Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:07:40 +0000, Guido wrote:



Whooee Gunner's cut and pasted report says that UK crime
levels have dropped to a 24 year low.


Well, what did you expect from someone with a bad case of
Winger's Disease?

Wasn't there a website or something that plotted IQ against
tendency to vote neocon.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:38:21 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:48:24 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Cliff who?

Cliffy, Gunny. Y'know, the guy you quote lebenty times daily.
insert loud raspberry here

Sarcasm detector on the blink? I hear PC Club has em on sale.

Nope, it saw it right away. I just couldn't resist the jab.
I've had the gent plonked since about day 3 of lurking here,
and the amount of play his posts get astounds me. All the good
posters reply to him so I can't just eliminate them, too. Drat!
and Bother! sigh

Ill take that as a compliment...



Gunner



================================================= ========
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================= ========

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:19:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Because I like licking my balls.

Sometimes one wonders about Gunner ....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:21:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

So, why are you arguing for it now?

So Hitler's major error was not calling the Jews
"enemy combatants"?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:05:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

The governments response is to suggest a range of alternatives:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4207295.stm


That's all very nice. I hope you find something that works.


Apparently three are to be bailed, and I hear that there are
signs of sanity coming from the US legal system too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4223561.stm

Unfortunately, all it means is a constitutional conflict. District courts
have decided both ways on this issue -- mostly against. The district court
in the Rasul case decided against; the Court of Appeals in that case decided
against; and then the Supreme Court, in a ruling I described elsewhere in
this thread, decided for, with a strong dissent and with an undefended
concurrence.

Unless you know the US federal court system, don't draw any conclusions yet
from this ruling. Furthermore, it will have nothing to do with "sanity" when
it's all finally decided. It will be based on constitutional principles,
which are vague enough in this area that a decision could go either way.

"Sanity" would require an act of Congress to re-define the rules of habeas
corpus in US courts, for foreign nationals outside of our borders.

Ed,
These are matters of international import.
Trying to claim that ONLY US laws apply is absurd on the very
face of it.

Breaking so many international laws, the UN Charter, so many
treaties .... mooning the world legal system ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:19:37 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Because others brought it up as some final arbiture and I told how
even it backed up the treatment of the combatants we are holding.

Does anyone out there have a Winger-English dictionary?
Thanks.
--
Cliff