for not only political violence, but also racketeering and organised crime. They aren't very nice people.

So the question is this: how did such thugs manage to get the $$ to carry out a 30 year war that required equipment (including surface-air-missiles, Barret .50cal sniper rifles, M60 machine guns as well as the usual stuff) and the training to use it all? The answer, dear friends, is of course money-raising in the US. The IRA has had links with Irish-American groups since the 1916 rising and has received donations (in some cases with government consent) from the US public. Should the UK government have waged war with the US, pausing only to mumble "you're either with us or against us"?

Now apply this model to A-Q and friends; imagine if, following an attack by the IRA, the UK had blanket bombed the Republic of Ireland, installed its own 'interim' government, arrested a load of people that it claims were in or sympathetic to the IRA, and held them in a concentration camp on the Isle of Wight where laws no longer apply to them. Well, firstly, you don't have to imagine most of this; it happened during the Irish War for Independence. To cut a long story short, the British were heavy handed (i.e. killed a lot of innocent people) which just fanned the flames of rebellion against them. The IRA were initially unpopular and seen as a load of troublemakers. Following the shelling of Dublin by a British battleship and the installment of the trigger-happy Black 'n' Tans (Special Forces, 1916-style) public support against the UK grew, resulting in the mobilisation of a large rebel army and eventual ousting of the British. Of interest to anybody who has bothered to read this far is that the one thing that annoyed the Irish more than anything else (even the shelling) was the summary execution without proper trial of the original rebellion leaders.

When the troubles in Northern Ireland started about 30 years ago, the reason the UK forces there avoided an overtly heavy handed approach (demolishing Catholic areas because they 'housed gunmen', etc) is because they knew nothing works as a better recruitment tool than an aggressive occupying force. If only the US army had understood this when they rolled into Iraq.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 04:54 PM
Simon,

Your rationality will unfortunately be lost on many of the people here. The attitude of many of the American public is "kill em all and let God sort them out". This attitude is reflective of what I see as a decivilizing process ongoing in the US and to a latter extent in Europe.

Luxuries such as due process, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights have long since past from relevance. Americans will not appreciate these freedoms that men through history fought and died for until more of them start losing them.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" width="600" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee>******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******Where are the weapons of mass destruction?******<center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:15 PM
Reporter: What do you think of Western Civilization?
Ghandi: I think it would be a good idea.

Leep, we have guidelines in this country for justice. They are not written in crayon and were instituted to, among other things, mitigate abuses of power. To stand aside smugly and content oneself with platitudes like, 'gotta break a few eggs...' is disingenous and morally quite reprehensible. Double standards abound. Due process is one of many obstacles to tyranny. Be careful how many pages you tear out of the rulebook.
Constitutional right only apply to Americans you say? Or foreigners on American soil?
Okay, then be prepared to reap what you have sown, because what comes around goes around, so be careful what you wish for, because (one of my personal favorites) the house leaks from the roof!
Human rights are universal. To ignore them in vengeance, no matter the justification, is to be no better than those you oppose.

And yes, Simon, I have to agree with MNG -- rational arguements like your own have no basis being here, please go away/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
j/k

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:30 PM
GAndalf: perhaps i would tend to agree more with your assertion if we were indeed dealing with a populace that dealt on the same plane as we do. our society is indeed based on a system of justice- one that tends to go overboard at times-im my opinion. How though , do you extend these same liberties to a population that holds us in such comtempt? Whose only reason for existing is to force upon the world their own peculair brand of life-religion-justice. Join us or die american pigs?

Does have a nice ring to it, i suppose, but not a lifestyle change i , or many others that live here will ever subscribe to. I never have understood why some people insist on extending "Right" to a foriegn nation, govt, that has shown it is only too willing, and able to kill us, and on our own soil. Where is the anger at what happened to our innocent civiians? If we give them the opportunity i assure you they will cheerfully do it again. I know that you know this.
I am often curious about the life that people have lived when they critize us- us menaing -us who believe that what was done was horribly, terribly worng, and we need to do whatever it takes to insure it does not happen again. Do you believe that if I were taken by these people that I would expect to be treated anywhere near to the level of decency that they are? They would kill me and you out of hand with no more compunction than you would kill a roach.
I can Always tell that people have Never experienced or probably even witnessed anything brutal, or suffered any type of pain caused by someone who just doesn't give a damn if you live or die. Whenever one does, I assure you your views will change dramatically.
The hell with the eggs that are broken because they have already blown up the henhouse.
Yes , I agree we have giudelines in our country governing how justice is meted out. if these had been citizens of our country I assure you they would have been granted so many rights it might have sickened you.

