"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article XOfyb.255500$mZ5.1890893@attbi_s54,
says...
... snip


You can always liven up an economy with defecit
pending. Democrats have played that game also,
Question is how much "livening" you get for how much
defecit spending. How much debt can the USA pile
on? Someone's got to pay, eventually. With shrub's
rules, it's the poor and the middle that pay, and the
rich that make off with the proceeds.


Unfortunately for you, the numbers belie your rant. Who pays the
taxes in the US? According to IRS 2001 statistics, the top 50% of
wage
earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay almost 65%
(64.89% to be precise). The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes.
Top
50% earn 86.2% of all income, top 10% earn 43.11% of all earnings, top
5% earns 31.99% of all income. Again, the source here is the IRS
statistics for 2001.

Now, given that the top 50% are paying 96% of all taxes, and the top
5% are paying 53.25%, who has any chance of benefiting from tax breaks
but the people who are paying the taxes.

You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...


Real numbers, real data from the IRS -- no spin, nothing but the facts
in the above.

Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc)
are
the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As
the
income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.


Totally separate animal. Also, payroll taxes for everyone are 7.8%
who make above the social security minimum, 15% if you are self-
employed.


So, that makes it less of a tax?


Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same.
Taxes
on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to
benefit the rich.


Wow, people can spin anything to benefit their point of view I
suppose. Especially when you couple it with the comments below


Well, the truth is really easy to 'spin'

Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton

More precisely pre-1994 Republican congressional control days.
Clinton was doing nothing to reduce deficit spending and in fact had
projected deficits for 10 years into the future before the 1994
elections.

ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund,

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you
think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments? The
reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US
treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.


Its bonds. And yes, its real. Or at least, it was until the Bush
administration started looting it for the benefit of their rich buddies.

I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1%
payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s.

So, you would not advocate reducing SS taxes then?


No, I would advocate putting income tax back up to reasonable levels,
reinstating the estate tax, and raising the rates on capital gains. I'd also
go for single payer health care, and an impeachment, but thats another
argument...

You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in
2010.

Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt
social
security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years)
in 10
years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper
when
that happens?


Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity from the federal
budget funded by income taxes. The tax cut should have no effect upon
social security unless you are going to admit that the general fund is
being used to fund Social Security.


No, its because the deficit is growing that the republicans, and bush in
particular, are now raiding those savings. They gave away our future to a
pack of filthy rich capitalists who will now invest the money offshore.


That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about
in
10 years, when you retire?


Given that the tax cut is funding investment and economic growth, I
think the tax cut is a *very* good idea. You have not provided any real
data to prove otherwise.

Its lining the pockets of the rich, and you know it. Go look up the
statistics yourself, I'm tired of you damned lying neocons.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article wSfyb.259411$9E1.1378928@attbi_s52,
says...

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no
end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts,
doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?


NY Times Business section, 11/29/03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/bu...ey/30view.html

laughter

Why not just cite Tom Daschle? Or some other DNC lickspittle?



What, should we cite the American Spectator? How about the Washington
Times?
Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

They would at least be more reliable, because people like you would
subject their commentary to excruciating analysis and verification,
unlike the simple acceptance you give to pronouncements from the NYT.


Ah, so in your opinion, Rush Limbaugh is more reliable than the NYT? Good,
now we know where you get your statistics....

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...

They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?

Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?

I thought you were better than that.

So, you are saying that we are terrorists now for keeping enemy combatants
locked up? Well, amnesty international agrees with you, so I guess its
true...

There are lots of horrible people in the world. Why the HELL do we have to
try to imitate them?

"Jerry McG" wrote in message
...
They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?

If captured by these bags of evil pus you call "enemy combatants",
American
soldiers are tortured and murdered on the spot. They are not fed, clothed
humanely treeated, etc.

THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM AND DESERVE TO BE DEAD!!!!! What is it you can't
understand about this?


Christ. The geneva convention? International Law? But the Bush
administration (and you, I might add) doesn't care about international law,
does it? "We have the missles, so we have the right to do anything we
want..."

Gotta play by the rules if you want equal treatment.

WHat RULES? These people don't respect any RULES!!! If they'd been
captured
by an opposing militia they'd have been gutted or skinned alive.


So, we should do it too?

Even if you don't, can you envision a situation where some soldier in the
field sees somebody with bushy eyebrows, and sez, hey, he must be Taliban!
Lets lock him up? And gets it wrong? And some family goes without a father
for 3 years while the geniuses at Guantanamo figure it out?

Figure WHAT out? These creatures are lucky to be alive at all, and if
turned lose wouldn't spare a moment to kill everyone within range so they
could screw 72 virgins. Get out of your dream world, these people are
human
vermin.

You don't know these people. You don't have a clue as to why they are there,
what they were up to, what they wanted, what they were doing. You know what
Rush tells you. You are an ignorant fool. I'm done here. Go listen to Rush.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...
"Jerry McG" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration has set up a fascist regime where people can
be
detained indefinitely without access to attorneys-

PEOPLE?? What friggin people, those terrosit scumbags in Gitmo? You
want
those pieces of **** treated like normal, law abiding citizens? Of
WHAT
COUNTRY, ass wipe? They are terrorist scum and should have been shot
or
worse! What planet did you come from?

They have turned our justice system into a joke, and not a very
funny
one
at that.

What "justice system", the one you leftists used to get OJ off ? What
bigger joke can there be than that? You trial lawyer leftist buddies
are
just ****ed because the military will dispense with these PRISONERS OF
WAR
rather than Johnny Cochran and his pals.



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists.

Do you have any idea what that really means? These are people
captured on a field of battle in combat, but not uniformed members of an
armed force. Do you know what other, previous conflicts would classify
these people as? Spies -- The Geneva convention is not very kind to
spies, the US is actually treating these people better than they would
have been treated in the past, where they could have been summarily shot
on the battlefield.


How the HELL do you make that argument? Where are they going to get
uniforms? So, anybody out of uniform (I guess that included the viet cong)
were spies? Wrongo, moosebreath.

