| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
 |
|
PSn wrote:
| Quote: | That would be fine if we were at war with a specific nation and had very
specific goals (like "Capture Berlin" and "Unconditional Surrender by the
Enemy"). But we're not at war with a specific nation.
Welcome to a whole new era. This sort of thing has happened in the past; |
not so many generatiosn ago, war was morons dreaming of glory wrapped in
bright cloth and shining brass agreeing to meet their opposing morons on
a certain field at a certain time. War was civilians making picnic
lunches and sitting on the hills overlooking the battlefield. War was
running back and forth in trenches, neither gaining nor losing so much
as an inch in months of bloodshed. War was one tribe versus another. War
was one city state versus another. War was one nation versus another.
All things change in time.
| Quote: | We're at war with a
specific tactic/ideology; a War on Terrorism--
|
Stupid title. We're not at war solelely with "terrorists" as such.
Taliban soldiery pops its head up, it gets it shot off.
| Quote: | which seems to be going just
as successfully as the War on Drugs (More drug use than ever before, even as
we give out harsher and harsher sentences to cancer patients and non-violent
offenders)
The War on Drugs is a smashing success. It has sucked money from |
taxpaeyers and given it to Gubmint bureaucrats, and continues to do so.
| Quote: | or our War on Poverty (more children go hungry than ever and more
people are on the dole).
See above. |
| Quote: | Since there are no concrete objectives, and since the War on Terrorism can
not truly be won (Terrorism is as old as terror itself), we have to alter
our conduct to the new reality.
|
And we have done so. However, new realities don;t show up with new rule
sheets already worked out.
| Quote: | So, we'll have to at least give these
people the benefit of a Grand Jury indictment (which doesn't take all that
long, let's be real)-- lay out the evidence, and if there is none (or if the
evidence is excessively flimsy, like the word of someone untrustworthy), you
have to let him go.
Why? We haven't let go enemy POWs before the end of hostilities since, |
what, the US Civil War? Back then, when an officer gave his word he
would not fight if you let him go, there was a reasonable expectation
that that word would be upheld. You'd have to be insane to believe such
a promise today.
| Quote: | For note, our soldiers are now being killed by the warlords who agreed to
help us-- these are the same warlords whose word we rely on for many of
these detentions. They lied to us on one count; why do you trust them for
another?
|
You assume that all those held are being held solely because some
warlord said so. As has been pointed out, a number of the residents of
Giutmo have been released when the evidence became clear to those in
charge that those inmates did not deserve to be there. But there are
still several hundred left there. Why? The most logical explanation is
that they are being held with some good reason. Most likely because they
have information, or because they are clearly Al
Queda/Taliban/Islamofascist loyalists.
And, hey... if they didn't want to be held in prison until the end of a
war that may well last generations... they probably shouldn;t have
fucked with the US. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Romauld
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Recently, a script from Scott Lowther arrived, in which they said:
: As with Rudolph Hess, who spent years languishing in a British prison,
: these people should be tried after wars end.
In the context of the War on Terror, that presents something of
a problem.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Romauld wrote:
| Quote: | Recently, a script from Scott Lowther arrived, in which they said:
: As with Rudolph Hess, who spent years languishing in a British prison,
: these people should be tried after wars end.
In the context of the War on Terror, that presents something of
a problem.
There is, of course, a simple solution, just there is for crimes that |
have unreasonable jail terms attached to them: don't do the crime. In
this case, don't wage war against the US. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romauld
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Recently, a script from Scott Lowther arrived, in which they said:
:>: these people should be tried after wars end.
:>
:>In the context of the War on Terror, that presents something of
:>a problem.
:>
:>
:>
: There is, of course, a simple solution, just there is for crimes that
: have unreasonable jail terms attached to them: don't do the crime. In
: this case, don't wage war against the US.
You have missed my point. The War on Terror is unlikely to end,
partly because of the nature of terrorist conflicts (which, lets
face it, the British have a great deal more experience of than
the US do) and partly because of the utility which the War on Terror
(like the War on Drugs) serves for the US government.
Therefore, innocent 'suspects' who are imprisoned would never,
under your statement above, be tried.
And thus, never released, although innocent.
I would tend to support the idea that the US would jail
someone who committed the crime of terrorism against the US
(it's a crime, not an act of wawr). The idea that they would
jail someone they *suspect* of such a crime, without trial
in which they could clear their name: that's the part which I
have issues with.
See again Mozzam Beg and the other five British citizens released
with him after representations from their government, private legal
counsel and various aid agencies, after *two years* and more of
illegal imprisonment and mistreatment, without having been charged
let alone tried, because there was no evidence against them.