These were an invading force that came to our country and attacked US- I , for one, could care less what happens to them. I know these people, i have seen them in action. I have witnessed people's lives being destroyed by them- and these are the ones that live here. Imagine what they might do if they didn't fear reprisal form us?

I , at times, agree with some here -especially when it comes to our young, relatively inexperienced men and women who have to face the possibilit yof sudden death at any minute over there.
But, I wil not ever accept the apologetic tone some take when it comes to dealing with these animals that live only for our destruction.
I , do however have limits to what i will accept as right and wrong treatment-in this case-however, the bar by whiich i measure it is much higher than some others. i will not apologize for this.
I have seen -personally-what evil and terrible things man can and does inflict on others. I would bet that you have Never been in the position where you were completely at the mercy of some maniac who -for whatever reason- decided that you and your family were not worthy of continued existence. I, and i am sure a few others here-have live through a similar situation, and I simply do not care what action needs to be taken to insure that another innocent life is taken, for whatever reason.
So- at the risk of seeming unfeeling, uncaring, in light of my continued belief in God and Christianity- i simply do not care what happens to them. The guilty, of course, certainly not the innocent. for innocents, of whatever culture or religion are uaually the ones who suffer at the hands of the rest.
Hope this doesn't make you too upset, old man-because it wasn't a personal attack on either you or your beliefs.

I respect you and your right to them, and oddly enough, have learned more than I imagined from being here and reading yours and others writings.

Leep Out:


http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:58 AM
Gandalf and Leep, I wonder if you would consider the following passage from our old friend and founder, James Madison:

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

I think this describe well the process of the last two years since 9/11 and illustrates my concerns with arbitrary rights that can be revoked when it is convenient.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:53 PM
Article from http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc2413.html


Peaceful Warrior
Chris Strohm & Ingrid Drake, July 17, 2003

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight, and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are surfacing every day.

One of the most poignant so far comes from a young Marine who gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program the night before he was deployed to Iraq. He discussed his strong commitment to peace, and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war.

He was killed in late June, fighting a war he didn't believe in.

Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will be identified in this story only as John (not his real name). John's friends describe him as a passionate, intense person with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a commitment to peace. He studied philosophy and peace with an emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel.

His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility, so that perhaps someday his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously. In the months before his deployment, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.

In his interview with Pacifica, John expressed outrage that a legitimate public debate on the war had not occurred. Many alternatives to combat were available, he explained, such as using money being spent for war to finance a grassroots Iraqi democracy movement that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.

"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said.

He accused the administration of not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations and the fate of the Middle East.

"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism," he said. "It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the United Nations. And even if... everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole superpower."

But even as he expressed doubts about the Bush administration's decision, he spoke eloquently about his patriotism, and looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration:

"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."

The Bush administration, he claimed, had not made a credible case for war with Iraq, and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat. He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, and how its writers vowed to be free of England, where their lives were ruled and determined by one man. "The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war," he said, "and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with."

"But even beyond that, it's 'we the people' that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to 'we the people' -- and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."

With chilling foresight, John predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.

Yet he went to Iraq, believing it to be his duty. And continued, even in the midst of combat, to exercise his belief in nonviolent resolution. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which John negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, John entered the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.

In letters home, John described the peace movement as "awesome," and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.

Around June 20, those letters stopped.

As of July 14, 32 American soldiers have died from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Forty-three other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.

Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged now that the war against Iraq has turned into a highly risky occupation.

"Too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."

Her words are echoed, and answered, by John's. Before he was deployed, John wrote a final letter as part of his will.

"That I have died means I have failed to achieve the one thing in life I truly longed to give the world -- peace," the letter reads. "The plight of human suffering consumed me and I dedicated much to trying to find the ideas that might lead humankind toward alleviating it for all. It was a quest which was inextricably intertwined with my quest for freedom. If you know anything about me you know that. Understand it and come to understand how the suffering of others tormented my soul. Then seek to honor my memory by trying to achieve what I could not."

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 12:53 AM
MNG: I would have to defer to Gandalf concerning this area. Although I have an opinion, he is better prepared than I due to his background both as a historian and a former teacher.

I would only say that Madison was working with a much smaller base. We were also just in our infancy as a country- nation-

I would also point out that at that point in history God was still involved in most of the decision making that went on. That, unfortunately, is not the case any longer, much to our detriment.
The disintegration of the two parent family has grown to epidemic proportions in this country. I shudder to think what our founding fathers would have to say about that.
I would offer that Madison's point on war might have been tainted just a bit by what we (they) had to go through to get to that point. Though, I agree in theory with him, War is a hell of a way to get your point across.