Do you want american soldiers
treated that way? Gotta play by the rules if you want equal treatment.

We are playing by the rules, problem is, the other side is not.


So we should throw out the rulebook? An eye for an eye?

Even
if you don't, can you envision a situation where some soldier in the
field
sees somebody with bushy eyebrows, and sez, hey, he must be Taliban!
Lets
lock him up? And gets it wrong? And some family goes without a father
for 3
years while the geniuses at Guantanamo figure it out?


You don't quite understand how the whole thing works, do you? More
realistically, the scenario is a soldier in the field seeing some guy
with bushy eyebrows and a rocket propelled grenade launcher and sez,
"Hey, I bet that guy isn't trying to sell me a satellite dish!"


But you don't know that. Just like you know nothing about economics, law,
politics, or anything else that you don't hear on Rush. You continue to
post, though, like you knew something.

Whats wrong with you guys? Thats the way the Nazis worked. And the
communists under Stalin. We don't want to be that way, do we? I don't.

What the HELL is wrong with giving these folks a fair trial?

How many US soldiers are you willing to get killed through this
process? The information in such a trial becomes public; methods and
means of surveillance, troop deployment and tactics are then available
to an adversary to devise countermeasures. ... and your side is the one
screaming about soldiers coming home in body bags?


Giving them a fair trial means killing US soldiers? You really are reaching,
aren't you?

Due process?
That doesn't mean letting them all go, it means dealing with them
according
to the rule of law.


Contrary to your rantings, we are treating them according to the rule
of law, and even going out of our way to accord them humane and civil
treatment when the rule of military law (under which enemy combatants
fall) would allow far worse.


Without a trial. With daily interrogations. With no way to contact their
family.

Sheesh.



as soon as you come up with an example of a single US citizen being
treated in a manner that denies them due process, you will have a point
from which to make a valid argument.

What about the chaplain, James Lee they locked up? He is a US citizen. He
was held without any justification for two months. They just released him...
I guess Rush didn't broadcast that, he was probably in rehab at that point.

"GlennGlenn" wrote in message
.com.com...
Of course, the analogy to our so called "war on terrorism"
is ridiculous. For starters, there will never be a conclusion
to the current war... so the detentions will be indefinite, by
your logic.

And the problem is... what?

You mean you really don't know?

Yep.

Oh, I know what YOU think, it is just that I see no problem whatsoever.



Must be something I am missing here.

How about some semblance of the fair and honest treatment of suspects
that we supposedly are so proud of?

BWaHAhahahah! Now THAT is funny!

In any other circumstances, involving almost any country other than the US,
they would have been shot out of hand... no second thoughts about it. In
fact, that is what they THEMSELVES would (and have) done.

Since the word "fair" means the equitable balance of disparate interests,
why, we were morally OBLIGATED to shoot the *******s on sight... just to be
"fair". Good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

But no, we keep them in better conditions than those in which we found them.
And even cater to their whimsical "religious" desires by providing the sorry
lot with whatever they want except the ability to do us harm again.



Only in the vacant cavities of a liberal's "mind" could releasing people
sworn to kill us be a good thing.

Did someone call for their release? A rare few, perhaps, but no one
I've heard of. Most, I would presume, would favor some semblance of
due process before deciding to imprison someone for life.

"Due process"? You are kidding, right?

Tom

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:26:55 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:


THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM AND DESERVE TO BE DEAD!!!!! What is it you can't
understand about this?


That's surely how most moslem fundamentalists feel about us.



rafe b.


HooRAAAAYY!

Rafe FINALLY GOT IT!

When did the light go on in the darkness old boy?

Now, as long as we kill as many as we possibly can, we can keep their
population down to a manageable level, just as we do with rats and other
vermin.

Tom

In article L6ryb.265550$ao4.922342@attbi_s51,
says...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article wSfyb.259411$9E1.1378928@attbi_s52,
says...

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no
end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts,
doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?


NY Times Business section, 11/29/03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/bu...ey/30view.html

laughter

Why not just cite Tom Daschle? Or some other DNC lickspittle?



What, should we cite the American Spectator? How about the Washington
Times?
Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

They would at least be more reliable, because people like you would
subject their commentary to excruciating analysis and verification,
unlike the simple acceptance you give to pronouncements from the NYT.


Ah, so in your opinion, Rush Limbaugh is more reliable than the NYT? Good,
now we know where you get your statistics....


Interesting parsing of my comment. You have to separate facts from
opinions and conclusions. My point was that the above mentioned
entities are subject to vigorous scrutiny from their detractors, to the
point that the smallest tittle of factual error causes the detractors to
come up with said error in their hands yelling, "Eureka! Factual error!
Factual Error! Therefore all other facts and conclusions spouted by this
entity must be completely wrong!" Therefore, said entities are more
likely to be very scrupulous in getting their facts correct (I'll write
that again, really s-l-o-w-l-y, getting the facts correct). You may
disagree with how the facts are assembled or the conclusions and
opinions derived therefrom, however, the basic facts are correct.
Contrast that with the NYT that has an affirmed agenda, an owner that is
vocal regarding that agenda, and has been caught red-handed falsifying
*facts* (not opinions, facts). In addition, the entities you deride
make no pretense about providing commentary and opinion, the NYT on the
other hand, even in the sections apart from the editorial page, while
claiming journalistic objectivity, cannot resisting interjecting
editorial opinion, even in its "news" articles.

In article qnryb.264809$275.948807@attbi_s53,
says...
.... snip

as soon as you come up with an example of a single US citizen being
treated in a manner that denies them due process, you will have a point
from which to make a valid argument.

What about the chaplain, James Lee they locked up? He is a US citizen. He
was held without any justification for two months.

It's James Yee by the way.

How could you have heard about that, I thought all these
investigations and detentions were being held in secret? No
justification? I believe according to the various news reports, he was
caught with information that was classified (i.e. list of prisoners'
names) --


They just released him...

