combatant != prisoner of war You should move, seriously. We don't want you. We have enough loonies that belong here.
Dana wrote: > i have been trying to stay out of this because really, I don't have > time. However let me try one more time... > > >> I spent two years working with former Soviet states on energy programs and I >> often used former Russian defectors as interpreters. > > And what did you learn from this? You're defending the right of the > governement to just come take you away, my friend. Really, you are. > Because if it is ok to do this to terrorists... you need to check out > the definition of terrorist. > >> In some rosy past when we were nice little American boys and girls? That's a >> fairy tale. > > and yet it is still true according to you below. You aren't making sense. > >>> We had a stance like "you can torture us, but we will not torture >>> you"-- we WILL NOT SINK TO THAT LEVEL. >>> >> We still do. The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib have been tried and convicted. >> The CIA secret jails thing has been hashed out in public and in Congress. >> The waterboarding thing has been all over the news forever. > > The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib :) ha. A few soldiers who followed > orders were sacrificed like pawns. The secret jails, the > extraordinary renditions, the black flights have *not* been hashed > out. You've still never heard of Maher Arar and there is still a > fifteen year old boy at Guantanamo being held without legal > representation because of who his family knows. > >> I'm implying no such thing. I'm suggesting that at the highest >>> levels, the "definition" of torture is being tested. >>> >> That is why we have an indepedent judiciary, to provide clarity on the >> limits of Executive and Legislative power. > > Yes and the Executive says it does not want to be reviewed by the > judiciary. DId you sleep through the whole FISA thing? > >> If you believe that then you obviously haven't studied Constitutional >> history. People are people, they do good and bad. Our structure of >> government is designed to contain the damage that can be done by any single >> branch of government, precisely because the Founders expected each branch of >> government to push the envelope. > > Yes but the Constitution you think protects us is being blatantly disregarded. > >> I don't support it. I support specific measures that are finite in scope and >> duration to combat terrorism. As I noted in another thread, this business of >> using the Patriot Act to nail Spitzer for prostitution is no good, and the >> rules need to be changed. > > But see, that's just it. SInce anyone can be a terrorist -- you really > need to check out that definition --- all those measures apply to > *everyone.* And a measure that is for the duration of the war on > terror might as well be eternal. > >> They don't have uniforms, but they definitely are combatants. Why don't you >> ask one of the soldiers on the list if they think they guys shooting at them >> in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't combatants? > > But they aren't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you. > They are not combattants and therefore the Geneva Convention is quaint > and and they can be locked up as long as the administratoin pleases. > If you don't believe me just ask Alberto Gonzales. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257175 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
