On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Justin wrote:
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights.
It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be
faithful to this premise, physical
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 21:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's bullshit. Saddam was told by our Chick ambassador (I
can't remember her name) that the US had no interest in his
dispute with Kuwait, in effect giving Saddam a green light.
Commie lie
On Friday 19 December 2003 20:35, James A. Donald wrote:
In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit
would hit the fan.
(That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern,
Cite? The google groups article you linked to has two links to possible
transcripts.
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 21:21, Steve Schear wrote:
I have direct instructions from the President to seek better
relations with Iraq. [] Our opinion is that you should have
the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no
opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement
At 06:37 PM 12/19/2003, you wrote:
In a message dated 12/19/2003 3:38:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Saddam was warned that if he took Kuwait, terrible consequences
might well follow.
That's bullshit. Saddam was told by our Chick ambassador (I can't remember
her name)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
SNIP
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does
not *establish*
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It
does
not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this
premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
This is a valid and probably commendable
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does
not
In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Why does the US military have
to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not
citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
The cost for politicians mandating such a policy
would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal
charges themselves.
No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity.
Or at least, I like to think so.
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights.
It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be
faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
This is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are
reasonable,
because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it.
that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it
wasn't very feasible. The world is
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote:
[Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical
topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.]
From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time.
http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES
IN THE SAND
At 07:19 AM 12/19/2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Saddam had been less of an
idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would
be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out
snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote:
Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her
to clarify the American position.
I have direct instructions from the President to seek better
relations with Iraq. [
] Our opinion is that you should have
the opportunity to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist
lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies)
I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also
the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the
detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal
protections,
much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the
camp, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote:
According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are
unlawful enemy combattants.
I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's
judgement in this issue is correct,
Jim Dixon wrote:
If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with
crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier.
According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are
unlawful enemy combattants.
However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until
19 matches
Mail list logo