I sometimes struggle with the ideas that our framers brought forth-because, while they are noble and decent tenets, sometimes they are just not realistic given our world as it exists today. much has changed, and while i would love us to go back to those noble guidelines, i doubt seriously that we will ever approach such levels again. Pity though it is.
Still-while hope springs eternal, i am afraid that it springs often upon baren ground.

Leep Out:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:22 AM
Leep wrote:
- I would only say that Madison was working with a
- much smaller base. We were also just in our infancy
- as a country- nation-

- I would also point out that at that point in
- history God was still involved in most of the
- decision making that went on. That, unfortunately,
- is not the case any longer, much to our detriment.
-
- The disintegration of the two parent family has
- grown to epidemic proportions in this country. I
- shudder to think what our founding fathers would
- have to say about that.
-
- I sometimes struggle with the ideas that our
- framers brought forth-because, while they are noble
- and decent tenets, sometimes they are just not
- realistic given our world as it exists today. much
- has changed, and while i would love us to go back to
- those noble guidelines, i doubt seriously that we
- will ever approach such levels again. Pity though it
- is.

Well thats interesting because I think the reasons for the problems you describe is precisely because people forgot the importance and the meaning of what the Founding Father's had to say. Gandalf will hate me for saying this but I think Lincoln was the first step in the moral decay of American society.

You know Leep I think James Madison has the same problem as Jesus. Everyone talks about what a great guy he was but nobody pays the slightest bit of attention to what he had to say.

<center>
&lt;iframe src="http://costofwar.com/embed.html" height="170" width="350" noborder></iframe>
</center>


<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:37 AM
Hey, I like the Madison quote. Great stuff.
As for the Lincoln moral decay stuff, go ahead and make your case MNG/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif First step? Being a bit dramatic arent we?
I still say you've been charmed by a snake oil salesman, but at least you look for the stone unturned./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Battle, Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 03:15 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- Hey, I like the Madison quote. Great stuff.
- As for the Lincoln moral decay stuff, go ahead and
- make your case MNG/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif First step? Being a bit
- dramatic arent we?


Well Lincoln basically did everything Madison warned against. The "Great Centralizer" removed the checks on power within the government, setting the stage for the constant expansion of government over the last 150 years.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 05:41 PM
Madison also said: ""It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."
Lincoln said: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? 'Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?'".
He was trying to preserve the union. I know you think he should have let the south be. He did not think that was part of his job description. He believed in union, constitution, and the idea of republic. He wanted to preserve these things. The real corruption blossomed after Lincoln's death, from Johnson to Grant (the first or second most corrupt administration ... make that third/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif in the history of presidencies) and on to Hayes, who's admin ends the 'reconstruction' period. Govt corruption simmers for a few more presidencies, until Pres Arthur gets real reforms enacted.
The fact that he (HonestAbe/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) is being demonized by a segment of the revisionist movement at the moment is cool by me, healthy even, but I have looked into it somewhat since our previous discussion and am more confident than ever of my stance on the whole affair.
Convincing you would be difficult at best however, especially given this medium.
Let me just say this, lincoln was applying a principle from Locke in response to the secession: 'prerogative'.
This being power of the executive to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law and sometimes even against it.
"The fundamental law that the executive ultimately must implement is to preserve society, it is fit that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, or rather to this fundamental law of nature and government, that as much as may be, all members of society are to be preserved."
Lincoln was acting in a time of war. The constitution cannnot be expected to predict every circumstance that threatens a nation, and had no provision for providing the power to preserve union in times of secession... except Article II, under which everything he did is arguably justifiable./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
"Are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" -- Lincoln
More later, gotta run!

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 07:38 PM
Is it me or does this current administration appear to have an obvious double standard concerning these so-called "enemy combatants" when they happen to be US or British citizens? I mean, first it was John Walker Lindh, and now the Bush administration, consenting to a request by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, are suspending military court procedures against two British terror suspects held at the American naval base in Guant√°namo Bay. In all likelihood they will probably be repatriated to Britain to face trial there.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 06:16 PM
V3-Dev wrote:
- Is it me or does this current administration appear
- to have an obvious double standard concerning these
- so-called "enemy combatants" when they happen to be
- US or British citizens? I mean, first it was John
- Walker Lindh, and now the Bush administration,
- consenting to a request by Prime Minister Tony Blair
- of Britain, are suspending military court procedures
- against two British terror suspects held at the
- American naval base in Guant√°namo Bay. In all
- likelihood they will probably be repatriated to
- Britain to face trial there.

Hey that's what friend are for /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 03:30 AM
Funny Hornet! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gandalf_is_dead wrote:

Revisionist? Is that not always the slur of the victor?

