On Thu, 6 May 2004 20:33:41 -0700, Mike Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gary Denton, putting me in "Oh, Please!" mode:
It's a start. > > > > Mike Lee > > > Savior of the Masses writes: > > Like all true Saviors, the masses loathe me. Something else we might agree on. > > The liberals and leftists you despise were pointing out the > > corruption in the Food for Oil program since just after it > > started. �For various reasons it is a big talking point for > > conservatives now to use against those same liberals and leftists. � > > If it's been a big talking point for you l&l's for so long, why shut up now? > Where are the demonstrations organized by ANSWER in front of the UN > building? Where's Michael Whoore or John Kerry talking about it every damn > day? Uh, because the problem which occurred in the past is being investigated? �Why aren't billionaires for Bush leading marches in front of the UN or going on quiche strikes? �Could some have made money off of it? >Ya'll went piranha on Martha Stewart. We all didn't take a bite out Martha. �I don't know what idealogical side was after Stewart. �It looks like she, like Nixon, like Bush, just started lying about a cover up and it got out of hand. �She does provide an interesting lesson that when you are worth billions you shouldn't break laws about a few thousand dollars and then start digging deeper.. OK, Kofi is Bush's puppet. �If the U.S. didn't hold his purse strings I am sure he would have kicked Bush and Powell's asses.. i'd buy RAW tickets for that. > > North Korea has always been a bigger threat, a worse mass murderer. > > True enough, on the mass murderer side of it. No, they're not a bigger > threat. They think they're a bigger threat, but then again they're run by a > guy who thinks that haircut looks good. LOL, NK unlike Iraq actually has a half-decent or quarter-decent army and really has WMDs. ... > Stalin and Mao don't count, I guess? At least the right supports itty bitty > dictators, unlike you leftists who say that as soon as a dictator kills 10 > million he's no longer a cult but a church. Compared to the GOP that arranges for one of the most powerful cult leaders, but a strong financial and media supporter, to have himself crowned Messiah in the capital? http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog//2004_05_01_barchive.html#108362997653753669 > But you make an interesting, if deranged, point: what exactly is it about > what's going on that's unconstitutional and destroying the separation of > powers? This administration. They have made repeated prolonged assault on the separation of powers, elevating executive power and classifying secret public meetings with private citizens. �They have detained US citizens without charges and without access to an attorney and communication. They have expounded a right to collect any and all information from any source about anyone in the United States without revealing a reason. > By the way, Bush just used the word "apologize" > but it still won't make you happy. What he did was gutsy and difficult and > you don't care. Bush calls treatment of Iraqi prisoners 'abhorrent,' but doesn't apologize http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/05/05/448149-ap.html You have low standards for gutsy and difficult. >No matter what he does, you'll find some way to bitch about > it. Maybe. Except for a couple public moments for a couple months after 9/11 he has been pretty much a miserable, dangerous excuse for a president. > Bush will win this election. I'm not unconditionally thrilled about that. > He's a right wing moron. He's made Howard Stern into a boring political > scold. He's on the wrong side of every science issue. But this is a single > issue election. John Kerry will very likely get millions of Americans and > tens of millions of Muslims killed. I'll miss you, Howard. I agree he is a right wing moron. �I cannot see Kerry doing anything as bad as this gang has managed to do and�Kerry was way down on my list of candidates. � > > Rumsfeld had previously said that the Geneva Conventions > > didn't apply to his war. �I guess he didn't expect the photos > > of what that meant disturbing Americans at dinner and > > upsetting his boss. > > Quote please. In context. Washington Post - The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. Prisoners, he said, would be treated "for the most part" in "a manner that is reasonably consistent" with the conventions -- which, the secretary breezily suggested, was outdated. >From way on your side of the fence NewMax - Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted from the beginning, however, "They will be handled not as prisoners of war, because they're not, but as unlawful combatants. Technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions, to the extent they are appropriate." Amnesty International and others in the coalition, however, have argued that those held in Guantanamo are presumed to be prisoners of war, and if there is any doubt about their status, it is not the prerogative of the US secretary of defense to unilaterally make the determination. According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, said Amnesty, the US must convene a "competent tribunal" that is competent and impartial to decide on their status. This is also the position exposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, considered a key interpreter of the Geneva Conventions. Kim Gordon-Bates, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has inspected the Guantanamo base, said the concept of an "unlawful combatant" did not exist under international law. Rumsfeld thus far has not authorized the release to the public of the Red Cross inspection report. "You can look through the Geneva Convention and you will not find it. It is not a legal term," Gordon-Bates told BBC Radio. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/27/212434.shtml _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
