wrote:
On May 19, 1:57 pm, Swingman wrote:

Sorry to hear about your folks. Spent Mother's Day with Mom half
remembering that she had kids, then struggling with which ones of those
present were hers.

The lucid moments were worth it, but they are getting farther and
farther apart. All the best to both your mother and father, and you two,
to boot.

Thanks to everyone, up and down in this thread for the good wishes.
It was Friday, Saturday, and 1/2 Sunday in the hosptal. Got Dad home
late Sunday, he fell flat on his back, tangled up in his walker, and
was back in the hospital less than 12 hours later.

Now we are finding he may have fractured vertebrae. He is pushing 83,
so no operations. He has cancer, heart disease, and about 1/8 of his
lung capacity. He is too fragile to even run some of the tests on him
now.

Oddly, the best suggestion the combined brain trust can come up with
is to (literally....) "super" glue his fractures together with some
kind of epoxy. Other than that, nothing.

So now we wait and see. I have a few more full days at the hospital
as they have no advocate or anyone to speak coherently on their
behalf. Mom is slowly losing it, and she is at the point where she
wandered off in the emergency room a couple of times while we were
there waiting for the docs.

Gonna be a long week.

Once again, thanks to all for the good wishes. I will pass them on to
him telling it came from "the internet". He will get a charge out of
it. He isn't sure what the internet is, but he knows "all the kids
are nuts about it" these days and everyone is "on it" but him.

Me praying most likely wouldn't do anyone a damn bit of good, but I've
asked Mom to remember your folks in her prayers ... she still does a
good job of that and is tickled to be asked.

If nothing else, it simply means that ultimately none of us are really
alone in these trials, and knowing that, you find can some comfort where
you can.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Nope, just going to point out that everybody is going to get to do that if
Obamacare is implemented. We'll have to prove that our value to society,
adjusted for our age justifies the expense for whatever treatment is being
planned. Not even speculation -- it's already in the plans and the
stimulus bill -- that little bit about "evaluating cost effective care"

Wait until the government guy that prices hammers at $30,000 a pop, and
toilet seats at $10,000 gets to decide if you are worth sticking in a
$100,000 catheter...

--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

On Wed, 20 May 2009 00:40:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Once again, thanks to all for the good wishes. I will pass them on to
him telling it came from "the internet". He will get a charge out of
it. He isn't sure what the internet is, but he knows "all the kids
are nuts about it" these days and everyone is "on it" but him.

Pass along mine too.

Mark

Jack Stein wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Nope, just going to point out that everybody is going to get to do
that if
Obamacare is implemented. We'll have to prove that our value to society,
adjusted for our age justifies the expense for whatever treatment is
being
planned. Not even speculation -- it's already in the plans and the
stimulus bill -- that little bit about "evaluating cost effective care"

Wait until the government guy that prices hammers at $30,000 a pop, and
toilet seats at $10,000 gets to decide if you are worth sticking in a
$100,000 catheter...

May the both of you live in interesting times...

On May 20, 3:40*am, "
wrote:
On May 19, 1:57 pm, Swingman wrote:

Sorry to hear about your folks. Spent Mother's Day with Mom half
remembering that she had kids, then struggling with which ones of those
present were hers.

The lucid moments were worth it, but they are getting farther and
farther apart. All the best to both your mother and father, and you two,
to boot.

Thanks to everyone, up and down in this thread for the good wishes.
It was Friday, Saturday, and 1/2 Sunday in the hosptal. *Got Dad home
late Sunday, he fell flat on his back, tangled up in his walker, and
was back in the hospital less than 12 hours later.

Now we are finding he may have fractured vertebrae. *He is pushing 83,
so no operations. *He has cancer, heart disease, and about 1/8 of his
lung capacity. *He is too fragile to even run some of the tests on him
now.

Oddly, the best suggestion the combined brain trust can come up with
is to (literally....) "super" glue his fractures together with some
kind of epoxy. *Other than that, nothing.

So now we wait and see. *I have a few more full days at the hospital
as they have no advocate or anyone to speak coherently on their
behalf. *Mom is slowly losing it, and she is at the point where she
wandered off in the emergency room a couple of times while we were
there waiting for the docs.

Gonna be a long week.

Once again, thanks to all for the good wishes. *I will pass them on to
him telling it came from "the internet". *He will get a charge out of
it. *He isn't sure what the internet is, but he knows "all the kids
are nuts about it" these days and everyone is "on it" but him.

Robert

Dude, all kibbutzing aside, Ang's and my prayers are with you and your
family.
Ang and I are dealing with this stuff all the time, although we're
very fortunate that my parents' physical problems are minimal at the
moment, they are both 88 but can things happen very quickly at that
stage in their lives.

Grab a bourbon and a cigar and hang on tight.