Umm, you should be applauding this, although it doesn't exactly meet
your rant that the Bush administration is holding people without access
to legal representation. They released him, PENDING TRIAL! i.e. he is
not released and free to go, the charges are still pending, no charges
have been dropped.

I guess Rush didn't broadcast that, he was probably in rehab at that point.


... nah, it's not worth the effort

"trotsky" wrote in message
...
Of course, the analogy to our so called "war on terrorism"
is ridiculous. For starters, there will never be a conclusion
to the current war... so the detentions will be indefinite, by
your logic.


rafe b.



And the problem is... what?

Must be something I am missing here.

Only in the vacant cavities of a liberal's "mind" could releasing people
sworn to kill us be a good thing.


What? Rumsfeld should be in prison? Cool!



And that is the total intellectual depth of your reply? Cool!

BWAHAHAHAhahha!

Tom

In article v5ryb.259879$mZ5.1911383@attbi_s54,
says...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity from the federal
budget funded by income taxes. The tax cut should have no effect upon
social security unless you are going to admit that the general fund is
being used to fund Social Security.


No, its because the deficit is growing that the republicans, and bush in
particular, are now raiding those savings.

WHAT SAVINGS!? You do know what bonds are, don't you? They are
government DEBT instruments. i.e. the bonds are financing the debt.

They gave away our future to a
pack of filthy rich capitalists who will now invest the money offshore.


That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about
in
10 years, when you retire?


Given that the tax cut is funding investment and economic growth, I
think the tax cut is a *very* good idea. You have not provided any real
data to prove otherwise.

Its lining the pockets of the rich, and you know it. Go look up the
statistics yourself, I'm tired of you damned lying neocons.


as someone who is far from rich, I certainly have seen benefits from
the tax cuts. I cited the statistics, you can see who is paying the
taxes, who the heck else do you think would benefit from tax cuts other
than the PEOPLE PAYING THE @#$%'n TAXES?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article L6ryb.265550$ao4.922342@attbi_s51,
says...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article wSfyb.259411$9E1.1378928@attbi_s52,
says...

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks
you no
end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts,
doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't
it?


NY Times Business section, 11/29/03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/bu...ey/30view.html

laughter

Why not just cite Tom Daschle? Or some other DNC lickspittle?



What, should we cite the American Spectator? How about the
Washington
Times?
Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

They would at least be more reliable, because people like you would
subject their commentary to excruciating analysis and verification,
unlike the simple acceptance you give to pronouncements from the NYT.


Ah, so in your opinion, Rush Limbaugh is more reliable than the NYT?
Good,
now we know where you get your statistics....


Interesting parsing of my comment. You have to separate facts from
opinions and conclusions. My point was that the above mentioned
entities are subject to vigorous scrutiny from their detractors, to the
point that the smallest tittle of factual error causes the detractors to
come up with said error in their hands yelling, "Eureka! Factual error!
Factual Error! Therefore all other facts and conclusions spouted by this
entity must be completely wrong!" Therefore, said entities are more
likely to be very scrupulous in getting their facts correct (I'll write
that again, really s-l-o-w-l-y, getting the facts correct). You may
disagree with how the facts are assembled or the conclusions and
opinions derived therefrom, however, the basic facts are correct.
Contrast that with the NYT that has an affirmed agenda, an owner that is
vocal regarding that agenda, and has been caught red-handed falsifying
*facts* (not opinions, facts). In addition, the entities you deride
make no pretense about providing commentary and opinion, the NYT on the
other hand, even in the sections apart from the editorial page, while
claiming journalistic objectivity, cannot resisting interjecting
editorial opinion, even in its "news" articles.

I'm tired of you lying neocons. I don't care what your point is.

go listen to rush.

In article Fhtyb.261242$mZ5.1924477@attbi_s54,
says...

I'm tired of you lying neocons. I don't care what your point is.

TRANSLATION: "I lose wee-wee-wee, all the way home."

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

In article Fhtyb.261242$mZ5.1924477@attbi_s54,
says...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.... snip
Interesting parsing of my comment. You have to separate facts from
opinions and conclusions. My point was that the above mentioned
entities are subject to vigorous scrutiny from their detractors, to the
point that the smallest tittle of factual error causes the detractors to
come up with said error in their hands yelling, "Eureka! Factual error!
Factual Error! Therefore all other facts and conclusions spouted by this
entity must be completely wrong!" Therefore, said entities are more
likely to be very scrupulous in getting their facts correct (I'll write
that again, really s-l-o-w-l-y, getting the facts correct). You may
disagree with how the facts are assembled or the conclusions and
opinions derived therefrom, however, the basic facts are correct.
Contrast that with the NYT that has an affirmed agenda, an owner that is
vocal regarding that agenda, and has been caught red-handed falsifying
*facts* (not opinions, facts). In addition, the entities you deride
make no pretense about providing commentary and opinion, the NYT on the
other hand, even in the sections apart from the editorial page, while
claiming journalistic objectivity, cannot resisting interjecting
editorial opinion, even in its "news" articles.

I'm tired of you lying neocons. I don't care what your point is.


Jason Blair was not a lying conservative. Pinch Solzberger (sp?) is
not a conservative, editor Raines was neither conservative nor
objective. Yet somehow it is the conservatives who are liers?
Whatever, go do whatever it is you leftists do with yourselves.

"Robert Monsen" wrote in message
news:Fhtyb.261242$mZ5.1924477@attbi_s54...
Interesting parsing of my comment. You have to separate facts from
opinions and conclusions. My point was that the above mentioned
entities are subject to vigorous scrutiny from their detractors, to the
point that the smallest tittle of factual error causes the detractors to
come up with said error in their hands yelling, "Eureka! Factual error!
Factual Error! Therefore all other facts and conclusions spouted by this
entity must be completely wrong!" Therefore, said entities are more
likely to be very scrupulous in getting their facts correct (I'll write
that again, really s-l-o-w-l-y, getting the facts correct). You may
disagree with how the facts are assembled or the conclusions and
opinions derived therefrom, however, the basic facts are correct.
Contrast that with the NYT that has an affirmed agenda, an owner that is
vocal regarding that agenda, and has been caught red-handed falsifying
*facts* (not opinions, facts). In addition, the entities you deride
make no pretense about providing commentary and opinion, the NYT on the
other hand, even in the sections apart from the editorial page, while
claiming journalistic objectivity, cannot resisting interjecting
editorial opinion, even in its "news" articles.