What did Madison mean that his "melancholy reflection" comment? I would have to think about it but that is not my concern for the minute. The real corruption blossomed after his death? Lincoln wanted to preserve the union and the constitution? Now whose sniffing the snake oil?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lincoln violated every point of the Bill of Rights and his generals violated the Rules of War (soon after formulated as the Geneva Conventions). I know I don't have to tell you about the Shenandoah Valley. And surely you know about Vallindigham? You are aware that he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and of his suppression of the press AND free speech? You realize he confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment? Lincoln shredded the Constitution!

Nowhere was it said that the Union was anything but voluntary. Without the right of secession there is no protection whatsoever against the expansion of government. You are literally a slave since you have no right not to work for the government. You have no option but to pay taxes to support policies you may or may not agree with. Is this liberty? If you had the right to secede the government would be far more careful about its decisions.

Lincoln was acting in time of war? Indeed and such was Madison's warning and such is the Socialistic power of war. And who started it? The one seeking the expansion of government as had been his goal for decades.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 04:41 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- Hey that's what friend are for.

I suppose you are right Hornet. When two governments readily exchange faulty intelligence and go to war together based on bogus pretenses, I guess it does build some sort of bond or something. Then again, perhaps President Bush simply granted his request because the British Prime Minister is on the hot seat back at home concerning Iraq and the detainees in question. Yeah, that must be it.

Message Edited on 07/20/0312:09AM by V3-Dev

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 03:55 PM
Like I said, convincing you would be difficult at best.
And revisionism is not a slur, its a healthy aspect of historical study. Your "Lincoln Sucks" book is revisionism. Should the ideas within stand up to scrutiny (which they don't) then they will flourish.
Nuh-uh
Yah-ha
Nuh-uh
Yah-ha
Nuh-uh
Yah-ha
....
ad infinitum

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 05:34 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- Like I said, convincing you would be difficult at
- best.
- And revisionism is not a slur, its a healthy aspect
- of historical study. Your "Lincoln Sucks" book is
- revisionism. Should the ideas within stand up to
- scrutiny (which they don't) then they will flourish.

Revisionism is not a slur per se but its the first stone slung by those seeking to discredit a different perspective on an event.

Tell me though, do the ideas in books by Mark Brimsley (The Hard Hand of War) and James G. Randall (Constitutional Problems under Lincoln) stand up to scrutiny?

But really I am not interested in ideas at this juncture but rather the facts themselves. Is it untrue that Lincoln violated virtually every point of the Bill of Rights? Did the burning of the Shenandoah Valley not occur? In your mind is repression of liberty and mass destruction of civilians and their property not corruption? Is it not the characteristic consequence of overbearing government? Is not Lincoln merely a symtom of this?

Yeh-uh! (BTW Come on Gandalf I know you don't have anything better to do! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

PS If you would prefer to send me links and articles to make your case I can supply you w/email.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:09 PM
I am definitely not interested in taking the time to rebut Dilorenzo point by point.
Do I think Lincoln was the 'great emancipator', no, Im quite aware of high school white-washed history, and that is not where I derive my knowledge, but neither do I believe him to be the lunatic Dilorenzo excoriates with such passion.
And neither do I believe Jefferson to be the Lincoln antithesis Dilorenzo promotes.
But don't worry, I'll look into it further. Right now Im mired in a vietnam war kick, but Ill get around to more civil war sooner or later/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
And to revisit a silly thing, revisionism is responsible for some of the important improvements in historical study at the academic level, and is not a 'thrown stone'. The term encompasses the entirety of ethnic minority historical studies as well as women and more general 'history from below' (which is also not a slur but a concession to the fact that until the revisionist movement started filling in the gaps, history by-and-large was the story of rulers and other persons of power, the rest of us going along for the ride), and finally, revisionism attepts to shed new light on old ideas. Which is what Dilorenzo (and many others) is attempting to do. Lincoln bad. South good, etc.


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:11 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Tell me though, do the ideas in books by Mark
- Brimsley (The Hard Hand of War)

Somewhat, although Im not sure how a work who's premise appears to be 'northern treatment of southern civilians was not that harsh and actually shown great restraint in a time of war' fits into your arguement

and James G. Randall
- (Constitutional Problems under Lincoln) stand up to
- scrutiny?

Randall is quite a different animal from Dilorenzo, and his work as a scholar has done great things insofar as extending our knowledge of the Lincoln era and putting the man in a clearer light. Yes his work qualifies as revisionism. That Dilorenzo has taken some of this work and propelled it along (or twisted it) to a more radical conclusion is an effort the veracity of which has yet to become clear.
As I said before, I find the underlying premise of Dilorenzos book to be ... well, quite frankly, contrived bullchips. But that doesnt mean much at the moment, does it?
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

Message Edited on 07/21/0304:57PM by Gandalf_is_dead

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:41 AM
True, true concerning the real definition of "revision" but you know how that word gets twisted around.