(small) r

" wrote:

Thanks to everyone, up and down in this thread for the good wishes.
It was Friday, Saturday, and 1/2 Sunday in the hosptal. Got Dad home
late Sunday, he fell flat on his back, tangled up in his walker, and
was back in the hospital less than 12 hours later.

Now we are finding he may have fractured vertebrae. He is pushing
83,
so no operations. He has cancer, heart disease, and about 1/8 of his
lung capacity. He is too fragile to even run some of the tests on
him
now.

Oddly, the best suggestion the combined brain trust can come up with
is to (literally....) "super" glue his fractures together with some
kind of epoxy. Other than that, nothing.

So now we wait and see. I have a few more full days at the hospital
as they have no advocate or anyone to speak coherently on their
behalf. Mom is slowly losing it, and she is at the point where she
wandered off in the emergency room a couple of times while we were
there waiting for the docs.

Gonna be a long week.

Once again, thanks to all for the good wishes. I will pass them on
to
him telling it came from "the internet". He will get a charge out of
it. He isn't sure what the internet is, but he knows "all the kids
are nuts about it" these days and everyone is "on it" but him.

Robert,

My thoughts are with you.

Sounds like my movie was a better version than yours is, but trust me,
you will get threw it.

Take care.

Lew

"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are (see
"Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years of the Bush
administration, ONE person was convicted of impropriety, and that for
testimony about a crime that never happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six senior Bush
administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orture-inquiry

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, signed and
ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the arrest of Chili's
General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died before going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other countries under this
treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

" wrote:

Thanks to everyone, up and down in this thread for the good wishes.
It was Friday, Saturday, and 1/2 Sunday in the hosptal. Got Dad home
late Sunday, he fell flat on his back, tangled up in his walker, and
was back in the hospital less than 12 hours later.

I went through this with Dad two years ago and Mom earlier this year. Take care
of yourself first or you won't be any good to anyone else. It ain't easy. My
thoughts and feelings are with you and your parents. -- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of impropriety,
and that for testimony about a crime that never happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orture-inquiry

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died before
going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other countries
under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the U.S.
constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their
home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S. border, so
this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret it. The
U.S. doesn't take kindly to foreign states meddling in our internal affairs.
Nothing happened on Spanish soil, to Spanish citizens, or involving anybody
that could even SPEAK Spanish.

HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of impropriety,
and that for testimony about a crime that never happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orture-inquiry

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died before
going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other countries
under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the
U.S. constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to
their home country if there is reason to believe they will be
tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S. border,
so this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret
it. The U.S. doesn't take kindly to foreign states meddling in our
internal affairs. Nothing happened on Spanish soil, to Spanish
citizens, or involving anybody that could even SPEAK Spanish.

Fourthly, a US official doing things to Spaniards that the Spanish
government doesn't like is hardly evidence of _corruption_.

On May 20, 9:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of impropriety,
and that for testimony about a crime that never happened.

So far. *The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...bay-torture-in...

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died before
going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other countries
under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. *-- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the U.S.
constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their
home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S. border, so
this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret it.

....by doing what? Try to keep in mind that Spain is a member of the
European Union.... a whole different ball game than it was 70 years
ago.

Robert:

I want to also add my best wishes for you to have strength and endurance in
this trying time. It isn't easy to know that there is really little you
can do to ease the suffering. My parents were 3000 miles away and were
failing one by one. Not sure whether it was easier that it was mostly
mental, but it wasn't easy on Dad, and on their kids. I told Dad I was
going to be back in 3 weeks, but he passed away 5 days later. I will be
always grateful for the fantastic neighbors, who acted as family during my
parents' trying times.

Best wishes for Dad and you.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote:
On May 20, 9:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of
impropriety, and that for testimony about a crime that never
happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...bay-torture-in...

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died
before going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other
countries under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the
U.S. constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to
their home country if there is reason to believe they will be
tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S.
border, so this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret
it.

...by doing what? Try to keep in mind that Spain is a member of the
European Union.... a whole different ball game than it was 70 years
ago.

Good question.

1. The U.S. could close its naval base at Rota, eliminating some 8,000 jobs
that finance the local community. That's about $200 million a year in
salaries alone. Other U.S. military bases in Spain include:

Moron Air Base, Seville, and
Torrejon Air Base

2. We could dig up all the roads connecting Spain and the U.S.

3. Spain exports about $10 billion to the U.S. annually. Some of that could
be at risk.

4. Spain lost one war against the U.S. I don't think they'd risk another.

On May 21, 8:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 20, 9:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of
impropriety, and that for testimony about a crime that never
happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...bay-torture-in....

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died
before going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other
countries under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the
U.S. constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to
their home country if there is reason to believe they will be
tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S.
border, so this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret
it.

...by doing what? Try to keep in mind that Spain is a member of the
European Union.... a whole different ball game than it was 70 years
ago.