I'm tired of you lying neocons. I don't care what your point is.


BWAHAhahahaa!

Never let your empty head be muddled all up with facts now lefty... it might
prove a fatal strain. Sanctimonious types are always at risk of a fit of
apoplexy.

Tom

Tom wrote:
"Robert Monsen" wrote in message
news:Fhtyb.261242$mZ5.1924477@attbi_s54...

Interesting parsing of my comment. You have to separate facts from

opinions and conclusions. My point was that the above mentioned
entities are subject to vigorous scrutiny from their detractors, to the
point that the smallest tittle of factual error causes the detractors to
come up with said error in their hands yelling, "Eureka! Factual error!
Factual Error! Therefore all other facts and conclusions spouted by this
entity must be completely wrong!" Therefore, said entities are more
likely to be very scrupulous in getting their facts correct (I'll write
that again, really s-l-o-w-l-y, getting the facts correct). You may
disagree with how the facts are assembled or the conclusions and
opinions derived therefrom, however, the basic facts are correct.
Contrast that with the NYT that has an affirmed agenda, an owner that is
vocal regarding that agenda, and has been caught red-handed falsifying
*facts* (not opinions, facts). In addition, the entities you deride
make no pretense about providing commentary and opinion, the NYT on the
other hand, even in the sections apart from the editorial page, while
claiming journalistic objectivity, cannot resisting interjecting
editorial opinion, even in its "news" articles.

I'm tired of you lying neocons. I don't care what your point is.



BWAHAhahahaa!

Never let your empty head be muddled all up with facts now lefty... it might
prove a fatal strain. Sanctimonious types are always at risk of a fit of
apoplexy.


Not having a brain, though, keeps you from having to worry about such
things.

Giftzwerg wrote in message ...
In article .com,
says...

Only in the vacant cavities of a liberal's "mind" could releasing people
sworn to kill us be a good thing.

Did someone call for their release? A rare few, perhaps, but no one
I've heard of.

Then what - precisely - are you calling for?

*sigh* See below.

Most, I would presume, would favor some semblance of
due process before deciding to imprison someone for life.

What "due process" consigned, say, a Japanese WW2 combatant to
imprisonment for the duration of the war?

So, you want to make this comparison?

How long will the "War on terrorism" last, exactly, so that those
detained can actually face the charges that might someday be made
against them? At what point will they hear what they're being accused
of having done?

Heck, considering the number that have been or are soon to be released
and/or transfered, I should think that those ordering their detainment
are not as certain of you that those people are to a person "sworn to
kill us."

I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh?

Under what circumstances where they apprehended? How long did they
have to wait before hearing charges? Were they POW's, protected as
such?

Or do you imagine
that the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials for
each enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?

First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?
Furthermore, are we talking about POW's here? No official I've ever
heard has referred to the Guantanamo detainees as POW's. Correct me
if I'm wrong about that, and then if I am wrong, give me a hint as to
how to determine when the "War on terrorism" will end, such that they
can face charges and/or be released.

GlennGlenn

"Jerry McG" wrote in message ...

Don't waste your breath on this lefty, Giftz, he looks upon these vermin as
comrades fighting the evil Bush and his rich usurpers of human rights, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's too funny. A man is either an angel or a
demon in your eyes, it appears. Have fun with that.

Add to this all the other leftist idiocy and you'll realize he won't be
happy until they were all set free and returned to the terror camps first
class by United Airlines.

Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I want. *snicker*

Talk about a waste of breath.

Hey, even better, maybe in the process these scum
bags could hijack the planes and kill 10,000 more people, all of which the
left would laud as part of a plan to create their own "world order" of
Socialist brotherhood....that is until these vermin start killing THEM! Then
it will be another story.

Someone should go into making War on Terror propaganda films. Don't
forget images of "lefties," "Arab terrorists," and "Commies" raping
virtuous white women. Straw men may be straw men, but people react
emotionally when exposed to them nonetheless when the rape of white
women is added to the mix.

GlennGlenn

"Jerry McG" wrote in message ...
Only in the vacant cavities of a liberal's "mind" could releasing people
sworn to kill us be a good thing.

Oh, but Tom, don't you see, if only the leftists could just sit down with
the terrorists, hold hands and sing a few bars of Cumbaya, all will be fine.

You guys have been hanging up all the right straw men in this thread,
haven't you? Just don't forget rapists of virtuous white women.
You'll enlarge your numbers when people begin to fear the virtues of
white women.

GlennGlenn

In article , dipthot@my-

What "due process" consigned, say, a Japanese WW2 combatant to
imprisonment for the duration of the war?

So, you want to make this comparison?

How long will the "War on terrorism" last, exactly,

How long does *any* war "last?"

I mean, do you understand how ****witted it would have been to whine at
FDR in 1943, "How sob! long is the war going to last!?!?!"

So my answer is, "We don't know how long it will last. Until we declare
that it's over."

so that those
detained can actually face the charges that might someday be made
against them? At what point will they hear what they're being accused
of having done?

What was a Japanese combatant "accused" of in 1945?

Heck, considering the number that have been or are soon to be released
and/or transfered, I should think that those ordering their detainment
are not as certain of you that those people are to a person "sworn to
kill us."

shrug

As soon as we determine this, to our satisfaction, we'll let them go.
Or try them. Or hang onto them.

What's the problem?

I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh?

Under what circumstances where they apprehended?

They were making war on the US. We imprisoned them. After we
determined that their agency (Imperial Japan) was destroyed and they
could be safely released, we released them. We didn't "charge" them
with anything (war criminals excepted...).