Gandalf I always fear to look at threads when I see you have replied because I fear it means I have half an hours work cut out for me in responding. Thankfully you were merciful this time.

Perhaps Lincoln was no fire-breathing dragon but I tend to let the facts speak for themselves. I do not go by what DiLorenzo "thinks" but rather I look at various sources to see if they confirm his assessment of the facts.

The only real difference (and this is why I mentioned Brimsley and Randall) between DiLorenzo and the other authors is their interpretations of the (major) events. For my part I simply looked at the Bill of Rights, reviewed the facts (which DiLorenzo, Brimsley and Randall all seemed to agree on) and made my own mind up based on what I know of economics and political philosophy. For example, there is really no debate that Lincoln violated virtually every step of the Bill of Rights. Whether you think that is acceptable or not depends of whether you generally favour the rights of the individual or the rights of centralized government. For me, the rights of the individual must always be above those of government. Without such we begin the inexorable march towards arbitrary power and impoverishment.

Obviously you have not read DiLorenzo's book but could you at least refute some of his arguments? You've mentioned several times that it does not stand up to scrutiny but you have yet to do me the courtesy.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 03:25 AM
I think one of the biggest problems with his analysis of the situation as a whole is his idea of the benevolent, altruistic south vs the conniving, greedy north. That alone is a showstopper for me.
I do not disagree that Lincoln exerted unprecedented power, but I believe it was necessary and proper to do so. I do not buy into the idea'secession is a fundamental right', no matter who said it, because one person's ideals must always be considered in principle as well as application. And some people's, Jefferson's by Lincoln's time, for example, no longer made sense.
Jefferson dreamed of an agrarian utopia. America flourished with industrialism. Jefferson despised cities, felt they were a necessary evil. The fact that one could argue he was right is irrelevant. Things developed otherwise.
I am well aware that Lincoln was not empowered directly by the constutution to apply the methods he used, but I believe him right to have done so by the implied powers therein.
Dilorenzo wants to portray the south as a plantation paradise where the rights of the individual are paramount? Laughable. Patently absurd.
Should we now be led to think there was no greedy, self serving power elite in the South? C'mon, the south ran the show for decades, and when they saw their influence slipping they decided to break the union apart. Lincoln objected, and I fully believe he was right to do so.
While it may be an interesting academic exercise to ponder what may have ocurred had the south won, its moreso to ponder whether he ever 'should' have. And that is all I think Dilorenzo has done -- construct a specious arguement over a controversial topic. How exciting for him!
But again, how can I address him directly if I have not read it?
But as I said, I may yet get there, and who knows, perhaps someone will publish a rebuttal examining his hypothesis, get his sucker out in the sunlight, see if it withers or grows/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:25 AM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- I think one of the biggest problems with his
- analysis of the situation as a whole is his idea of
- the benevolent, altruistic south vs the conniving,
- greedy north.

OK well as a soul brother I think you know I don't agree with that but having read the book that is a poor characterization of his work. Actually I think you got that reading the Amazon reviews /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I do not disagree that Lincoln exerted unprecedented
- power, but I believe it was necessary and proper to
- do so. I do not buy into the idea'secession is a
- fundamental right', no matter who said it, because
- one person's ideals must always be considered in
- principle as well as application. And some people's,
- Jefferson's by Lincoln's time, for example, no
- longer made sense.

Ah the old "time period" argument. We live in a different "time period" so such and such is no longer feasible. This implies that time exerts some kind of determinism upon us that we cannot resist. As for secession, well, you are technically implying that slavery is just.

- I am well aware that Lincoln was not empowered
- directly by the constutution to apply the methods he
- used, but I believe him right to have done so by the
- implied powers therein.

Fair enough, your opinion.


- Dilorenzo wants to portray the south as a plantation
- paradise where the rights of the individual are
- paramount? Laughable. Patently absurd.

Not factually correct. He did not really portray the South at all. He actually concentrated his focus on Lincoln and Northern society. Also, while certainly there were selfish politicians in the South they were reined in by the right of secession. See "On Centralization and Secession" by Hans-Herman Hoppe.

- While it may be an interesting academic exercise to
- ponder what may have ocurred had the south won, its
- moreso to ponder whether he ever 'should' have. And
- that is all I think Dilorenzo has done -- construct
- a specious arguement over a controversial topic. How
- exciting for him!

Hmm you really don't like him do you? But I do suggest you read the book. You can get it used from Amazon. Look I'll even lend you mine. Oh go on!!!


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:04 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
Actually I think
- you got that reading the Amazon reviews

Ouch!
Can we get a ref in here! Below the belt! below the belt! What's next, nibbling my earlobes whilst hugging like manly men?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually MyFunnyMan, Ive read the jousting going on between Dlo (/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) and Jaffa, which was interesting but too brief, as well as a quite well written review from the washington post. And it is the latter that I find most compelling so far. But dont worry, Ill keep my eye open for further info when I can (Ive been quite busy with a new undertaking at home lately, so most of my browsing the forums is restricted to brief calms between storms at work, I barely get to read the crap I want to, let alone groan my way through the tedious maniacal ramblings of some half-baked economist masquerading as a historian/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif j/k...kinda)

- Ah the old "time period" argument. We live in a
- different "time period" so such and such is no
- longer feasible. This implies that time exerts some
- kind of determinism upon us that we cannot resist.

Right, so whats the question?
Im not sure why you have such difficulty with historical context. Without it events have no meaning except that they occured.
If context is ignored then certainly one can feel safe making pejorative arguments about say, politics and economics of the antebellum north while ignoring that of the altruistic south. For example.

- As for secession, well, you are technically implying
- that slavery is just.
-
Just what?
Just what the south wanted?
An end to the idea of a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal?

-- I am well aware that Lincoln was not empowered
-- directly by the constutution to apply the methods he
-- used, but I believe him right to have done so by the
-- implied powers therein.
-
- Fair enough, your opinion.
-
Mine and many others.

-
-- Dilorenzo wants to portray the south as a plantation
-- paradise where the rights of the individual are
-- paramount? Laughable. Patently absurd.
-
- Not factually correct. He did not really portray
- the South at all. He actually concentrated his
- focus on Lincoln and Northern society.

See above, the 'presenting half the argument' stuff.

Also, while
- certainly there were selfish politicians in the
- South they were reined in by the right of secession.
- See "On Centralization and Secession" by
- Hans-Herman Hoppe.
-
Reined in by the right of secession? Please explain. Isnt the so-called 'right of secession' a check on the central government and not the member states themselves? How did this right reign in the south in practice? And how did it cease to be an effective check on southern political agendas when the deep south began the secession in earnest?

-
-- While it may be an interesting academic exercise to
-- ponder what may have ocurred had the south won, its
-- moreso to ponder whether he ever 'should' have. And
-- that is all I think Dilorenzo has done -- construct
-- a specious arguement over a controversial topic. How
-- exciting for him!
-
- Hmm you really don't like him do you? But I do
- suggest you read the book. You can get it used from
- Amazon. Look I'll even lend you mine. Oh go on!!!

Like him? No, I think he is playing slight of hand with history. But Im no expert, just an ex teacher who likes the subject matter.
Now, why dont you stop wasting your money on historical pop stars like Dlo and pick up Pattreson's 'Battle, Cry of Freedom'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Lunchtime!
cya!



http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:04 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:

- Ouch!
- Can we get a ref in here! Below the belt! below the
- belt! What's next, nibbling my earlobes whilst
- hugging like manly men?

Be careful what you wish for, young man... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-- Ah the old "time period" argument. We live in a
-- different "time period" so such and such is no
-- longer feasible. This implies that time exerts some
-- kind of determinism upon us that we cannot resist.
-
- Right, so whats the question?
- Im not sure why you have such difficulty with
- historical context. Without it events have no
- meaning except that they occured.
- If context is ignored then certainly one can feel
- safe making pejorative arguments about say, politics
- and economics of the antebellum north while ignoring
- that of the altruistic south. For example.

What I am saying is just because "times have changed" it doesn't mean they have to stay that way. If everyone thought that way we would never have had the Enlightenment. To say "it was a different time period" is to say that time determines our actions rather than merely being a fourth dimension within which we act to determine our future... catch my drift /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I do not have a problem with categorizing time periods so that we can have historical context simply with this strange idea that simply because 200 years have passed the logic of a particular argument is any less valid. This is fallacious reasioning.
-
-- As for secession, well, you are technically implying
-- that slavery is just.
--
- Just what?
- Just what the south wanted?
- An end to the idea of a nation founded on the
- principle that all men are created equal?

Sorry I was not clear. I did not mean slavery of blacks but slavery per se to the centralized government.
-
--- I am well aware that Lincoln was not empowered
--- directly by the constutution to apply the methods he
--- used, but I believe him right to have done so by the
--- implied powers therein.
--
-- Fair enough, your opinion.
--
- Mine and many others.

Yeah well you're all wrong!

- Also, while
-- certainly there were selfish politicians in the
-- South they were reined in by the right of secession.
-- See "On Centralization and Secession" by
-- Hans-Herman Hoppe.
--
- Reined in by the right of secession? Please explain.
- Isnt the so-called 'right of secession' a check on
- the central government and not the member states
- themselves? How did this right reign in the south in
- practice? And how did it cease to be an effective
- check on southern political agendas when the deep
- south began the secession in earnest?