And that's just the British citizens.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Doug Freyburger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Romauld wrote:
| Quote: | Scott Lowther wrote:
:>: these people should be tried after wars end.
:>In the context of the War on Terror, that presents something of
:>a problem.
: There is, of course, a simple solution, just there is for crimes that
: have unreasonable jail terms attached to them: don't do the crime. In
: this case, don't wage war against the US.
You have missed my point.
|
I suspect you missed Scott's point.
| Quote: | The War on Terror is unlikely to end,
|
Scott's point is that anyone waging war of terror against
the US should be smart enough to understand that capture
will result in confinement that lasts until terrorism
stops or their own death by old age, whichever happens
first. Or stupid enough to discount the chance of getting
caught. Or loyal enough to the cause to not care.
| Quote: | partly because of the nature of terrorist conflicts (which, lets
face it, the British have a great deal more experience of than
the US do)
|
Check. Anyone caught as a terrorist has a good long
wait head of them.
| Quote: | and partly because of the utility which the War on Terror
(like the War on Drugs) serves for the US government.
|
Cynical and true.
| Quote: | Therefore, innocent 'suspects' who are imprisoned would never,
under your statement above, be tried.
And thus, never released, although innocent.
|
Scott did already address this point. Many who were
initially sent to confinement have been released.
I'm not as confident as Scott that the ones who remain
are there for good reason. Absence of good reason to
release may be why they are there. Depending on the
circumstances of an individual's capture I can be either
happy or not at that.
| Quote: | I would tend to support the idea that the US would jail
someone who committed the crime of terrorism against the US
|
Supposedly those held were captured in war zones and those
released were bystanders. Over time additional captives
have been added and just how good the judgements are is a
matter for concern.
| Quote: | (it's a crime, not an act of wawr).
|
There was an act of war. The Jihadists have been claiming
a war for years. Calling it a crime ignores their own
claims.
| Quote: | The idea that they would
jail someone they *suspect* of such a crime, without trial
in which they could clear their name: that's the part which I
have issues with.
See again Mozzam Beg and the other five British citizens released
with him after representations from their government, private legal
counsel and various aid agencies, after *two years* and more of
illegal imprisonment and mistreatment, without having been charged
let alone tried, because there was no evidence against them.
|
Two years is too long, agreed. Those released have followed
a predictable pattern. Low hanging fruit first. The ones
clueless about why they were there got shipped home. The
ones citizens of other nations triggered discussions with
those nations. The less involved and the more interested
the other nation the sooner the release. It sucks as a
method but I can't come up with better.
One example in recent news is Osama's driver. He claims he
had no idea he was working for a terrorist and when he saw
the towers fall on TV and when he saw the dancing of his
employer then he wanted out. Sure thing dude. He takes
payment plans when selling his bridges, too, right?
In the end those the most active will be held until the end
of the war. And since the war can't have any specific end
that will be forever. It was their choice to attack the
US and it is the choice of others to continue fighting. I
hold sympathy for those who slowly trickle to their release.
I do not for those who were actually combatants. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PSn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
| Quote: | And, hey... if they didn't want to be held in prison until the end of a
war that may well last generations... they probably shouldn;t have
fucked with the US.
|
Such faith in your government, to automatically assume everyone being held
is as evil as they say! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romauld
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Recently, a script from Doug Freyburger arrived, in which they said:
: I suspect you missed Scott's point.
Uh, no, he failed to make a point.
:> The War on Terror is unlikely to end,
:
: Scott's point is that anyone waging war of terror against
: the US should be smart enough to understand that capture
: will result in confinement that lasts until terrorism
: stops or their own death by old age, whichever happens
: first. Or stupid enough to discount the chance of getting
: caught. Or loyal enough to the cause to not care.
However: see below.
: Check. Anyone caught as a terrorist has a good long
: wait head of them.
However: see below.
:> and partly because of the utility which the War on Terror
:> (like the War on Drugs) serves for the US government.
:
: Cynical and true.
Thank you. References to George Orwell's work are entirely appropriate
at this juncture.
: Scott did already address this point. Many who were
: initially sent to confinement have been released.
No. *Very Very Few* have been. I can bring to mind 14, all of whom
were only released after significant governmental pressure was brought
to bear by their native nations.
This is out of, what is it, six *hundred* in uncharged, untried captivity
at Camp X-Ray? And that isn't the point anyway. The *point* is that
if trials are meant to happen after teh war, and you're arresting people
on suspicion rather than based on evidence, and the 'war' is one which
has no end point, that presents a problem.