How long did they
have to wait before hearing charges? Were they POW's, protected as
such?

What "charges?" They were not "charged." They were prisoners.

Oh, and *terrorists* are not soldiers - they belong in the same category
as spies, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants. Historically, the
fate of such folks was along the lines of Rule .303.

Or do you imagine
that the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials for
each enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?

First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?

Nope. Just until we determined that we were no longer at war with their
masters.

Furthermore, are we talking about POW's here? No official I've ever
heard has referred to the Guantanamo detainees as POW's.

Nope. Enemy soldiers are POWs. Enemy *terrorists* don't rate such
civilized treatment.

Correct me
if I'm wrong about that, and then if I am wrong, give me a hint as to
how to determine when the "War on terrorism" will end, such that they
can face charges and/or be released.

sigh

See above.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

In article , dipthot@my-
deja.com says...

Oh, but Tom, don't you see, if only the leftists could just sit down with
the terrorists, hold hands and sing a few bars of Cumbaya, all will be fine.

You guys have been hanging up all the right straw men in this thread,
haven't you? Just don't forget rapists of virtuous white women.
You'll enlarge your numbers when people begin to fear the virtues of
white women.

rolls eyes

Yup. Heeeeeere comes Yet Another Sanctimonious Shriek of "RACISM!" from
Yet Another Officially-Accredited Online Anti-Bigot.

PS: Keep loudly shouting for the release of all terrorists detained
since 9/11. Keep screaming that George W. Bush is determined to keep
these poor li'l towelheads locked up, and Howdy Dean will see they get
their rights. Keep throwing the Bushies into the Briar Patch...

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

"Robert Monsen" wrote in message
news:v5ryb.259879$mZ5.1911383@attbi_s54...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
[ . . . ]
ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the
social
security trust fund,

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you
think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments? The
reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US
treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.


Its bonds. And yes, its real.

It's real? It's real IOUs, is what it is. There isn't any real money in the
Democrats' famous "lock box" and there never was.


Or at least, it was until the Bush
administration started looting it for the benefit of their rich buddies.

You don't seem to understand what bonds are. You *lend money* to somebody
else and they give you a piece of paper saying they owe it to you, and
agreeing to pay you interest for it. Those pieces of paper aren't money. You
can't spend them like money. That's all there is in the "lock box."

Now explain how you think "the Bush administration started looting it for
the benefit of their rich buddies." There isn't anything there to loot.

Neil

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...


They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?

The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were treating
Jessica Lynch.


What did they do to her, give her
too many comfy pillows while they were treating her wounds?

Jessica Lynch evidently was treated very well by Iraqi doctors and nursing
staff. What on earth does that have to do with how terrorists treat anyone?

Neil

"Robert Monsen" wrote in message
news:qnryb.264809$275.948807@attbi_s53...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...
"Jerry McG" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration has set up a fascist regime where people
can
be
detained indefinitely without access to attorneys-

PEOPLE?? What friggin people, those terrosit scumbags in Gitmo? You
want
those pieces of **** treated like normal, law abiding citizens? Of
WHAT
COUNTRY, ass wipe? They are terrorist scum and should have been shot
or
worse! What planet did you come from?

They have turned our justice system into a joke, and not a very
funny
one
at that.

What "justice system", the one you leftists used to get OJ off ?
What
bigger joke can there be than that? You trial lawyer leftist buddies
are
just ****ed because the military will dispense with these PRISONERS
OF
WAR
rather than Johnny Cochran and his pals.



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists.

Do you have any idea what that really means? These are people
captured on a field of battle in combat, but not uniformed members of an
armed force. Do you know what other, previous conflicts would classify
these people as? Spies -- The Geneva convention is not very kind to
spies, the US is actually treating these people better than they would
have been treated in the past, where they could have been summarily shot
on the battlefield.


How the HELL do you make that argument? Where are they going to get
uniforms?

How is that an American problem? Are we supposed to provide hostile
combatants with uniforms now?


So, anybody out of uniform (I guess that included the viet cong)
were spies? Wrongo, moosebreath.

It has always been the case that combatants not in uniform could be treated
as spies and executed summarily. It was a common practice. Nathan Hale, for
one famous example, was hanged as a spy by the British who caught him
carrying incriminating papers while in civilian clothes. There was no trial,
and he was hanged the morning after he was captured.

Neil

"Jane Sandringham" wrote in message
om...
Lewis was moving toward counting the "overvotes" on Dec. 9, just hours
before Bush got five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the
Florida recount.

Love that liberal wording....."Bush got five Republicans on the.....to stop
the recount......." Like the Supreme court is under Bush's control.....He
just pushed the, "elect me" button and the court jumped to obey his
command........One minute he's, "dumb dubba" who can't give a speech without
screwing up the wording, and the next, he's the evil controller....Darth
Vader of politics, who controls the whole supreme court.......Come on! Give
me a break!

"NJH" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Monsen" wrote in message
news:v5ryb.259879$mZ5.1911383@attbi_s54...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
[ . . . ]
ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the
social
security trust fund,

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you
think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments?
The
reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US
treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.


Its bonds. And yes, its real.

It's real? It's real IOUs, is what it is. There isn't any real money in
the
Democrats' famous "lock box" and there never was.


Or at least, it was until the Bush
administration started looting it for the benefit of their rich buddies.

You don't seem to understand what bonds are. You *lend money* to somebody
else and they give you a piece of paper saying they owe it to you, and
agreeing to pay you interest for it. Those pieces of paper aren't money.
You
can't spend them like money. That's all there is in the "lock box."

Now explain how you think "the Bush administration started looting it for
the benefit of their rich buddies." There isn't anything there to loot.

Neil


Hey Neil! - Be fair to the dumb liberals....If they knew anything about
stocks and bonds, they would be conservative Republicans. It isn't their
fault. They are caught in the Robin Hood trap......They think money grows on
trees, and the governments job is to steal it from the rich, and give it to
the poor.......It's the way they were brought up.

NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:

In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?


The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were treating
Jessica Lynch.


**** off. According to Bush, they're all "terrorists" and "thugs" and
"evil-doers". I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage." It's just bull**** piled on top of bull**** piled
on top of bull****. Oh, and is "Al Qaeda" the only mother****ing
terrorist group that ever existed?


What did they do to her, give her
too many comfy pillows while they were treating her wounds?


Jessica Lynch evidently was treated very well by Iraqi doctors and nursing
staff. What on earth does that have to do with how terrorists treat anyone?


The "Jessica Lynch story" was the U.S. trying to out-do themselves with
bull****. Do you detect a running theme here yet?

In article , says...

Jessica Lynch evidently was treated very well by Iraqi doctors and nursing
staff. What on earth does that have to do with how terrorists treat anyone?


The "Jessica Lynch story" was the U.S. trying to out-do themselves with
bull****. Do you detect a running theme here yet?

Gotta love this piece of business. The leftist media blows the Lynch
story up until it bears little relation to reality - and then the left
blames ... gueeeeeess who?

Hint: Not Dan Rather.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:

In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american
soldiers
treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?


The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were
treating
Jessica Lynch.


**** off. According to Bush, they're all "terrorists" and "thugs" and
"evil-doers".

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."

Very few, if any. Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.
killed anyone there.


It's just bull**** piled on top of bull**** piled
on top of bull****. Oh, and is "Al Qaeda" the only mother****ing
terrorist group that ever existed?

No, but it's probably the biggest, most widespread and best funded and
equipped.

Neil

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article , says...


Jessica Lynch evidently was treated very well by Iraqi doctors and nursing
staff. What on earth does that have to do with how terrorists treat anyone?


The "Jessica Lynch story" was the U.S. trying to out-do themselves with
bull****. Do you detect a running theme here yet?


Gotta love this piece of business. The leftist media blows the Lynch
story up until it bears little relation to reality - and then the left
blames ... gueeeeeess who?



Let's see--cite, ****zwerg?

NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:


In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...




They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american

soldiers

treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?


The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were

treating

Jessica Lynch.


**** off. According to Bush, they're all "terrorists" and "thugs" and
"evil-doers".


Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.
killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?


It's just bull**** piled on top of bull**** piled
on top of bull****. Oh, and is "Al Qaeda" the only mother****ing
terrorist group that ever existed?


No, but it's probably the biggest, most widespread and best funded and
equipped.


Right. But all the others are "linked to Al Qaeda", or so they tell us.
And let's not forget that Saddam was fostering terrorists and buying
"nucular" material in some Republican asshole's wet dreams. None of it
seems terribly factual. But that Colin Powell had all his ducks in a
row when he went before the U.N. with his "proof" of the Saddam's WMDs.
Not. The sad thing here is that there's such a significant percentage
of the population that buy these vagaries and falsehoods hook line and
sinker.

In article , says...

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."

Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.

Isn't it fascinating when the dishonest mask slips for a moment, and we
get a nice, clear, pristine look at what the left *really* thinks about
servicemen and women.

Way to "support those troops," eh, Fatboy?


--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

In article , says...

Gotta love this piece of business. The leftist media blows the Lynch
story up until it bears little relation to reality - and then the left
blames ... gueeeeeess who?

Let's see--cite, ****zwerg?

Cite what? Clearly you're familiar with Private Lynch - you know, the
young servicewoman you refer to as the "dumb bitch" - and her ordeal.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

Giftzwerg wrote in message ...
In article , dipthot@my-
deja.com says...

Oh, but Tom, don't you see, if only the leftists could just sit down with
the terrorists, hold hands and sing a few bars of Cumbaya, all will be
fine.

You guys have been hanging up all the right straw men in this thread,
haven't you? Just don't forget rapists of virtuous white women.
You'll enlarge your numbers when people begin to fear the virtues of
white women.

rolls eyes

Indeed.

Yup. Heeeeeere comes Yet Another Sanctimonious Shriek of "RACISM!" from
Yet Another Officially-Accredited Online Anti-Bigot.

Guess I shouldn't have made it so hard to miss my point. To clarify:
a popular propaganda tactic among rabid hawks has historically been to
sow fear in the hearts of good Americans that the enemies of American
virtue (be they criminally-minded blacks, pagan Japanese warriors,
Commies, what have you) want to rape our white women. I was
suggesting that such a tactic is still available to you and your
co-ideologues who want to strip away any desire for just treatment of
the detainees who, as you allege, are all committed to killing us.

PS: Keep loudly shouting for the release of all terrorists detained
since 9/11.

Non sequitur. I will *keep* doing that once I begin to actually do
that. As I haven't done so, there's nothing to keep doing.

Of course you *wish* that I was. Folks like you like trotting out
straw men to whack with your impotent little sticks.

Keep screaming that George W. Bush is determined to keep
these poor li'l towelheads locked up,

Well, isn't he? And don't you *support* that position?

and Howdy Dean will see they get
their rights.

I don't know what Dean would do. Our current resident-in-chief
himself said that he wasn't interested in nation-building during his
campaign. Being placed in power clearly changes one's perspective...

GlennGlenn

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:


In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...




They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american

soldiers

treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a
journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?


The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were

treating

Jessica Lynch.


**** off. According to Bush, they're all "terrorists" and "thugs" and
"evil-doers".


Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.

No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either. If she had been,
I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.

When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way? She wasn't driving, isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed, and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.



I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.

Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with pretty
obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.



Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.
killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?

What, this is a racial issue now?

Saddam and his followers were and are white people. What did you think they
were?

Or is your submission to political correctness so complete that you just
have to throw in some snide remark about white people from time to time,
whether relevant or not?

[ . . . ]

Neil

In article ,
Giftzwerg wrote:

In article , dipthot@my-

What "due process" consigned, say, a Japanese WW2 combatant to
imprisonment for the duration of the war?

