|
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Is it time for the UN to come in and liberate us?
----- Original Message ----- From: "JPFO Webmaster" To: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization October 19, 2006 JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, another nail was pounded into freedom's coffin when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. Within the Act, the 800-year tradition of Habeas Corpus -- the right of the accused to face their accuser in court -- was essentially eliminated. While much of the mainstream media glossed over this news with a disinterested yawn, one brave commentator made no bones about the magnitude of this treachery. Watch MSNBC's Keith Olbermann at http://tinyurl.com/yk6osh as he comments on this appalling development. If you do nothing else, WATCH THIS VIDEO! It will make your blood boil, to say the least. In another video from MSNBC's "Countdown," Olbermann interviews Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=P25QkFZ-0zk ). Turley points out that even giving "material support" (such as a donation) to an organization that has been deemed "terrorist" can get you designated an enemy combatant as well. And who determines which organizations are associated with terrorism? The president alone. We are no longer standing at the precipice of a tyrannical dictatorship -- we've stepped off the edge. The United States is gleefully skipping down the same path as the former Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany. "The Most Free Country on Earth" is now merely a phrase of propaganda, not reality. Still don't believe it? Check out our "Police State" page at www.jpfo.org/policestate.htm . We're constantly adding new articles -- too many, we believe -- that document our slide into a tyrannical, dictatorial regime. Articles like this: FBI Director wants ISPs to Track Users http://tinyurl.com/yhoxqs Tracking your movements on the internet? Is this what our country is about -- quietly acquiescing as the American Stasi monitors your communications? IT IS NOT! America is about the Bill of Rights, that document which specifically states that there are rights upon which the federal government _cannot_ infringe. The Military Commissions Act essentially guts the Bill of Rights, and it is up to us, The People, to demand that our government follow its own charter. JPFO is constantly exhorting our supporters to celebrate Bill of Rights Day each December 15. But is that enough? EVERY day should be Bill of Rights Day. When we think about our rights once a year (or less), we suffer. Send this alert to everyone you know, regardless of political affiliation. Celebrate Bill of Rights Day on December 15 (we have many ideas which you can use at http://www.your10rights.com/bord.html ). But most importantly, demand that your rights be respected. There are only 56 days until Bill of Rights Day. Will you celebrate its true spirit .... or the hollow farce our government wishes to make of it? Remember, if you don't defend your rights, don't complain when you lose them. - The Liberty Crew ================================================== ========== JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net ================================================== ========== LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts! Just send a blank e-mail to . To unsubscribe, send a blank email to ================================================== =========== Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today! http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html ================================================== =========== Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2006 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact information is included: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership PO Box 270143 Hartford, Wisconsin 53027 Phone: 1-262-673-9745 Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!) Fax: 1-262-673-9746 Web: http://www.jpfo.org/ ================================================== =========== |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization And I thought "Jews for Jesus" was peculiar. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Toller" wrote in message
... ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization And I thought "Jews for Jesus" was peculiar. Actually, this organization makes the NRA look like a bunch of pussies. I like it. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Is it time for the UN to come in and liberate us? ----- Original Message ----- From: "JPFO Webmaster" To: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization October 19, 2006 JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, another nail was pounded into freedom's coffin when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. Within the Act, the 800-year tradition of Habeas Corpus -- the right of the accused to face their accuser in court -- was essentially eliminated. First, habeas corpus is used almost always in criminal complaints. Terrorists, POWs, and unlawful enemy combatants (spys, saboteurs, guerillas, etc.) are not criminals and have never had the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights (trial by jury, legal counsel, etc.). It's not an 800-year old tradition. Habeas Corpus has NEVER been afforded those captured in time of war. Second, the president's Article II powers trumph almost any other constitutional provisions. The courts have, for 230 years, unanimously said so. Third, the Supreme Court tried to interpose itself in the situation. The Congress said: 1) We are going to set up, by law, the exact same military commissions the president originally proposed and 2) We are removing the whole business from review by the judiciary. This means that the military tribunals are OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the courts. Never again can the Supreme Court meddle with military tribunals. The court was not only rebuked, it was slapped down hard. Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. The first military tribunal was conducted by George Washington when Maj Gen Andre was tried as a spy - by a military commission. Andre was hanged within ten days of being caught behind our lines in disguise. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... Stormin Mormon wrote: Is it time for the UN to come in and liberate us? ----- Original Message ----- From: "JPFO Webmaster" To: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization October 19, 2006 JPFO ALERT: R.I.P. Habeas Corpus On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, another nail was pounded into freedom's coffin when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law. Within the Act, the 800-year tradition of Habeas Corpus -- the right of the accused to face their accuser in court -- was essentially eliminated. First, habeas corpus is used almost always in criminal complaints. Terrorists, POWs, and unlawful enemy combatants (spys, saboteurs, guerillas, etc.) are not criminals and have never had the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights (trial by jury, legal counsel, etc.). It's not an 800-year old tradition. Habeas Corpus has NEVER been afforded those captured in time of war. Second, the president's Article II powers trumph almost any other constitutional provisions. The courts have, for 230 years, unanimously said so. Third, the Supreme Court tried to interpose itself in the situation. The Congress said: 1) We are going to set up, by law, the exact same military commissions the president originally proposed and 2) We are removing the whole business from review by the judiciary. This means that the military tribunals are OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the courts. Never again can the Supreme Court meddle with military tribunals. The court was not only rebuked, it was slapped down hard. Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. The first military tribunal was conducted by George Washington when Maj Gen Andre was tried as a spy - by a military commission. Andre was hanged within ten days of being caught behind our lines in disguise. This system *might* work fairly, assuming the military was not contaminated at the moment. You might do well to do some reading about the military's condition at the end of Eisenhower's term. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
clipped
Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. The first military tribunal was conducted by George Washington when Maj Gen Andre was tried as a spy - by a military commission. Andre was hanged within ten days of being caught behind our lines in disguise. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article .net, Norminn wrote:
clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message et... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. Not much. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. Absolutely it was profiling. Carried out by that great Democrat hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. Not much. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. Absolutely it was profiling. Carried out by that great Democrat hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of course, you're fully aware that his party affiliation is 100% irrelevant. You just threw that in because you thought it meant something. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message igy.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. Not much. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. Absolutely it was profiling. Carried out by that great Democrat hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of course, you're fully aware that his party affiliation is 100% irrelevant. You just threw that in because you thought it meant something. Actually, it's quite relevant in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats of today, who are quick to scream "profiling" whenever anyone suggests, for example, that it would make sense for airport screeners to pay a little more attention to young men of Middle Eastern origin than to, say, elderly women. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message digy.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. Not much. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. Absolutely it was profiling. Carried out by that great Democrat hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of course, you're fully aware that his party affiliation is 100% irrelevant. You just threw that in because you thought it meant something. Actually, it's quite relevant in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats of today, who are quick to scream "profiling" whenever anyone suggests, for example, that it would make sense for airport screeners to pay a little more attention to young men of Middle Eastern origin than to, say, elderly women. You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message odigy.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. Not much. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. Absolutely it was profiling. Carried out by that great Democrat hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of course, you're fully aware that his party affiliation is 100% irrelevant. You just threw that in because you thought it meant something. Actually, it's quite relevant in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats of today, who are quick to scream "profiling" whenever anyone suggests, for example, that it would make sense for airport screeners to pay a little more attention to young men of Middle Eastern origin than to, say, elderly women. You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
|
Habeas Corpus is no longer
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. Leave Monica's dress out of this, okay? ;) R |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I understand that it is almost impossible to keep politics from creeping into home repair thread. It is not impossible for someone starting an entirely political thread to type OT straightaway. Thanks. R |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Doug Miller wrote:
In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. If you mean the Japanese, yes they did have access to our courts. The courts uniformly denied relief. Executive Order 9066, to round up and detain Japanese-Americans was ultimately found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court and is still the law of the land. If, on the other hand, you mean American citizens caught on the battlefield in the uniform of Germans or Italians, no, they did not have access to the courts. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Doug Miller wrote:
You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. Carter - Iran hostages and giving away the Panama Canal Ford - Allowing the N. Koreans to sieze the Pueblo without consequence |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? I don't need to read a history book to know what was going on during Ford's administration: I was alive, of voting age, and reading newspapers then. What "slimy" things did Ford do? Or Eisenhower, for that matter -- I notice you didn't name any. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. Carter - Iran hostages and giving away the Panama Canal Ford - Allowing the N. Koreans to sieze the Pueblo without consequence Those are some of the items I had in mind when I said "plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* ..." but not "slimy". Clinton was, and is, slimy. Nixon was slimy. JFK with multiple mistresses was slimy. As much as I admire Reagan ... Iran-Contra was slimy. And as much as I detest Carter, he wasn't slimy. Stupid and incompetent, yes. Slimy? Carter? No. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? I don't need to read a history book to know what was going on during Ford's administration: I was alive, of voting age, and reading newspapers then. What "slimy" things did Ford do? Or Eisenhower, for that matter -- I notice you didn't name any. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Let me make sure I'm clear about what you're saying: If you were alive and following the news during a president's term, you know everything you need to know about that period, and nothing of importance can be learned later. Is that what you're saying? |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/...s/03650084.asp http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec07.htm The first link is to an article that compares Japanese/American situation to the habeas issue now. Second link is to FDR's executive order (love those things) setting the "rules". The recourse American citizens had at the time was impotent. There were 120,000 people, many American born, sent to camps. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."? Wow!!!!! There is an interesting article in Vanity Fair about the ordeal in Iraq that is resulting in courts martial of several Marines. Began with an IED blowing up the fourth vehicle in a four-vehicle convoy. The Marine who had been driving was blown in two, lower half of his body still in the vehicle, the rest of him on the road. Third tour in Iraq. Anybody know how this war is any different than Viet Nam, other than the fact that the French didn't first fight it for 27 years? |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Norminn" wrote in message
link.net... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article .net, Norminn wrote: clipped Interestingly, there were over 300,000 POWs incarcerated in 541 camps in the US during WW2. NOT ONE of them had access to our courts, via habeas or otherwise. ALL were handled by the military. Don't forget the Americans sent to camps in the US. But they *did* have access to our courts. Are we referring to Japanese families during WWII? That's what I assumed. I wonder if access to the courts did them any good. I mean, what if Great Britain declared war against us. Would we begin rounding up everyone of English descent, and expect them to prove they weren't spies while they rotted in prison camps? Sounds like profiling to me. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/...s/03650084.asp http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec07.htm The first link is to an article that compares Japanese/American situation to the habeas issue now. Second link is to FDR's executive order (love those things) setting the "rules". The recourse American citizens had at the time was impotent. There were 120,000 people, many American born, sent to camps. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."? Wow!!!!! There is an interesting article in Vanity Fair about the ordeal in Iraq that is resulting in courts martial of several Marines. Began with an IED blowing up the fourth vehicle in a four-vehicle convoy. The Marine who had been driving was blown in two, lower half of his body still in the vehicle, the rest of him on the road. Third tour in Iraq. Anybody know how this war is any different than Viet Nam, other than the fact that the French didn't first fight it for 27 years? Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we have god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
clipped
You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I was about 10 years old during the McCarthy hearings, but I can remember thinking what a nasty guy he was. As for Ike, try this: "Eisenhower's personal and political instincts came into conflict during a campaign stop in McCarthy's home state of Wisconsin. Eisenhower was prepared to deliver a defense of Marshall, praising him "as a man and a soldier," and condemning the tactics of McCarthy as a "sobering lesson in the way freedom must not defend itself." But noble intentions gave way to political reality. Aware of McCarthy's huge base of support and not willing to risk losing votes in a crucial state, Eisenhower delivered his speech minus the defense of Marshall and the condemnation of McCarthy. It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life." Mo http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/preside..._politics.html Sorry for quoting the liberal media, but conservative media doesn't keep a record :o) As for which party can be the worst, in a moral sense, it depends on the times. Wonder what Paula Jones is up to these days? Wonder if Monica ever thinks about how she might have changed history? During the time of Ike and FDR, both long-term adulterers, folks tended to make fun of their wives. The more things change ...... |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
clipped
Those are some of the items I had in mind when I said "plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* ..." but not "slimy". Clinton was, and is, slimy. Nixon was slimy. JFK with multiple mistresses was slimy. As much as I admire Reagan ... Iran-Contra was slimy. And as much as I detest Carter, he wasn't slimy. Stupid and incompetent, yes. Slimy? Carter? No. Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller. Another one-issue election debacle. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? I don't need to read a history book to know what was going on during Ford's administration: I was alive, of voting age, and reading newspapers then. What "slimy" things did Ford do? Or Eisenhower, for that matter -- I notice you didn't name any. Let me make sure I'm clear about what you're saying: If you were alive and following the news during a president's term, you know everything you need to know about that period, and nothing of importance can be learned later. Is that what you're saying? You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question I asked: What did Ford or Eisenhower do that was "slimy"? Quit changing the subject. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we have god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels. Oh, really? When did he say that? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article . net, Norminn wrote:
Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller. Oh, phooey. "Small government" had nothing at all to do with Carter's election. People were still POed at Nixon over Watergate -- and at Ford for pardoning him. *That* is the only thing that ever got that incompetent boob of a peanut farmer elected. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? I don't need to read a history book to know what was going on during Ford's administration: I was alive, of voting age, and reading newspapers then. What "slimy" things did Ford do? Or Eisenhower, for that matter -- I notice you didn't name any. Let me make sure I'm clear about what you're saying: If you were alive and following the news during a president's term, you know everything you need to know about that period, and nothing of importance can be learned later. Is that what you're saying? You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question I asked: What did Ford or Eisenhower do that was "slimy"? Quit changing the subject. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) I'm not your teacher, and someone else already provided examples. I'm asking you whether it's worth spending time with history books covering periods when you were alive, or do you think you learn everything that can be learned just by reading newspapers and watching TV. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we have god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels. Oh, really? When did he say that? Stop...you're killin' me, Mr Miller. Your president is on a crusade, not a rational mission. You know that. His own military people are saying it's failure. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Doug Miller wrote:
OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. Carter - Iran hostages and giving away the Panama Canal Ford - Allowing the N. Koreans to sieze the Pueblo without consequence Those are some of the items I had in mind when I said "plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* ..." but not "slimy". Clinton was, and is, slimy. Nixon was slimy. JFK with multiple mistresses was slimy. As much as I admire Reagan ... Iran-Contra was slimy. And as much as I detest Carter, he wasn't slimy. Stupid and incompetent, yes. Slimy? Carter? No. Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his heart" (slimey). He killed a rabbit in distress (slimey). Carter allowed 52 American to languish in Iran for 444 days. This latter was not a decision based on incompetence. Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the Democrats. Oh well. Lawrence J. Peter (the man who discovered "The Peter Principle") once said: "I have been studying governments, man and boy, for forty years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools or by brilliant people who are just putting us on." |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
Norminn wrote:
clipped Those are some of the items I had in mind when I said "plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* ..." but not "slimy". Clinton was, and is, slimy. Nixon was slimy. JFK with multiple mistresses was slimy. As much as I admire Reagan ... Iran-Contra was slimy. And as much as I detest Carter, he wasn't slimy. Stupid and incompetent, yes. Slimy? Carter? No. Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller. Another one-issue election debacle. Hmm. I thought the nation was appalled at Nixon's seeming corruption and wanted a moral exemplar. |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the Democrats. Oh well. Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff being hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end the war. There are idiots in some newsgroups who think you can go forward knowing nothing about history. This is why we failed in Vietnam, why we will fail in Iraq, and why we are on the cusp of either failing or succeeding in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Did he say Pakistan?) |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:kx4_g.18584 You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. Eisenhower - Overthrow of the legitimate government of Guatemala in 1954. Bob |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:iq7_g.3542 Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we have god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels. Iraq was very different from Vietnam because Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam. Bob |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
"Bob F" wrote in message
. .. "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:iq7_g.3542 Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we have god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels. Iraq was very different from Vietnam because Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam. Bob {drum crash!} |
Habeas Corpus is no longer
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message m... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message igy.net... You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT done something slimy. OK, I'll take the bait. What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower was a bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember Ford and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they didn't do anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* -- especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah. I guess Carter was pretty harmless. As far as the rest, what are the last 5 history books you've read? I don't need to read a history book to know what was going on during Ford's administration: I was alive, of voting age, and reading newspapers then. What "slimy" things did Ford do? Or Eisenhower, for that matter -- I notice you didn't name any. Let me make sure I'm clear about what you're saying: If you were alive and following the news during a president's term, you know everything you need to know about that period, and nothing of importance can be learned later. Is that what you're saying? You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question I asked: What did Ford or Eisenhower do that was "slimy"? Quit changing the subject. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) I'm not your teacher, and someone else already provided examples. I'm asking you whether it's worth spending time with history books covering periods when you were alive, or do you think you learn everything that can be learned just by reading newspapers and watching TV. Despite being asked three times to justify your claim by specifying exactly what slimy things Ford and Eisenhower did, you're unable to come up with anything, so you attempt to hide that by trying to put the onus on me. Won't work, Joe. You made a claim. I challenged it. Three times, you've failed to back it up. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter