wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue 167
Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.

"Russ Stanton" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.

I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
deserves any praise for him. Big negatives a giving away the Panama Canal
so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
leadership was a disaster.
Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
fight them??

Dave wrote:
"Russ Stanton" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.

I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
deserves any praise for him. Big negatives a giving away the Panama Canal

It is pretty hard to argue that the Panama Canal does not rightfully
belong
to Panama. The treaty transferring control guarantees its availablity
to
US shipping and guarantees that he US will protect it.

so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
leadership was a disaster.

The seeds of the Iranian hostage situatiowere laid years before
by supporting the overthrow of the previous Iranian government.
It came to fruition under Carter. I certainly do not claim that he
resolved it satisfactorily (actually, he did by losing the next
election)
bu he didn't bring it on.

Remember earlier this year when Bush said about rising
gas prices "We wouldn't be in this mess if we had an energy
policy ten years ago." He was right, but he forgot to mention that
we DID have one twenty five years ago that was abandoned
under Reagan.

Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
fight them??

In which branch of the military are you serving?

Bush supporters aren't exactly lining up to join the military either.
In WWII some members of Congress enlisted. FDR's
sons served in the Navy in the PTO. Has anyone in Bush's own
FAMILY enlisted since September 11, 2001?

The fact is that a lot of young men and women enlised in the Fall of
2001. Bush has betrayed their trust by sending them to fight the
wrong war at the srong time in the wrong place. When I say that,
what message am I sending to the troops? I'm, sending them the
message that they deserve better from tehir President and their
country and yet I know that they will do their best notwithstanding.

--

FF

Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
volunteer to fight them??

Does name calling and aggresive CAPITALIZATION make you feel better?

Hitler (Germany) declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. I was born in 1944,
so what I did in WWII is kind of irrelevant. Since then, I worked for
Westinghouse (a big defense contractor) and for a Navy contractor at the
Naval Research Lab and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Anything else I
can do for you?

Steve

Bush is still a terrible president. How much are you going to pay in taxes
to pay for the W Memorial National Debt? It used to be the RWR Memorial
National Debt, but the Shrub has blown Ronnie away.

Fredfighter
You wanted to know in what branch I served-- I served 22 years in the Air
Force as a boom operator on KC 97's and KC 135's refueling bombers and
fighter planes going to North Vietnam.
What branch did you serve in??
I love the US of A and I will stand behind it no matter what. If needed I
would gladly go back in. How about you, would you enlist if needed?? They
say I'm too old now-- That makes me madd. There is no reason I can't at
least work in supply or drive a truck. I know I'm too old to keep up with
the Grunts, but not too old to do other things. How about you?
Check things out and find out the truth to see how many of the businesses
are owned by China in the Canal Zone.
You hate Bush so much, you'll have a chance in 08 and in the next
congressional race to get Democrats in. I'd be willing to bet you that you
would lose the bet. So my advice to you is to get over it, and if you are
that disenchanted with everything in the US move to France or Canada.

Yes I know I top posted-- so what. I wanted to make sure Fred fighter sees
this.


"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
ink.net...

Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to
enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
volunteer to fight them??

Does name calling and aggresive CAPITALIZATION make you feel better?

Hitler (Germany) declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. I was born in
1944, so what I did in WWII is kind of irrelevant. Since then, I worked
for Westinghouse (a big defense contractor) and for a Navy contractor at
the Naval Research Lab and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Anything
else I can do for you?

Steve

Bush is still a terrible president. How much are you going to pay in
taxes to pay for the W Memorial National Debt? It used to be the RWR
Memorial National Debt, but the Shrub has blown Ronnie away.

In article 11krf.646077$x96.70300@attbi_s72, "Dave"
wrote:

Fredfighter
You wanted to know in what branch I served-- I served 22 years in the Air
Force as a boom operator on KC 97's and KC 135's refueling bombers and
fighter planes going to North Vietnam.
What branch did you serve in??
I love the US of A and I will stand behind it no matter what. If needed I
would gladly go back in. How about you, would you enlist if needed?? They
say I'm too old now-- That makes me madd. There is no reason I can't at
least work in supply or drive a truck. I know I'm too old to keep up with
the Grunts, but not too old to do other things. How about you?
Check things out and find out the truth to see how many of the businesses
are owned by China in the Canal Zone.
You hate Bush so much, you'll have a chance in 08 and in the next
congressional race to get Democrats in. I'd be willing to bet you that you
would lose the bet. So my advice to you is to get over it, and if you are
that disenchanted with everything in the US move to France or Canada.

Yes I know I top posted-- so what. I wanted to make sure Fred fighter sees
this.

Dave,

Do you know Frank Church by chance? He's one of the folks from over in
the fly fishing newsgroup who was a 97 and then 135 boomer. I was just
one of those guys sucking up underneath on the drogue in an EA-6B

Allen

Hi Dave,

I guess I am a Bush basher these days. Yes he is our commander in-chief,
but he's also our employee, and he's crossed the line as far as I'm
concerned, and I just don't believe him any more.

Some of us anti-war types are patriotic too - I've tried to "support the
troops" in Iraq - I marched to protest the invasion. When that didn't work,
I donated money to the USO and adopted a soldier to send care packages to.
And I still bundle up magazines to send to them to remind them of life here.
I urged my senators to vote for any equipment the troops needed, and to put
pressure on Bush to fire that hand-waving loser Rumsfeld who said 'la la la
there is noinsurgency' and stalled any attempts to up-armor, supply more
troops, etc. And I voted for Kerry in '04 because I suspected Kerry would
send more material and men over to finish the mission quicker. (Bush seems
to be afraid to admit that they misjudged the occupation and need more
support. Which is more important, losing face, or the lives of our
soldiers?)

And next week I'm going to write and ask that Chalibi be investigated and
imprisoned if possible. He's the one who lied to us and said Saddam was
urgently dangerous yet weak enough to invade, and any invasion would be a
quick, cheap affair, dancing in the streets, etc. Bush's greatest sin is
that he was gullible enough to believe it and spread the story as the truth.
Again, I think Bush will avoid losing face and just let Chalibi get away
scott free.

I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time warp
and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
him without question.

Now if GW called me and asked me to serve, I'd probably be very
suspicious.... and do the same thing that he and Cheney did when asked to
serve. Suddenly have other priorities.

Merry Christmas to all, and a safe 2006!

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
newsgerf.645179$x96.133963@attbi_s72...

"Russ Stanton" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.

I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
deserves any praise for him. Big negatives a giving away the Panama
Canal so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation
where his leadership was a disaster.
Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign
policy I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are
GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany.
What about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to
volunteer to fight them??

Germany declared war on us. Since you can't even get that simple fact
straight, I don't think I'll bother demolishing the rest of your yellow
striped chicken hawk squawking. Someone like you who is so eager and
willing to betray everything good about this country mealy to satisfy
their own personal cowardice is not worthy of the effort.


In article pgerf.645179$x96.133963@attbi_s72, says...

"Russ Stanton" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

Check Fine Woodworking Issue 174 for an interview type article and issue
167 Reader's Gallery for an eample of his work.

I can't think of a single thing the peanut man did, other than hosting a
meeting with Sadat and Beagan that Carter did while he was President that
deserves any praise for him. Big negatives a giving away the Panama Canal
so that China could buy it all up, and the Iran hostage situation where his
leadership was a disaster.
Those who criticize Bush and think they know everything about foreign policy
I would like for them to answer truthfully the question below:
I wonder how many of YOU KNOW IT ALLS would have supported Roosevelt and
Truman during the Second World War. Would you have stood in line to enlist
in the Army even though we lost over a 150,000 plus GI lives? I doubt if
any of you Bush bashers would have had the BALLS to do so. You are GUTLESS!
Remember Hitler didn't attack us and we still went to war with Germany. What
about the war with the Japanese would you have stood in line to volunteer to
fight them??

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve" wrote:

.... snip

I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time warp
and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
him without question.


That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
1) FDR ordered the internment of 10's of thousands of *American Citizens*
of Japanese descent. Without trial. Without due process. Without
reparations. Without protest from the media.
2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
see if they had any interesting information.
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
*military* court. In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
(that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen. The
case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II, eight
German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
"admitted enemy invaders."
4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy. Now,
this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
same thing.
6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
"prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
new businesses.
7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his health
and physical condition.

Had Bush done any or all of the above, this would have caused the press
and the left to raise howls of indignation and cries for impeachment. Yet,
to the left, FDR is a hero and a great man. Truly amazing.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
see if they had any interesting information.

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!

Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
"Joseph Connors" wrote in message
...
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!

"CW" wrote in message
nk.net...
Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
"Joseph Connors" wrote in message
...
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.

Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?

Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.

That pretty good reason, I'd suppose, is that there is no documentation. It
is just one of those rumers that surface after a president is long gone and
can't defend himself.

"Charles Self" wrote in message
...
"CW" wrote in message
nk.net...
Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
"Joseph Connors" wrote in message
...
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the
source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.

Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?

Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.

There are just a few little differences between WWII and the Depression, and
the current mideast war. Just for starters, we were attacked in 1941 by
enemies with armies and fleets. The country actually mobilized and
committed effort and resources to the war effort and won in just a few
years. The terrism war which started for us on 9/11 has already gone on
longer than our participation in WWII. And in fact, it had already been
going on for years. As for the Depression, I guess you would have preferred
to have Herbert Hoover continue as president? He was clueless and inept.
FDR was elected in the depth of Hoover's mess and in fact did get it cleared
up. Go to the FDR Memorial in DC.

Steve

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve"
wrote:

... snip

I've never served in the military, but if FDR phoned me through a time
warp
and told me to hurry back to 1942 for a mission I'd do it in a second. He
was one of the greatest men who has ever lived, and I'd serve and die for
him without question.


That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :
1) FDR ordered the internment of 10's of thousands of *American Citizens*
of Japanese descent. Without trial. Without due process. Without
reparations. Without protest from the media.
2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
*military* court. In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
(that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen.
The
case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II,
eight
German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
"admitted enemy invaders."
4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy.
Now,
this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
same thing.
6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
"prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
new businesses.
7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his
health
and physical condition.

Had Bush done any or all of the above, this would have caused the press
and the left to raise howls of indignation and cries for impeachment.
Yet,
to the left, FDR is a hero and a great man. Truly amazing.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:19:54 -0800, Joseph Connors
wrote:

Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!


My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.

Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.

However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.

There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just to
see if they had any interesting information.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:39:56 GMT, "CW" wrote:

Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.

My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.

Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.

However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.

There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.

"Joseph Connors" wrote in message
...
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*. Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:35:30 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Probably a pretty good reason that you have never heard it before.
"Joseph Connors" wrote in message
...
Thats very interesting. I never heard of this before. What is the source
on this? Thanks!



Mark & Juanita wrote:

2) Under FDR's watch, German submariners were tortured *to death*.
Just
to
see if they had any interesting information.

Huh? And what is that reason, after more than 60 years have elapsed?

Like Mr. Connors, I'd like to see a cite.

My source for this was an AP or Reuters story I read earlier in 2005,
sometime late spring or early summer (or thereabouts). There were two
stories that were published at roughly the same time. One was discussing
the addition of a German U-boat to (I believe) the Smithsonian archives and
one of the crewmen from that boat visiting the archive; the second story
discussed the incident I cited and indicated that a memorial plaque had
been erected for those fallen German crewmen. One of the relatives of one
of the U-boat victims expressed appreciation that this brought closure to
not knowing what had become of her relative. The story further indicated
that most interest was placed on German communication operators from the
U-boats because it was thought that they might have knowledge that could be
used.

Now, contrary to what those who disagree with my views may think, I was
not jumping up and down with glee when I read that story saying, "See! FDR
was worse than what the left is accusing the present administration of
doing!" Rather, I was extremely disappointed and saddened. I didn't want
my country to *ever* have engaged in activities that would be the
equivalent of what the Stalinists and Nazis were doing at the time, nor
what the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese and others would do in the
future. This was extremely disheartening. The story alluded to a very
methodical, pre-meditated plan regarding this incident -- this was not a
story any American should have viewed with anything other than revulsion.

However, I have spent a significant amount of time today trying to find
that story or a retraction. I can find neither; therefore, I must assume
that the original story I read was later retracted and no such incident
occured. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative, but I am going to assume
that this was an erroneous story about a non-existant incident. I will
gladly say that I was wrong about this incident -- as I indicated above,
the story brought no joy to my heart.

There is sufficient other information regarding FDR (of the other
elements on my list that you did not include in your quote, only one is
subject to speculation, that being FDR's probable negative effect on the
length and depth of the depression -- the other items have all been widely
and thorougly documented) to make my point. I find it a tremendous relief
that I *can't* find the substantiating story to go with the German U-Boat
crewmen item and will happily retract that from my list comments.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil. Not imprisoned, not questioned, not held without
communication or access to lawyers, but shot after appearing before a
*military* court.

Actually, no. They were executed (possibly by firing squad, I don't
know)
after FDR died. So it wasn;t completely on his watch, though I don't
suppose the outcome would have been any different if he had
lived longer.

They wre not shot *when captured* but rather, as you later made clear,
after trial and after exhausting their appeals and they were
represented
by counsel at trial (I think) and on appeal (certainly).

In that case, FDR's government, and the Supreme court
(that he had previously packed) argued that the military had such power.
Note that one of those German infiltrators claimed to be a US citizen. The
case was Ex Parte Quirin, the German saboteurs case. In World War II, eight
German naval officers, one of whom claimed to be a U.S. citizen, landed
secretly in the United States and were arrested. After trial by a military
tribunal, seven were executed. The Supreme Court held that because they
were members of the enemy armed forces, the military had jurisdiction (as
it did over members of our own armed forces) to try them. The Court said
that military jurisdiction was permissible because the defendants were
"admitted enemy invaders."

If you will read the Constitution you will find that the Congress (not
the
Commander-in-Chief) is granted authority to create courts martials or
tribunals for the purpose of trials such as those referred to above.
HIstorically the Congress did so in the Articles of War, which
delegated
much of the details of those commissions to the Commander-in-Chief.

In ex parte Quirin the USSC held that the Commissions established by
FDR, and the sentences were consistant with the intent of the Congress
as expressed in the Articles of War. The Federal courts also heard
at least one appeal from, (upholding the conviction) thewar crimes
trial
of Japanese General. It is clear that the courts have had jurisdiction
to hear appeals from military trils even of foreign nationals even
overseas.

The Articles of War were repealed in 1949 and replaced with the
UCMJ. The Commander-in-Chief no longer has the same degree of
latitude as previously. Military Commissions are now required to
conform much more closely to the standards of the Federal
Court system.

FDR did not 'pack' the USSC. When the USSC struck down some New Deal
legislation one of the proposals was to expand the membership of the
court
so that FDR _could_ 'pack' the Court by appointing new justices
without
having to wait for the sitting Justices to retire. However, that did
not
happen.

I certainly agree that FDR's treatment of the nisei was aggregious.

--

FF

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:54:21 -0800, "David Stuve"
wrote:

That's quite an interesting statement. You believe Bush is evil
incarnate but FDR was a great man. Just to remind you :

I don't think Bush is evil. In my eyes Cheney is definitely evil - be it
torturing prisoners, spying on Americans, falsified intelligence, outed CIA
agents, war profiteering by contractors - those trails all lead back to
Cheney. I'd call DeLay evil too - he's hell bent on selling the US to the
highest corporate bidders and viciously destroying the careers of those who
question him, yet he sings louder than anyone else does in his church on
Sundays. Like I said earlier, Bush is the face man for the administration.
I do think he's doing a lousy job though - nobody ever seems be held
accountable for screwing up under his watch.

Interesting coments about FDR. I'm no apologist for him, but read his
writings or listen to his speeches - I find him really spine-tinglingly
inspiring. If he's responsible for terrible things under his watch, then I
hope he's held accountable for them. The difference between him and GW for
me is that we are doing terrible things *now*, and can do something about it
rather than pretend it isn't happening.

Just a comment or two:
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil.
Wasn't shooting spies/saboteurs common practice in WW2 on all sides?

4) FDR oversaw wage and price controls
This is a good thing during times of war. War profiteering is treasonous
behavior, and this is the best way to avoid it. I'm still amazed that none
of the contractors over in Iraq have been tried for war pofiteering. How
many billions are "missing"?

5) FDR oversaw rationing and restrictions on what Americans could buy.
Now,
this was in a time of war, but just imagine if Bush were to have tried the
same thing.
If we're ever in another all-out war like WW2 I'd expect Bush to do the same
thing. Our war in Afghanistan was a couple of weeks, and so was the one in
Iraq. Ever since then it's been a police action, not a war by any classical
sense. The so-called "War on Terror" is really more like a war on organized
crime - gathering lots of intelligence, and making arrests.

6) A number of historians are beginning to postulate that the policies
implemented by FDR during the depression actually served to deepen and
prolong the depression rather than alleviate it. One example, the 90%
income tax on those who were succeeding stifled any recovery as those who
"prospered" were penalized to the point of not finding being able to grow
new businesses.
Interesting. That 90% figure is often bandied about, but you have to have a
sense of perspective. That amount only applied to the super rich. I don't
think it would matter a whit to the US economy if Bill Gates had to pay 90%
income tax. The idea that a progressive income tax is a bad thing depends
on trickle-down economics, something that has never been observed to work in
the real world. Take our recent tax cuts. The idea was that by cutting
taxes we'd all have extra spending money, and the US economy would boom as
that money sloshed around. Remember the projections of 250k new jobs a
month? It never happened - wealthy people just pocketed the money, or
invested it in China. The only thing that saved our economy was lowering
interest rates to 0% and creating a housing boom. I remember reading last
year that refinancing and construction accounted for 50% of all job growth
in the last 5 years.

7) FDR deliberately mislead the news media (and members of the news media
deliberately and willingly did not report) information regarding his
health
and physical condition.

It's well-known that the press had gave presidents "gentleman's discretion"
It's said that all but a couple (two?) of the presidents up to JFK had
mistresses, the press knew, yet said nothing. It's too bad they did that
because Americans have this bizarre moral expectation of our leaders that
they never have and never will live up to. When will grow up and realize
that we will never geat moral leadership from our politicians or
entertainers? FDR was never photographed in crutches as a sign of respect
and discretion that was a bit more positive for the nation's psyche.

Dave

"Cheney is definitely evil - be it torturing prisoners, spying on
Americans, falsified intelligence, outed CIA agents, war profiteering by
contractors - those trails all lead back to
Cheney."

More BS from a blathering idiot.

Walt Conner

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners, no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
featured in *all* of those subjects.

I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."

Dave


"WConner" wrote in message
news:Ldcsf.4152$eU6.3723@trnddc05...
"Cheney is definitely evil - be it torturing prisoners, spying on
Americans, falsified intelligence, outed CIA agents, war profiteering by
contractors - those trails all lead back to
Cheney."

More BS from a blathering idiot.

Walt Conner

David Stuve wrote:

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.

no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.


interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,

There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.

the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about

Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts. You will
discover that the last two major cities to be destroyed by disaster
(Chicago in 1871 and San Francisco in the early 1900s) were rebuilt with
*private* money. It is not now, nor has it even been the charter of
the Federal government to rebuild cities. Only in the Looney Left does
this qualify as an indictement against the current administration.


ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently

Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
much about you.


featured in *all* of those subjects.

I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."

Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming Cheney
misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The American
People, who for years have begged for something-for-nothing, who want
some illusion of security no matter how much freedom is compromised, and
who think they can pluck the Golden Goose (the wealthy) with impunity.
So long as we are a nation of moochers and whiners, it will make little
difference whether the regnant politics are Right or Left...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk writes:
David Stuve wrote:

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies

Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?
Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.

if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents

Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?

How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?

enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.

Assuming, of course, that they are really a "brave soldier of allah"
and not just someone who looks like one.

We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security
nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.


no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the

You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.

However, it is the right that is ****ing the country up right now.

no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.

Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
the Clinton administration?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:33:52 -0800, "David Stuve" wrote:

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners, no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,
interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,
the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about
ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently
featured in *all* of those subjects.


You can stop reading from the Democrat talking points now.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:

David Stuve wrote:


Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies


Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?

They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
as a matter of international law.

Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.

Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not
entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.
Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.



if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents


Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?

International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
trots out regularly as being superior to US law.


How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?


A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.
The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.
This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,
you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).


enjoy. In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants. When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willing to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.


Assuming, of course, that they are really a "brave soldier of allah"
and not just someone who looks like one.

A fair point and one that ought to seriously occupy our thinking in
the matter.


We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security

No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
foreign invaders.

nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.

I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
by our laws, period.


no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the


You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.

No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.
You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left
is utterly without a clue on the matter.



However, it is the right that is ****ing the country up right now.


Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.
They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few
good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
the problem would be more-or-less moot now.


no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.


Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
the Clinton administration?

Because these kinds of contracts tend to be let long before any
particular conflict. Halliburton is one of only a very few companies
in the business of supporting military establishments. They've had
a contract in place for years to do so - years before this President.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:

David Stuve wrote:


Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies


Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?

They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
as a matter of international law.

How about as a matter of some abstract morality? So torture of
any non-american is ok?


Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.

Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not

My name is not Sparky. And I think you've misread the declaration
of independence if you believe that the the In/Unalienable Rights
are reserved to those who ascribe to the rest of the document.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.

Of course, during the time period of the documents, it's signers
were also considered to be terrorists and criminals by the British.

Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.

Gee. Didn't GWB "make war on children and other innocents" in Iraq?
Certainly wasn't just soldiers that died.

Your facile analogy re cancer is clearly meaningless, as terrorism
isn't cancer and has absolutely nothing in common with cancer from
cause to cure.




if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents


Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?

International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
trots out regularly as being superior to US law.

So what part of International Law allowed for the invasion of
a soveriegn country?



How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?


A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.

A spy? Really? Actually, I think the term is "unlawfull combatant".
A spy is something completely different from a legal perspective.

The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.

Or a freedom fighter, depending on point of view. (the french
resistance blowing up railroad trains in France during WWII comes to mind).

This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,

Who made the observation, did they really see what they thought
they saw, and can you trust them?

you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).

c'est what? (bad pun).



We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security

No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
foreign invaders.

If an illegal alien commits a crime in the United States, they
go to court, are convicted, serve their time, then are deported.
What matters the scale of the crime?

Ok. 3000 people lost their lives 9/11. 35,000 people will lose
their lives due to the Flu this winter. 50,000 will die
on the roadways just this year. Don't you think that the
9/11 incident has been blown all out of proportion?

9/11 cannot happen again the same way. And it is not because
of the creation of the Homeland Security department, or the
TSA (both of which will most likely be seen to be mistakes in
the future), but rather fortifying cockpit doors.

If the money that has been spent to avenge those 3000 had instead
been spent on law enforcement, medical research and smarter
roadways, we'd save many more American lives than the TSA
will ever save.


nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.

I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
by our laws, period.

How is an illegal from central america any different from an illegal
from the middle east when they commit murder in the United States, for
whatever purported reason?

Nobody is invading the United States. OBL has never stated his
intent to invade the US. Kill people yes, but many criminals
have stated a desire to kill people. Many more have followed
through. Those that have been caught, have been punished.

You've created a strawman.



no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the


You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.

No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.

This is your "Republican Mantra" talking. Moderates have been
responsible for the bulk of the progress in the United States
for the last 200 years.

You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left

"socialist idiot"? Reverting to Namecalling is a typical when
you can't argue facct.

is utterly without a clue on the matter.

And neither does the Right, sadly, as evinced by your pen.




However, it is the right that is ****ing the country up right now.


Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.

This is the interpretation of the Right. It can hardly be unbiased, nicht wahr?
The Left believes the current mess was created by the Right.

They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few

Please. The first president in American history to invade and
occupy a sovereign foreign country that wasn't at war with
the United States didn't create this mess?

good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
the problem would be more-or-less moot now.

The problem is moot anyway. It's simply been overblown by the
Republicans using it for political gain.

Where is OBL and when will he be brought to justice for the
crime of conspiracy to commit murder?

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
. com...
Tim Daneliuk writes:

no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.

Funny, how could rebuilding contracts in Iraq be let during
the Clinton administration?

Oh, come ON, Scott. You know it's ALL Clinton's fault.

Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?

Missed the part about "Wearing their country's Uniform", huh?

Walt Conner

"do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing"

These folks consider it torture if you don't say please and thank you.
Playing loud rap, now that is torture.
Why don't you harp on people cutting off heads on live TV or something that
is really noteworthy? I get damned tired of you folks always talking about
how bad the USA is, I guess you know the way to your utopia?

" yellowcake documents"

While these particular documents might not have been good, British
Intelligence still stands by the attempt to buy the material, conveniently
didn't mention that, huh? Check the speech, the statement referred to
British Intelligence .

" the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, "

New Orleans Reconstruction? Hell, that hasn't even got started yet, If you
are talking about the rescue, that is what Governors, Mayors, Nation Guard
under Governors is for, US is backup. They let hundreds of school busses
sit and get submerged all the while crying, "Send us Busses".

" the recent scandal about ordering the NSA to spy on Americans"

Well aren't we really informed, that hasn't even been investigated yet and
at least a couple of former Democratic high officials said that has been
going on since Jimmy Carter, missed that also huh? An investigation will
determine if anything wrong was done. It really is a scandal, trying to save
the necks of the likes who say such things.

" the outing of Valerie Plame"

Incredible, the Courts haven't even ruled on this yet and it appears the
consensus is that she was already "Out", the charges haven't even mentioned
that to this point. All the hullabaloo from the Lefties about that minor
thing and the leaking of the most highly classified document in the US
Government is OK, no investigation, no condemnation, nothing, because it
suits the Lefties.

More BS, you will have a good supply for spring gardening.

Walt Conner

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
David Stuve wrote:

your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.

Actually, no. I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture.
Cheney was actively lobbying to exempt the CIA from restrictions using the
bizarre argument that we are A) strongly against torture, but B) want to be
able to threaten to do it. That should make your BS detector go berzerk -
what if your local sherrif or department store detective wanted a similar
exemption, promising that he would of course never do it..... "We'd never
torture a shoplifting suspect, but we need the threat of it to act as a
deterrent."

no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.

If the no-bid contracts were let out under Clinton as you say, why was
Cheney personally involved in handing them out after the Iraq invasion?

interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie
Plame,

There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about
nothing.

Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his every
move. I find this very paranoia unsettling behavoir, especially when
combined with his fondness of torture...


the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about

Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts.

The handling of New Orleans was disturbingly similar to how Cheney handled
Iraq. Cheney came in to run things, and lots of out-of-state contractors
got all of the work, local companies got nothing, and lots of money changed
hands and people are still in desparate straits down there.


ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently

Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when

Really? They haven't released any information about who they spied on.
I've seen an AP story in the last couple of days hinting that the spying was
much more widespread than Bush has admitted to. What's even more bizarre is
that they can retroactively get warrants within 72 hours of doing
wiretapping, but they just didn't bother. That indifference to the law
can't be ignored by us if we wish to remain free people.

featured in *all* of those subjects.

I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."

Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming
Cheney
misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The
American
People

Interesting comment - I agree that the American people have much to wake up
to, but that doesn't absolve Cheney of anything. He's simply guilty of
being weak and giveng into the pressure of finding the quick and easy (and
usually illegal) fix. I'm looking forward to him being replaced by someone
who's actually willing to do the 'hard work' to try and do the right thing.

Dave

" I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture. Cheney was
actively lobbying to exempt the CIA "

The big problem here is what is defined as torture which includes "anything
that makes one uncomfortable". Putting them in confinement would probably
make them uncomfortable.

"Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his
every
move. "

Wow! You actually followed them around and know all this for a fact! Then
you knew all about this Valerie Plame business then? And didn't leak her
name? MORE BS.

Walt Conner

Subject

Good grief, consider the source and move on.

As I learned as a very young man, if you are going to mess with chicken
****, you are bound to get some on you.

Lew

Well, it's been fun bandying words with you all, and hope we could all still
have a friendly chat over a cold one if we ever met. I confess I still
don't understand the new conservatism. Maybe the conservatives that raised
me were just different. They valued personal responsibility, always take
the high road - the end never justified the means, stayed out of debt, and
above all, didn't trust the government regardless of who is in the office -
keep them on a short leash and throw them out the second they looked like
they were abusing their office.

Happy and safe 2006,

Dave

Scott Lurndal wrote:



Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies


Torture is torture. Full Stop. Are the Geneva accords the only
document that describes how one human should treat another?

They are more-or-less the only ones we're obligated to follow
as a matter of international law.


How about as a matter of some abstract morality? So torture of
any non-american is ok?

Of course not. But people who visit violence *by intention* upon
innocent non-combatants, and do so while hiding in civilian clothing
are simply not entitled to any consideration. They are a cancer
upon civilization. War itself is bad enough and ought always to
be avoided whenever possible, but intentional war upon innocents
is horrific beyond comprehension. It's perpetrators have *no* rights.



Even our most revered documents say that all _men_ are created
equal, not all _americans_ are created equal.

Sorry Sparky, if you do not adhere to our social compacts you're not


My name is not Sparky. And I think you've misread the declaration
of independence if you believe that the the In/Unalienable Rights
are reserved to those who ascribe to the rest of the document.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"


You need to read more than the first paragraph of the DOI. Try the
larger body of Enlightenment political philosophy, the Constitution and
the surrounding debate like the Federalist papers. The quote you cite
above does indeed speak to all mankind. But the subsequent social
contract explicated eventually in the Constitution only grants
protections to *participants in the contract*. If I enter into an
agreement to mow your lawn for a stipulated price, are all your
neighbors (nonparticipants in that contract) entitled to free lawn care?
If individuals want the benefit of US (or any other) law, they must
agree to participate in that system. Foreign invaders do not do
so, thus they are not entitled to any such protections. i.e., They're
not paying for "lawn service".



entitled to their benefit. If the Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) (aka
Cowards Killing Children Intentionally) would like to make themselves
subservient to the social contract enumerated in our founding documents
then, by all means they should be protected by these same precepts.


Of course, during the time period of the documents, it's signers
were also considered to be terrorists and criminals by the British.

They were considered criminals - traitors actually - not "terrorist".
The term "terrorist" has a specific meaning - one who consciously
and purposely targets non-combatants to keep them in a state of
fear ("terror") is the approximate definition.



Until then, anyone who purposefully makes war on children and other
innocents should be removed from the face of the planet with extreme
prejudice. If you don't excise cancer early, you die from it.


Gee. Didn't GWB "make war on children and other innocents" in Iraq?
Certainly wasn't just soldiers that died.

You need to read whole sentences. Note the modifier "purposefully" in my
original comment. Yet, civilians die in wartime. But the issue is
whether they were intentionally targeted (by, say, Al Queda, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad ... you know, The Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm)) or whether
such death was incidental and unintentional (the whole rest of the
civilized world).

Your commentary is repugnant and assinine in light of the fact that a
whole lot of American kids are dead today because we are so desparately
trying to *avoid* civilian death. If the US, UK, et al weren't morally
leagues above the swine they are fighting, we'd just level the area and
make the problem moot. So before you vomit more half-baked ideas,
consider that a lot of brave kids died exactly in the pursuit of making
war as surgical as possible and thereby minimizing civilian casualties.


Your facile analogy re cancer is clearly meaningless, as terrorism
isn't cancer and has absolutely nothing in common with cancer from
cause to cure.

It is a metaphor (you can look up what that means when you have time).
Terror, like cancer, is self-replicating, and if not eliminated in its
early and developmental stages will lead to the death of the host
system.




if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.
And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do. Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents


Who defines whether or not someone is a Spy, or a "unlawful combatant"?

International Law - you know, that body of blather the Left
trots out regularly as being superior to US law.


So what part of International Law allowed for the invasion of
a soveriegn country?

Have a seat and I'll help you with elementary recent history.
International Law as explicated by *many repeated* resolutions
in the United Nations long before W came into power is what
gave this whole business legitimacy. He merely finally acted upon
what all the UN gasbags had been talking about for years.
Even *then* he gave Sadaam alternatives until the 11th hour.


How can you trust the person making that designation if the
designation appears to be by fiat?


A person engaging in combat, not wearing a uniform is a spy.


A spy? Really? Actually, I think the term is "unlawfull combatant".
A spy is something completely different from a legal perspective.

But it's not different from the perspective of this conversation:
What, if any, rights does such a non-uniformed person have in a
combat setting.


The same person targeting non-combatants intentionally is a terrorist.


Or a freedom fighter, depending on point of view. (the french
resistance blowing up railroad trains in France during WWII comes to mind).

And just what was on those railroad trains? Civilians or German
war materiale'?



This is not definition by fiat but by observation. Unless, of course,


Who made the observation, did they really see what they thought
they saw, and can you trust them?


you buy the deconstructionist literary nonsese of the past 50 years in
which case words mean nothing (and you can't argue with me any more).


c'est what? (bad pun).



We have a court system. Use it. And forget the national security

No, our court system if for *our* citizens and residents, not for
foreign invaders.


If an illegal alien commits a crime in the United States, they
go to court, are convicted, serve their time, then are deported.
What matters the scale of the crime?

Because there is a difference between an illegal (civil or criminal)
act by an individual and an armed attack upon a nation.

Ok. 3000 people lost their lives 9/11. 35,000 people will lose
their lives due to the Flu this winter. 50,000 will die
on the roadways just this year. Don't you think that the
9/11 incident has been blown all out of proportion?

So in your book we have to hit some much larger number before
we get serious about this threat? Get real. We got lucky on
9/11 - the number could easily have been 10x what it was. We could
have seen the seat of Federal government and/or our core military
leadership wiped out. These people are playing for keeps. Why is
it so hard for the American Left to pull its' head out of its' respective
butt and realize we have to be even more serious in our respone (and
we have been, thanks to W).


9/11 cannot happen again the same way. And it is not because
of the creation of the Homeland Security department, or the
TSA (both of which will most likely be seen to be mistakes in
the future), but rather fortifying cockpit doors.

If the money that has been spent to avenge those 3000 had instead
been spent on law enforcement, medical research and smarter
roadways, we'd save many more American lives than the TSA
will ever save.

You need to grow up and read a small amount of history. Small
threats become big threats. Screaming for more medical research
when very well funded and highly determined murders have made it
clear they are coming for us is rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic.



nonsense about someone's day in court. It is a convenient
excuse, but how can you trust the government to make that designation
without showing any evidence? All one needs to do to see
this type of questionable accusation at work is to look at the Padilla case.

I don't particularly trust the government. But they have an obligation
to thwart foreign invasion *by all necessary means*. One more time,
invaders are not citizens or even legal residents - they are not protected
by our laws, period.


How is an illegal from central america any different from an illegal
from the middle east when they commit murder in the United States, for
whatever purported reason?

Nobody is invading the United States. OBL has never stated his
intent to invade the US. Kill people yes, but many criminals
have stated a desire to kill people. Many more have followed
through. Those that have been caught, have been punished.

You've created a strawman.

And you are seriously kidding yourself. The Islamic threat has
been brewing for decades (for lots of reasons) and it is coming
to fruition now. The US has *already been invaded* you just keep
ignoring the smouldering piles of debris and the bags of body parts.
Just how bad would it have to be for you to actually take this threat
seriously? 100,000? 1 Million?


no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the


You're a fine one to be calling names of anyone. The Right is an
Ass, the Left is an Ass, it's the moderates in the middle
that will save this country from both the left and the right.

No - the moderates will twiddle their thumbs and continue the long
tradition of mooching that the Left and Right instatiated long ago.


This is your "Republican Mantra" talking. Moderates have been
responsible for the bulk of the progress in the United States
for the last 200 years.

First of all, I am not a Republican (not even close). Second of
all, Moderates have done nothing more than keep the government
ticking along in neutral and preserving the status quo. "Progress"
(in medicine, science, engineering, etc.) has mostly come from at
the hand of the Big Eeeeeevvvvilll Corporations and the donations
of Evvvviiiill Rich People.


You do not "moderate" when someone is attacking you. You fight back
until they are dead and no longer a threat. No less a complete
socialist idiot than FDR understood this. Sadly, today's Left


"socialist idiot"? Reverting to Namecalling is a typical when
you can't argue facct.


FDR was a fool. His collectivist policies extended the duration
and depth of the depression and forever socialized the only nation
in history that had ever seriously preserved individual liberty
above government power. He initiated the beginning of the end
for personal liberty. When you see the Patriot Act being renewed
in a few months, thank FDR - he's the one that taught the American
public that you give up *everything* for the "good of the people"
and they learned that lesson far too well.


is utterly without a clue on the matter.


And neither does the Right, sadly, as evinced by your pen.

I am not remotely a rightwinger. I mostly pick on the Left because
they are currently most dangerous force in a country at war, but I have
plenty of critique for the bloated Right as well.




However, it is the right that is ****ing the country up right now.


Today's Right *inherited* a mess caused by lots of different things.


This is the interpretation of the Right. It can hardly be unbiased, nicht wahr?
The Left believes the current mess was created by the Right.


They are being forced to respond in the face of the negligence of
Clinton, the failed endgame of Bush 41, the moronic foreign policy
of Carter, etc. Don't blame todays administration for the mess
because they didn't remotely create it. In fact, one of the few


Please. The first president in American history to invade and
occupy a sovereign foreign country that wasn't at war with
the United States didn't create this mess?

Hmmm ... didn't FDR invade Germany. Last I looked they never directly
attacked the US previous to our declaration of war. You really must
get beyond your public school (aka madrassas) understanding of history
and read something else.



good things this administration has done is to respond vigrously
and without apology to the invasion currently underway around the
world. Had Carter, Bush 41, or Clinton done this a long time ago,
the problem would be more-or-less moot now.


The problem is moot anyway. It's simply been overblown by the
Republicans using it for political gain.

Where is OBL and when will he be brought to justice for the
crime of conspiracy to commit murder?


OBL is not first a criminal. He is (or was) the commander of an invading army.
Killing him would be morally just, and perhaps even satisfying, but
killing his army is more important. When we're done with that, then
we go about killing off other threats in the region until no significant
threat is left.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

David Stuve wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

David Stuve wrote:


your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply. They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like. There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.


Actually, no. I mean the McCain amendment specifically prohibiting torture.
Cheney was actively lobbying to exempt the CIA from restrictions using the
bizarre argument that we are A) strongly against torture, but B) want to be
able to threaten to do it. That should make your BS detector go berzerk -
what if your local sherrif or department store detective wanted a similar
exemption, promising that he would of course never do it..... "We'd never
torture a shoplifting suspect, but we need the threat of it to act as a
deterrent."


If we could agree on the exact behavior that consistutes "torture",
I'd be all for it. The problem is that the current language precludes
even making people feel bad. By that definition, making them listen
to Barbara Streisand recordings qualifies.



no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.


If the no-bid contracts were let out under Clinton as you say, why was
Cheney personally involved in handing them out after the Iraq invasion?

I have no idea and I'd like to know: a) If this is true, and b) Why
it is so, if it is so.

Oh, and as to the "forged yellowcake..." tell that to the soldiers who
just carted out tons of uranium from Iraq over the past year. That
particular document may well have been bogus, but the material was
certainly in country somehow ...



interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie
Plame,

There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about
nothing.


Cheney was obsessed with Joe Wilson, and he and "Scooter" followed his every
move. I find this very paranoia unsettling behavoir, especially when
combined with his fondness of torture...

This is supported by what? A New York Times editorial? Al Franken
drooling all over himself? National Whiner Public Radio commentary?
I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I've seen no credible proof of
such accusations.



the botched reconstruction of New Orleans, and the recent scandal about

Go find a history book with small words and simple concepts.


The handling of New Orleans was disturbingly similar to how Cheney handled
Iraq. Cheney came in to run things, and lots of out-of-state contractors
got all of the work, local companies got nothing, and lots of money changed
hands and people are still in desparate straits down there.

It is NOT the federal government's job (no Constitutional authority) to:

1) Be first responder in a natural disaster
2) Override the instructions of the local major/governor
3) Rebuild cities at the taxpayers expense.

First you bitched that the Cheney "botched" the reconstruction of NO.
Now you don't like the *way* he handed out money. Don't you get it?
The problem is his (and the Feds) being involved *at all*



ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently

Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when


Really? They haven't released any information about who they spied on.

No, but they've told us that the targets were people making international
phone calls to known/suspected terror operatives. It's a reasonable
deduction.

I've seen an AP story in the last couple of days hinting that the spying was
much more widespread than Bush has admitted to. What's even more bizarre is
that they can retroactively get warrants within 72 hours of doing
wiretapping, but they just didn't bother. That indifference to the law
can't be ignored by us if we wish to remain free people.


I agree with that completely. Too bad we didn't enforce that (thereby
setting precedent) with Johnson and Clinton (to name just two) first.


featured in *all* of those subjects.

I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."

Grow up. Cheney is neither guilty nor innocent. He is a cog in a big
machine. A big machine made bigger for 70 years by the Chimps on the Left
and now getting even bigger because of the Chimps on the Right. Blaming
Cheney
misses the point and diverts the blame from the real culprit: The
American
People


Interesting comment - I agree that the American people have much to wake up
to, but that doesn't absolve Cheney of anything. He's simply guilty of
being weak and giveng into the pressure of finding the quick and easy (and
usually illegal) fix. I'm looking forward to him being replaced by someone
who's actually willing to do the 'hard work' to try and do the right thing.

Cheney's not the problem. You can replace him in a minute and nothing
changes. So long as the Sheeple act as they do, government is:

1) Going to have way too much power
2) Be so large as to be incompetent most of the time
3) Be slow to fix real problems
4) Be bogged down in stupid minutae not in its actual charter

The way to fix this is to slim the Federal government back to its
Constitutionally mandated charter: Run the courts, defend the borders,
regulate *inter* state commerce (only), and, of course, run the Post Office.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:


You need to read more than the first paragraph of the DOI.

You need to read whole sentences.

Your commentary is repugnant and assinine in light of the fact that a
whole lot of American kids are dead today because we are so desparately
trying to *avoid* civilian death.


Have a seat and I'll help you with elementary recent history.


You need to grow up and read a small amount of history.

I've enough of your insults. FWIW, I have a minor in history.
You clearly don't listen to people who disagree with your
opinions (and they are opinions, not :truth:, any more than
my opinions are :truth.

Have a nice life.




And you are seriously kidding yourself.

David Stuve wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
...
Just a comment or two:
3) Under FDR's watch, German infiltrators were *shot* when captured on
American soil.

As noted earlier, this is not true.

Wasn't shooting spies/saboteurs common practice in WW2 on all sides?


Dunno if it was common practice but the
summary execution of spies by American
Armed Forces was prohibitted by an Act of
the Continental Congress in 1775, if not befor,
and to my knowledge has never been legalized.
To be precise, the Act specified that spies
were subject to execution *after trial*. That
stipulation makes it clear that summary
execution was not permissible.

Internationally the execution of spies without
trial has been prohibitted since at least the early
years of the 2oth Century, see the Hague
Conventions.

During war, internatonal 'law' is enforceable only
through the law of reprisals. Crudely stated, a
party may violate the laws of war that the opposing
party has already violated, but only to the same
degree. Thus when the British violated the St
Petersburg protocols by using incindiery ammunition,
but only against aircraft, the Germans chose to do the
same, but also only against aircraft.

Certainly the summary execution by Germans
of partisans (e.g. insurgents or guerillas) in the
Balkans was addressed as a war crime after
the war. Former UN Secretary General Kurt
Waldheim was in the chain of command responsible
for one such crime. His role was only to pass the
order on from one party to another, and did so only
after refusing twice and then being threatened
with court martial for the capital offense of refusing
a direct order. IMHO, an adequate defense.

--

FF

David Stuve wrote:

...

I guess you could argue that Cheney is innocent, but that would be more
than he does. Usually when asked about any of these issues they're
"classified or no comment."


When he's being polite.

--

FF

Note crossposting, followups.

For shame, Mr Daneliuk. From our previous
discussions I know you to be an educated
man, one who is capable of further self-education,
and one who has a respect for moral principles.
Further, I suspect you were raised better than
to believe what you wrote. I know I was.

Yet what you wrote below runs counter to those
observations.

First, you make numerous statments that may be
politely referred to a urabn legends. But worse, you
express a desire for barabarity and a disrespect
for the rule of law, morality, and civilization itself.

Those who advocate barbarism and disdain for the
the rule of law are our enemies without regard
to whether the advocate it against the United States
or in the name of the United States. To defeat our
enemies, the enemies of civliization, not only is
it possible, not only is it imperative, but it is
prerequisite that we ourselves first and forever
reject any weakening of the principles for which
we fight.

I presume you to educable on these matters and
will provide below, and in other articles, sufficient
information that you and other readers may ascertain
the truth for themselves and thus be disabused of
your erroneous notions and unconsionable attitudes
should you retain suffient moral fiber to do so.


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
David Stuve wrote:

Walt, I would challenge you to expand your political horizons. Go down to
your local library, and do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing
prisoners,

You mean aggressively going after *non-uniformed combatants* for
whom the Geneva accords do not apply.

Regardless of what he means, you are
mistaken.

See the sections of the Fourth Protocol of
1949 regarding "civilians accused of a beligerant
act" (e.g. insurgents, guerillas, partisans or
whatever). The 1978 GC addresses those
issues further. That the United States has
refused to recognize those parts of the
GCs does not mean they do not exist.

They can be shot on sight as spies
if we like.

Indeed, you may shoot me in the back if you like.
However, you would be comitting a crime and so
would anyone who summarily executes any
prisoner regardless of the accusation against that
prisoner.

The UCMJ prohibits murder, and a good faith belief
that the victim is a spy is not among the enumerated
defenses. Indeed, this is hardly a new concept:

Section 2 of the Act of Congress of April 10, 1806,
2 Stat. 371, derived from the Resolution of the
Continental Congress of August 21, 1776, imposed
the death penalty on alien spies "according to the
law and usage of nations, by sentence of a general
court martial."

"by sentence of a general court martial." pretty clearly excludes
impromtu execution.

In earlier articles I was mistaken as to the date. I apologise.

There is both legal grounds and precedent for doing so.

There is both legal grounds and precedent for muder
convictions of persons who do so. Consider the post-WWII
trials of persons accused of summarily executing partisans.

Summary execution of spies has been a war crime under the
most common international treaties since at least the early
20th century. See the Hague Conventions circa 1903.

And the "torture" in this case involves making them uncomfortable and
physically intimidating them, not, say, beheading them with a dull
knife like their compatriots do.

It also involves water torture.

I recall watching a news conference around December 2001
in which reporters asked Rumsfeld about accusations that
Afghanistani civilians had been mistreated by American Forces.
He scoffed at the notion.

I expect the Secretary of Defense or anyone in the chain
of command, when asked about such matters, to express
confidence in the character of the rank and file of the US
military. I also expect that same person to state plainly
that all such accusations are taken seriously and investigated.

That sort of statement sends the message that we do the right
thing and don't let anyone get away with doing any less.

Clearly that is not the message Rumsfeld sent.

Habbiulah and Dilawar had their
hands chained to the ceiling, hanging them by their dislocated
shoulders with their feet shackled to the foor. Their legs
were pulverized. They were denied food and water. They
died after four days.

Four others arrested in association with them were sent to
Guantanamo Bay and eventually released. No evidence that
any of the six were involved or conspired to commit any hostile
acts has ever surfaced.

In December 2002 the deaths of Habullah and DIlawar were ruled
homide by the Bagram prison coroner. Investigators had to fight
the Pentagon for three more years to bring anyone to trial.

I would suggest the death penalty for any member of the Taliban,
Al Quaida, Feyadeen Saddam, or insurgent who tortured anyone
to death. One US serviceman has plead guilty to assault against
Dilawar, and returned to duty. It is not clear if his light sentence
is contingent upon an agreement to refrain from making statements
against his fellow actors in the crimes.

That is some of what has come to light.

Foreign spies are not entitled
to the same civil liberties that US citizens and legal residents
enjoy.

That is true.

But more importantly we, as a civilized
people impose restrictions on ourselves.
If we do not, we have no claim on any moral
authority to try others or even govern ourselves.

In fact, they're not even entitled to the consideration
legally required for foreign military combatants.

Quite correct. And still beside the point as shown above.

When the
Brave Soldiers Of Allah (tm) are willig to wear uniforms and fight
other soldiers, not kill innocent civilians, then they'll get treated
accordingly when captured. Until then, they are entitled to no
consideration whatsoever.

Again, beside the point. The issue is not the consideration
to which they are entitled. The issue is our standard for our
behaviour. There are lines that, if crossed, constitute criminal
behaviour regardless of the choice of victim. If we do not
respect our own laws, we have no business expecting anyone
else to do so either. If we do not behave in a moral manner,
we abandon moral authority.

Murder, rape, sodomy, torture, assault, battery, witholding
necessary medical care, nutrition, hydration or shelter,
subjecting people to outrages against dignity, or to cruel
inhuman or degrading treatment is illegal, morally wrong,
and a violation of our treaty obligations without regard to
motive or the choice of victim. Those who deny this, are
our enemies.


no-bid contracts in Iraq, the forged yellowcake documents,

To misquote a famous person from history, "The Left is an Ass". the
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton*
administration primarily because there are so few companies who
can/will do this work at the relatively low net margins to be had.

False. The no-bid Halliburton contracts in the instant case,
(e.g. Iraq) were let out under the Bush Administration. *Previously*
no-bid Halliburton contracts were let out under the *Clinton* in
the Balkans.

...
interference with CIA intelligence gathering, the outing of Valerie Plame,

There will be due process to find out who did what as regards to the
whole Plame matter. Stay tuned - it will have been much ado about nothing.

My prediction is that the matter will be dragged
out in the courts until January 2009 at which time
President GW Bush will pardon enough people
to squelch the matter, unless Fitzgerald has the
guts and determiniation to subpaoena the pardoned
persons as witnesses, arguing that the Fifth
Amendment protection does not apply to a person
shielded from incrimination by a Pardon. He just
might, but he might get cut off by the next administration
anyhow.


...

ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. Cheneys name will be prominently

Again, we need to help you with the concept here. The NSA was not given
an unlimited hunting license. They were only given room to do this when
the American in question was in contact with a *probable threat*. FWIW,
I don't like this either - there should always be judicial oversight
when wiretapping in any form occurs - but the way you people drool on
about it, you'd think the NSA was watching you get aroused watching Al
Franken on TV at night. Your secret is safe. The NSA doesn't care that
much about you.

Maybe. OTOH, maybe the Administration
continued to bypass the FISA court after it
could no longer be justified by an immediate
danger of a magnitude that exceeded the
capacity of the FISA courts. Maybe the
administration actively concealed the fact
that the FISA court had been bypassed from
the FISA court itself. Maybe the administration,
went beyond national security and also spied
on anti-war activists, reporters, or political
adversaries.



--

FF

Note crossposting and followups.

WConner wrote:
"do a Lexis Nexis search on Americans torturing"

These folks consider it torture if you don't say please and thank you.
Playing loud rap, now that is torture.

How about holding someone's head underwater until they pass out?
How about hanging them by their dislocated shoulders and breaking
their legs?

How about if we enforce our own laws?

...

" yellowcake documents"

While these particular documents might not have been good, British
Intelligence still stands by the attempt to buy the material, conveniently
didn't mention that, huh? Check the speech, the statement referred to
British Intelligence .

Non sequitor. The transgression was not the highly publicized
though hardly significant statement in the SOTU message. It
was submitting the forged documents to the IAEA as if they
were genuine. That was a clear, deliberate obstruction of the
inspection program.

As you your use of 'may', I assume that was a manner of speech
and you do not consider the authenticity of the documents to be
in dispute.

--

FF