So, you want to make this comparison?

How long will the "War on terrorism" last, exactly,

How long does *any* war "last?"

How long is the War On (some) Drugs going to last?

The so-called "War on Terrorism" would seem to have just as definite a
terminus.

I mean, do you understand how ****witted it would have been to whine at
FDR in 1943, "How sob! long is the war going to last!?!?!"

The enemy--and the goal-- was clear in WWII.

So my answer is, "We don't know how long it will last. Until we declare
that it's over."

Sounds like someone asking for unchecked license to detain without
review.

so that those detained can actually face the charges that might
someday be made against them? At what point will they hear what
they're being accused of having done?

What was a Japanese combatant "accused" of in 1945?

Why are you asking *me* this? Under what circumstances where they
caught and detained?

Heck, considering the number that have been or are soon to be released
and/or transfered, I should think that those ordering their detainment
are not as certain of you that those people are to a person "sworn to
kill us."

shrug

As soon as we determine this, to our satisfaction, we'll let them go.

Just who is "we"? You? Clearly *your* statement that the detainees
are sworn to kill us. Now, apparently, it has been determined by some
body or other that such is *not* the case with regard to a significant
number of them.

Or try them. Or hang onto them.

What's the problem?

The problem is the lack of external review and what appears to be the
use of technicalities to avoid the constraints of U.S.-backed (sorta)
international (and U.S. Constitutional) law.

I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh?

Under what circumstances where they apprehended?

They were making war on the US.
We imprisoned them. After we
determined that their agency (Imperial Japan) was destroyed and they
could be safely released, we released them. We didn't "charge" them
with anything (war criminals excepted...).

Of course the current detainees are different, right?

How long did they
have to wait before hearing charges? Were they POW's, protected as
such?

What "charges?" They were not "charged." They were prisoners.

Of course.

Oh, and *terrorists* are not soldiers -

No: they are "Persons of Interest." Such a term almost sounds like a
PC term, except in reverse.

they belong in the same category
as spies, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants. Historically, the
fate of such folks was along the lines of Rule .303.

Or do you imagine
that the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials for
each enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?

First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?

Nope. Just until we determined that we were no longer at war with their
masters.

Ah, yes... and for now we'll keep that as vague as possible to keep
from having to cut 'em loose before we're happy. Meanwhile, we can
move the goalposts anywhere we want to by noting that terrorism, like
drug trafficking, has a complex set of "masters."

Furthermore, are we talking about POW's here? No official I've ever
heard has referred to the Guantanamo detainees as POW's.

Nope. Enemy soldiers are POWs. Enemy *terrorists* don't rate such
civilized treatment.

How about Persons of Interest? Were those who were released
*terrorists* that, um, became non-terrorists due to some sort of rehab
in Gitmo? Or are those detained not all terrorists after all?

Correct me if I'm wrong about that, and then if I am wrong, give me
a hint as to how to determine when the "War on terrorism" will end,
such that they can face charges and/or be released.

sigh

See above.

You too. Either they are soldiers in a potentially unending war ('Yay,
we can keep 'em forever!'), or they are "Persons of Interest" who may
deserve a bit more consideration for their situation ('Aw, let 'em
suffer in silence; they just *might* have done something *awful*, and
"lawyer" is French for "Commie terrorist" anyway').

--
--GlennGlenn--aa#825--
--
--Lost & seeing double somewhere in Hollywood, CA--

In article , dipthot@my-
deja.com says...
.... snip

I don't know what Dean would do. Our current resident-in-chief
himself said that he wasn't interested in nation-building during his
campaign. Being placed in power clearly changes one's perspective...


... of course you realize that during the campaign, the nation building
being discussed was such as being done in Kosovo and Haiti as well as
other places in which our national interest was not at stake. ... and
of course you realize that our country had not been directly attacked in
an act of war by terrorists who were being harbored and encouraged by
(and by extension, acting in proxy for) several nation-states.

Of course you realize those facts, to not do so would be disengenous,
and you wouldn't be that.

GlennGlenn

In article .com,
says...

How long will the "War on terrorism" last, exactly,

How long does *any* war "last?"

How long is the War On (some) Drugs going to last?

The so-called "War on Terrorism" would seem to have just as definite a
terminus.

How 'bout we give it as long the lefties (still) give The War On Poverty
(TM)?

I mean, do you understand how ****witted it would have been to whine at
FDR in 1943, "How sob! long is the war going to last!?!?!"

The enemy--and the goal-- was clear in WWII.

This point is as trivial as it is juvenile. Sure, we've got a less
"clear" situation on our hands right now, but that doesn't mean we're
any less at war - nor that we're somehow stymied by the fact that our
enemies refuse to honorably wear uniforms and fight us in the open.

So what's your point?

I get the impression that your model for how to proceed is that we take
a look at, say, a Syrian captured fighting against us for al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and throw up our hands in frustration, freeing him because
he doesn't fit into a neat little predetermined slot reserved for
"POWs."

Of course, if that's *not* your plan, feel free to cite a specific case
and declare your intentions towards him. That would at least give us
something concrete to discuss.

So my answer is, "We don't know how long it will last. Until we declare
that it's over."

Sounds like someone asking for unchecked license to detain without
review.

Actually, it sounds like someone responding to a situation where our
enemies are terrorist agents instead of a national entity.

so that those detained can actually face the charges that might
someday be made against them? At what point will they hear what
they're being accused of having done?

What was a Japanese combatant "accused" of in 1945?

Why are you asking *me* this? Under what circumstances where they
caught and detained?

The point is that they weren't "accused" of anything. They were enemy
combatants, and that - right there - was enough to ensure their
*indefinite* detention. Until we, their captors, good and righteously
declared that we were no longer at war with them, they cooled their
heels in our prison camps. If the war had lasted 50 years, we would
have imprisoned them for 50 years. They were not "accused," they did
not consult attorneys, they were not afforded any "rights." They just
sat there until we concluded peace and decided to release them.

This is entirely normal. It happens in every war. Johnny Cochran need
not apply.

As soon as we determine this, to our satisfaction, we'll let them go.

Just who is "we"?

The government of the United States. You know, the same "we" that makes
every other decision the country undertakes.

Come now. It's profoundly unserious not to know this.

You? Clearly *your* statement that the detainees
are sworn to kill us. Now, apparently, it has been determined by some
body or other that such is *not* the case with regard to a significant
number of them.

shrug

And we are releasing them, are we not? Isn't this precisely what you
wanted?

What's the problem?

The problem is the lack of external review and what appears to be the
use of technicalities to avoid the constraints of U.S.-backed (sorta)
international (and U.S. Constitutional) law.

laughter

Who do you suggest as "external reviewers?" Belgians? The Libyan-
chaired UN Commission on human rights?

Under what circumstances where they apprehended?

They were making war on the US.
We imprisoned them. After we
determined that their agency (Imperial Japan) was destroyed and they
could be safely released, we released them. We didn't "charge" them
with anything (war criminals excepted...).

Of course the current detainees are different, right?

Are they? The only difference I see is that Japanese and German
prisoners were afforded additional privileges insofar as they were
lawful combatants, not terrorists. A German soldier captured wearing a
German uniform is quite a different thing from a stateless terrorist.

First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?

Nope. Just until we determined that we were no longer at war with their
masters.

Ah, yes... and for now we'll keep that as vague as possible to keep
from having to cut 'em loose before we're happy. Meanwhile, we can
move the goalposts anywhere we want to by noting that terrorism, like
drug trafficking, has a complex set of "masters."

So be it. I guess it sucks to be a terrorist who got caught, eh?

Nope. Enemy soldiers are POWs. Enemy *terrorists* don't rate such
civilized treatment.

How about Persons of Interest? Were those who were released
*terrorists* that, um, became non-terrorists due to some sort of rehab
in Gitmo? Or are those detained not all terrorists after all?

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

wink

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

In article ,
ks says...

Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.

No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either. If she had been,
I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.

When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way? She wasn't driving, isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed, and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.

Dude! She joined the Army! To a fat-**** leftist clone who builds
****ware speakers for a "living," her enlistment papers alone entitle
her to a full measure of ignorant scorn.

Not that this is particularly troublesome. I much prefer it when the
left openly expresses its pathological loathing of servicemen, instead
of disguising their traitorous leanings with a dozen layers of bat****
about "supporting the troops."


--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

"GlennGlenn" wrote in message
.com.com...
In article ,
Giftzwerg wrote:

[ . . . ]

so that those detained can actually face the charges that might
someday be made against them? At what point will they hear what
they're being accused of having done?

What was a Japanese combatant "accused" of in 1945?

Why are you asking *me* this? Under what circumstances where they
caught and detained?

Heck, considering the number that have been or are soon to be released
and/or transfered, I should think that those ordering their detainment
are not as certain of you that those people are to a person "sworn to
kill us."

shrug

As soon as we determine this, to our satisfaction, we'll let them go.

Just who is "we"? You? Clearly *your* statement that the detainees
are sworn to kill us. Now, apparently, it has been determined by some
body or other that such is *not* the case with regard to a significant
number of them.

Or try them. Or hang onto them.

What's the problem?

The problem is the lack of external review and what appears to be the
use of technicalities to avoid the constraints of U.S.-backed (sorta)
international (and U.S. Constitutional) law.

I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh?

Under what circumstances where they apprehended?

They were making war on the US.
We imprisoned them. After we
determined that their agency (Imperial Japan) was destroyed and they
could be safely released, we released them. We didn't "charge" them
with anything (war criminals excepted...).

Of course the current detainees are different, right?

How long did they
have to wait before hearing charges? Were they POW's, protected as
such?

What "charges?" They were not "charged." They were prisoners.

Of course.

Oh, and *terrorists* are not soldiers -

No: they are "Persons of Interest." Such a term almost sounds like a
PC term, except in reverse.

they belong in the same category
as spies, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants. Historically, the
fate of such folks was along the lines of Rule .303.

Or do you imagine
that the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials
for
each enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?

First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?

Nope. Just until we determined that we were no longer at war with their
masters.

Ah, yes... and for now we'll keep that as vague as possible to keep
from having to cut 'em loose before we're happy. Meanwhile, we can
move the goalposts anywhere we want to by noting that terrorism, like
drug trafficking, has a complex set of "masters."

Furthermore, are we talking about POW's here? No official I've ever
heard has referred to the Guantanamo detainees as POW's.

Nope. Enemy soldiers are POWs. Enemy *terrorists* don't rate such
civilized treatment.

How about Persons of Interest? Were those who were released
*terrorists* that, um, became non-terrorists due to some sort of rehab
in Gitmo? Or are those detained not all terrorists after all?

Correct me if I'm wrong about that, and then if I am wrong, give me
a hint as to how to determine when the "War on terrorism" will end,
such that they can face charges and/or be released.

sigh

See above.

You too. Either they are soldiers in a potentially unending war ('Yay,
we can keep 'em forever!'), or they are "Persons of Interest" who may
deserve a bit more consideration for their situation ('Aw, let 'em
suffer in silence; they just *might* have done something *awful*, and
"lawyer" is French for "Commie terrorist" anyway').

Just to put all this in some sort of perspective:

Eisenhower kept German POWs imprisoned under incredibly inhumane conditions
for many months after WWII ended. Tens of thousands of them died of exposure
(some of the camps in which they were kept had no shelter of any kind for
the prisoners) or starved to death (relief trains bringing desperately
needed food and supplies from Switzerland were actually turned back). They
were denied mail, which could also have brought them food and clothing.
Their conditions were worse than in the Nazi concentration camps.

What Eisenhower did was of course absolutely against the rules of the Geneva
Convention for the treatment of POWs. So Eisenhower simply made up a new
term for them, DEFs (disarmed enemy forces). His position was basically that
as DEFs the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, and they
had no rights at all.

Neil