This is getting messy and it deserves a full post just to itself. Stay tuned.

-
- Like him? No, I think he is playing slight of hand
- with history. But Im no expert, just an ex teacher
- who likes the subject matter.
- Now, why dont you stop wasting your money on
- historical pop stars like Dlo and pick up
- Pattreson's 'Battle, Cry of Freedom'

Pah! Like you know anything about history /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:58 PM
MNG...

Some things never change. Keep up the good work.

*sniff*

You smell something burning? Oh nevermind, that's just Whodat and Poosay Hussein. Where were we? Oh yeah, that's right. Go ahead, MNG, I'm paying attention now.

PS Liberty is being able to blow up anybody who stands in your way, and then taking what is behind them.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 12:31 AM
Arachnid wrote:
- MNG...
-
- Some things never change. Keep up the good work.
-
- *sniff*
-
- You smell something burning? Oh nevermind, that's
- just Whodat and Poosay Hussein. Where were we? Oh
- yeah, that's right. Go ahead, MNG, I'm paying
- attention now.
-
- PS Liberty is being able to blow up anybody who
- stands in your way, and then taking what is behind
- them.

Good Lord!!!!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The long awaited return of Arachnid! I was wondering when you would be back. Welcome home!


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 01:00 AM
tyty good to be back.

Words of advice: When in Mexico, never tell a cop that he looks like Charro



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:00 AM
Holy spiderwebs Batman: Is it, can it be??

IT IS!!!!!
Hey old man, good to see you are still with us-welcome back:

Leep Out: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mrawluk/leepsig/leepsignature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:21 AM
Arachnid wrote:
- tyty good to be back.
-
- Words of advice: When in Mexico, never tell a cop
- that he looks like Charro
-
-

Is that why you've been gone so long? How does Mexican prison food taste?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:26 AM
Oh crap, look who's back....






<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 04:24 PM
Leep, MNG, Buc... Good to see you are all still here. I think imunna cry...

Hey Buc - we are going to have a recall election on my liberal bastage governor. Whacha think of that? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 05:55 PM
Well look whos back, back again, spidey's back, tell a friend...
Nice to see you again Arachnid /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Schwarzenegger coming to save the day?


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 06:10 PM
Arachnid wrote:
- Leep, MNG, Buc... Good to see you are all still
- here. I think imunna cry...
-
- Hey Buc - we are going to have a recall election on
- my liberal bastage governor. Whacha think of that?

Thats great, Americans electing something...

This is going to be good.

Nice to see you back tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 08:57 PM
Well, Buc, we tried for a UN resolution to recall him, but we couldn't get it so we went ahead and recalled him anyway.

Wait a sec...

OK... I just heard on the radio that France is "troubled that a governor with such an excellent fiscal track record" is being recalled. In other news, the Hollish people smoked a record 845 kilos of mj per capita last year....



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 10:43 PM
Arachnid wrote:
- Well, Buc, we tried for a UN resolution to recall
- him, but we couldn't get it so we went ahead and
- recalled him anyway.
-
- Wait a sec...
-
- OK... I just heard on the radio that France is
- "troubled that a governor with such an excellent
- fiscal track record" is being recalled. In other
- news, the Hollish people smoked a record 845 kilos
- of mj per capita last year....

"Hollish"?

You're not really a PhD are you? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:12 AM
god i hate these threads bout america cus 1. they are irresistable to post in
2. everyone gets angry
3. all americans disagree
4. all non americans agree
5. five sensible americans (thats how many of them there are it seems) agree.

end of.

dont bother arguing with me cus i wont reply (and yourt probably an american anyway therefore proving my point lol)

http://www.uk-acts.com/asp/acts/z/357.jpg


Bernard says> "Even i can't think of a good swear word to sum up UBI"


UKA clansite forum:
http://www.gd-network.com/forum/

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:10 AM
What it all boils down to is this: The American people want justice. Someone blew up the World Trade Center in NY, someone is responsible. Many think that as long as someone is punished, justice will be done and everything will be back to normal.

It is seen all the time, and young girl/boy is found dead, foul play is expected, and the parents demand that the culprit be found as if it will bring back thier child. Do the police find thier man/woman? Maybe, it doesn't really matter. As long as someone is publicly hanged everything will turn out fine.


Message Edited on 07/30/0309:35PM by Cowanchicken

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:13 AM
Psh, that ain't Justice, it's vengeance.

One country's terrorist is another's hero.

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 02:38 AM
durdd wrote:
- Psh, that ain't Justice, it's vengeance.