: I'm not as confident as Scott that the ones who remain
: are there for good reason. Absence of good reason to
: release may be why they are there.
I'm sorry, *what the hell*? Since when did any human being need
a *reason* to be free? You're meant to have a *reason* to lock
'em up, surely... not the other way around...
<snip>
: Supposedly those held were captured in war zones and those
: released were bystanders. Over time additional captives
: have been added and just how good the judgements are is a
: matter for concern.
Well indeed.
: There was an act of war. The Jihadists have been claiming
: a war for years. Calling it a crime ignores their own
: claims.
Yep. It does ignore their own claims. It's also accurate.
: Two years is too long, agreed.
two *days* is too long, in either the US or the UK; certain
unusual circumstances in the US notwithstanding which allow
extending the period prior to charge out to 72 hours.
: Those released have followed
: a predictable pattern. Low hanging fruit first. The ones
: clueless about why they were there got shipped home. The
: ones citizens of other nations triggered discussions with
: those nations. The less involved and the more interested
: the other nation the sooner the release. It sucks as a
: method but I can't come up with better.
I can. Don't arrest the fuckers until you have some evidence
to charge 'em with. It's called Due Process.
<snip>
: In the end those the most active will be held until the end
: of the war. And since the war can't have any specific end
: that will be forever. It was their choice to attack the
: US and it is the choice of others to continue fighting. I
: hold sympathy for those who slowly trickle to their release.
: I do not for those who were actually combatants.
Yeah, I can see that point. At least with regards to those who were
involved in the 9/11 operation, or who were active in the war in
Afghanistan (at least some of them). Argument doesn't hold up so
well in Iraq, where (contrary to the impression provided by much
of the media these days) most 'combatants' are a local resistance
movement against a foreign occupier, rather than being terrorist
operatives or even jihadists, most of 'em.
I'm right with on the 'Screw the Jihadist' opinion. Grew up in
Moslem countries, grew up with Sunni moslems who just wanted to
get their damn crops in without anyone shooting at them. They'd
agree with you, too.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PSn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118074663.803801.150790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Romauld wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote:
:>: these people should be tried after wars end.
:>In the context of the War on Terror, that presents something of
:>a problem.
: There is, of course, a simple solution, just there is for crimes that
: have unreasonable jail terms attached to them: don't do the crime. In
: this case, don't wage war against the US.
You have missed my point.
I suspect you missed Scott's point.
The War on Terror is unlikely to end,
Scott's point is that anyone waging war of terror against
the US should be smart enough to understand that capture
will result in confinement that lasts until terrorism
stops or their own death by old age, whichever happens
first. Or stupid enough to discount the chance of getting
caught. Or loyal enough to the cause to not care.
partly because of the nature of terrorist conflicts (which, lets
face it, the British have a great deal more experience of than
the US do)
Check. Anyone caught as a terrorist has a good long
wait head of them.
|
Being seen by a soldier on a battlefield shooting an AK or RPG-7 would count
as "solid evidence" in my book; but not everyone in Gitmo was seen by a
soldier, some were turned in by warlords who were given CASH REWARDS for
each "terrorist" or "Taliban soldier" they turned in.
Imagine the most untrustworthy person you know. Imagine he's poor as hell
and can use every dime he can get. Imagine you tell him that if he brings
you people who were publically urinating, that you'd give him $1,000 each--
no evidence necessary, just his word. Do you think this gentleman is going
to come back with ONLY guilty people?
| Quote: |
and partly because of the utility which the War on Terror
(like the War on Drugs) serves for the US government.
Cynical and true.
Therefore, innocent 'suspects' who are imprisoned would never,
under your statement above, be tried.
And thus, never released, although innocent.
Scott did already address this point. Many who were
initially sent to confinement have been released.
I'm not as confident as Scott that the ones who remain
are there for good reason. Absence of good reason to
release may be why they are there. Depending on the
circumstances of an individual's capture I can be either
happy or not at that.
|
Well, right now, the biggest problem is absence of good reason to hold them
there. Anyone who's been given a chance to have their evidence reviewed has
been released, because the evidence is flimsy. You say "many", but not
"all" or even "most"-- because most prisoners are being denied even a simple
review of the evidence. We're not talking a full 6-month televised trial by
jury like the Michael Jackson case. We're talking a less-than-one-day
review of all the things that say these guys are terrorists/taliban.
| Quote: | I would tend to support the idea that the US would jail
someone who committed the crime of terrorism against the US
Supposedly those held were captured in war zones and those
released were bystanders. Over time additional captives
have been added and just how good the judgements are is a
matter for concern.
(it's a crime, not an act of wawr).
There was an act of war. The Jihadists have been claiming
a war for years. Calling it a crime ignores their own
claims.
|
Do you believe everything Osama says?
| Quote: |
The idea that they would
jail someone they *suspect* of such a crime, without trial
in which they could clear their name: that's the part which I
have issues with.
See again Mozzam Beg and the other five British citizens released
with him after representations from their government, private legal
counsel and various aid agencies, after *two years* and more of
illegal imprisonment and mistreatment, without having been charged
let alone tried, because there was no evidence against them.
Two years is too long, agreed. Those released have followed
a predictable pattern. Low hanging fruit first. The ones
clueless about why they were there got shipped home. The
ones citizens of other nations triggered discussions with
those nations. The less involved and the more interested
the other nation the sooner the release. It sucks as a
method but I can't come up with better.
|
Here's one, simple and fast-- Man is detained, immediately upon entering,
he's scheduled for an indictment in front of a Grand Jury or a Military
Tribunal (your pick). The evidence is laid out on the table, along with
testimony. 2-8 hours later, Grand Jury or Tribunal says either:
1) Not enough evidence to proceed to a trial; prisoner is released.
2) Sufficient evidence to proceed; trial is scheduled for end of
hostilities with his specific terrorist organization.
It's that simple. It's done every day thousands of times in our country,
and you know what? It's not killing us! Our day-to-day operations haven't
ground to a halt, we're still productive despite that process.
| Quote: |
One example in recent news is Osama's driver. He claims he
had no idea he was working for a terrorist and when he saw
the towers fall on TV and when he saw the dancing of his
employer then he wanted out. Sure thing dude. He takes
payment plans when selling his bridges, too, right?
In the end those the most active will be held until the end
of the war. And since the war can't have any specific end
that will be forever. It was their choice to attack the
US and it is the choice of others to continue fighting. I
hold sympathy for those who slowly trickle to their release.
I do not for those who were actually combatants.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
| Quote: | Therefore, innocent 'suspects' who are imprisoned would never, under your statement above, be tried.
And thus, never released, although innocent.
|
This ignores reality: innocents *have* been released. "Have been"
hardly equates to "never." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
| Quote: | Such faith in your government, to automatically assume everyone being held
is as evil as they say! |
Well, hey, why not? Others hereabouts are convinced that any law that
is passed is automatically Constitutional... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
| Quote: | Don't arrest the fuckers until you have some evidence to charge 'em with.
|
<boggle>
I'm sure the Marines will be thrilled to read their new orders for
engaging the enemy... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:05 am Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
lexcorp@ix.netcom.com wrote:
| Quote: | Well, hey, why not? Others hereabouts are convinced that any law that
is passed is automatically Constitutional...
|
Really? When was this?
Eric |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:14 am Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
| Quote: | Well, hey, why not? Others hereabouts are convinced that any law that is passed is automatically Constitutional...
Really? When was this?
|
Well, now, lessee:
| Quote: | And I've been asking you to explain where the Constitution limits the right to own and bear arms, but you've never tackled it logically.
I'll stand by the logic of my posts, including a detailed study of the text, its history, its history in courts, and the existence of legal restrictions.
|
You were questioned to explain the Constitutionality of limitiations,
and your response included "the existence of legal restrictions" as an
excuse. You've done this several times. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romauld
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Recently, a script from lexcorp@ix.netcom.com arrived, in which they said:
:> Therefore, innocent 'suspects' who are imprisoned would never, under your statement above, be tried.
:
:>And thus, never released, although innocent.
:
:
: This ignores reality: innocents *have* been released. "Have been"
: hardly equates to "never."
I've retained what *little* of my article you left in for what
little context it supplies.
The statement I was contesting was:
"These people should be tried after the war is over"
I cite from memory, apologies if the wording isn't precise.
The War on Terror is not going to *be* over.
Those who have been released were not released due to trial.
Therefore your post does not follow on from mine: "under your statement
above" where your is the original poster, those men who have been released
due to government pressure would still be in Camp X-Ray right now. They
would not have been tried yet, and thus not released yet.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romauld
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Even *more* religious abuse!!! |
|
|
Recently, a script from lexcorp@ix.netcom.com arrived, in which they said:
: I'm sure the Marines will be thrilled to read their new orders for
: engaging the enemy...
'He shot at me with an AK-47' is pretty good evidence to arrest someone
based on. The problem is that most of those arrested, didn't.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