Naw, Vengeance would be killing the person who committed the crime. What people often want is a person to blame it on. It's nice if it's the real culprit but anyone else will do, especially minorities.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 03:32 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- durdd wrote:
-- Psh, that ain't Justice, it's vengeance.
-
- Naw, Vengeance would be killing the person who
- committed the crime. What people often want is a
- person to blame it on. It's nice if it's the real
- culprit but anyone else will do, especially
- minorities.


Had to look twice there. Cowanchicken posting again?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 04:21 PM
He comes around every now and then.

_________________________________________
----====Lung-Tung for life====----

http://www.vap3r.com/stunts/uploads/Lung-Tung2.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2003, 07:17 PM
Yep, good old Dirkus dragged out the O.G. name. Next thing you know Tomahawk will stat posting as DeNiro again.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td>http://www.bpclan.com/Images/BP-Arachnid0.jpg <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font> (http://www.bpclan.com)<font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:13 PM
Leep, this is what I am talking about when I am saying all people's rights must be respected:

A threat to one is a threat to all in a nation of laws

By DOUG BANDOW

08/07/03 (Japan Times) WASHINGTON -- There is a "very real potential" that al-Qaeda will strike again on U.S. soil, warns Attorney General John Ashcroft. Which makes it even more difficult to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to combat terrorism. But while the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact, it also means nothing unless it applies in difficult, unpopular circumstances -- like the case of Jose Padilla.

Several groups, ranging from the conservative Rutherford Institute to the leftwing People for the American Way and the libertarian Cato Institute, have filed a joint "friend of the court" brief in federal appeals court to defend Padilla's right to an attorney. The Defense Department is holding Padilla in isolation, after President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

Fighting a decentralized terrorist organization with cells in scores of nations isn't easy. And one can't rely on Queensberry rules in fighting people willing to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. Thus, whatever the criticism of the imprisonment of nearly 700 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, they are "enemy combatants" and are not entitled to U.S. constitutional protections.

But Padilla, accused of plotting an attack with a "dirty" (nuclear) bomb, is a U.S. citizen arrested in the United States. The Constitution applies to him.

Obviously, to defend Padilla's constitutional rights is not to defend Padilla. If he is guilty as charged, he should never leave prison -- if he isn't executed.

Potential mass murderers deserve swift, sure and severe punishment. Genuine justice demands no less. However, justice must done. Which means the truth must be determined. And through a procedure consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Padilla was arrested more than a year ago. He has not been charged with any crime. While his case was pending in federal court, the Defense Department placed him in a navy brig, where he is being held in communicado, unable to see or talk with family members or attorneys.

The reason, explains the administration, is that Bush has designated Padilla an enemy combatant. Yet the constitution gives the president no such power.

Yes, being commander in chief carries implicit powers. But they are not absolute. For instance, seizing enemies overseas in a war zone, notes the amicus brief, "is a far cry from claiming an unfettered power to detain without charge any unarmed person seized outside a zone of active combat, particularly those on U.S. soil who are already subject to criminal process."

In short, had Padilla been a Saudi citizen and a member of al-Qaeda seized in a raid on an Afghan terrorist camp, he should expect, and would deserve, such treatment. If he was an American citizen detained under the same circumstances, he would have little cause for complaint. But Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in America.

The president's case would be stronger had Congress authorized him to designate U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. It has not.

In 1971 Congress passed 18 U.S.C., section 4001 (a), to prevent the detention of Americans without a statutory basis. The congressional authorization for a military response after 9/11 made no mention of arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The Patriot Act provided for the detention of aliens, not citizens, in America suspected of terrorist ties, and only for a temporary period of time, after which they must be charged, deported, or released.

Congress has voted to pay the expense of enemy combatants. But as the amicus brief notes, "Appropriations bills do not authorize government actions; they fund them."

If Congress wanted to depart so dramatically from settled law, it would have to do so explicitly. To agree to pay for the imprisonment of foreign terrorists seized abroad is not the same as authorizing the arrest of Americans in America.

Of course, this doesn't mean that Padilla should be freed. It doesn't mean that the exact conditions of his detention and trial should not reflect the unique security requirements of his case. But it does mean that he must be charged, allowed to defend himself and tried.

Hard cases make bad law, it is often said, and so it is with Jose Padilla. If any American citizen deserves to be treated as an enemy combatant, he would seem to be the one. But if he can be designated an enemy combatant, so can any American citizen. That is not a power a president has or should have.

Padilla appears to be a moral monster. Nevertheless, it is important to defend his right to an attorney and a trial. Not out of sympathy for him. But to protect the constitutional liberties of every American.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of "Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World."

The Japan Times: Aug. 6, 2003



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>