Good question.

1. The U.S. could close its naval base at Rota, eliminating some 8,000 jobs
that finance the local community. That's about $200 million a year in
salaries alone. *Other U.S. military bases in Spain include:

Moron Air Base, Seville, and
Torrejon Air Base

2. We could dig up all the roads connecting Spain and the U.S.

3. Spain exports about $10 billion to the U.S. annually. Some of that could
be at risk.

4. Spain lost one war against the U.S. I don't think they'd risk another.

And you'd do all that to protect your war criminals?

Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 8:16 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 20, 9:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all
are (see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight
years of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of
impropriety, and that for testimony about a crime that never
happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...bay-torture-in...

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as
the arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died
before going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other
countries under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by
the U.S. constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to
prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return
people to their home country if there is reason to believe they
will be tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S.
border, so this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret
it.

...by doing what? Try to keep in mind that Spain is a member of the
European Union.... a whole different ball game than it was 70 years
ago.

Good question.

1. The U.S. could close its naval base at Rota, eliminating some
8,000 jobs that finance the local community. That's about $200
million a year in salaries alone. Other U.S. military bases in Spain
include:

Moron Air Base, Seville, and
Torrejon Air Base

2. We could dig up all the roads connecting Spain and the U.S.

3. Spain exports about $10 billion to the U.S. annually. Some of
that could be at risk.

4. Spain lost one war against the U.S. I don't think they'd risk
another.

And you'd do all that to protect your war criminals?

Absolutely.

In fact, I would not wait for the threat to become imminent. Think of it as
preemptive defense.

"HeyBub" writes:
Robatoy wrote:

And you'd do all that to protect your war criminals?

Absolutely.

In fact, I would not wait for the threat to become imminent. Think of it as
preemptive defense.

Thank god (if you are so inclined) that you're just an annoying anonymous
internet twit, then.

scott

"HeyBub" wrote:

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the U.S.
constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person..."

I guess the case hangs on the meaning of "severe". The DOJ lawyers chose a very
severe meaning of "severe". I think most courts might choose a lower level of
pain. Especially since the US Attorney General has said water boarding is
torture, the US is going to have trouble mounting a defense.

I heard a quote from Jessie Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former professional
wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, and all round Wild Guy, who was water
boarded as part of his SEAL training:

"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to
the Sharon Tate murders."

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their
home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S. border, so
this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

That part doesn't, but this part does:

"Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish
its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following
cases:
[...]
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers
it appropriate. "

If such charges are brought, the US is obligated to extradite the accused under
Article 8.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret it. The
U.S. doesn't take kindly to foreign states meddling in our internal affairs.
Nothing happened on Spanish soil, to Spanish citizens, or involving anybody
that could even SPEAK Spanish.

Eh? No.

From http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...rt.guantanamo/

"Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, a Spanish citizen captured in Pakistan in 2001, who
was later sent to Guantanamo. He arrived in Spain in 2004 and was acquitted of
terrorism charges by Spain's Supreme Court."



-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the U.S.
constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person..."

Examples include having to listen to Madonna, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Bill
Maher, Nancy Pelosio-O, her father, Geppetobama, and Alec Baldwin.



I guess the case hangs on the meaning of "severe". The DOJ lawyers chose a very
severe meaning of "severe". I think most courts might choose a lower level of
pain. Especially since the US Attorney General has said water boarding is
torture, the US is going to have trouble mounting a defense.

I heard a quote from Jessie Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former professional
wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, and all round Wild Guy, who was water
boarded as part of his SEAL training:

"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to
the Sharon Tate murders."

Right he did say that. Now, do you suppose he speaks for all SEALs, past and
present, and/or the rest of the SOGCOM community?

SNIP More Treaty Quotes

The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if
you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people
who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon
non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian
populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one
important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally
finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people
specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught
up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with
essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.

Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for
entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these
combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic
*civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they
happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our
full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any
international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of
uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no
legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not
parties.

By this definition, the Bush administration was dead wrong in
the Hamdi case - Hamdi was a U.S. citizen - and SCOTUS properly found
this way. But you don't go onto the field of battle - even if it is on
your own domestic soil - and start handing out the full rights of
legal residence to people who are essentially an invading army. This
is sheer insanity possible only by people who think Noam Chomsky is a
genius, Ward Churchill is right, and Barack Obama is a statesman.

There may be practical, political, and PR reasons arguing for- or
against waterboarding or having to listen to Keith Olberman's regular
squealings - both arguably forms of torture - but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.




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

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
Robatoy wrote:

And you'd do all that to protect your war criminals?

Absolutely.

In fact, I would not wait for the threat to become imminent. Think
of it as preemptive defense.

Thank god (if you are so inclined) that you're just an annoying
anonymous internet twit, then.


Sigh.

I'll just have to add you to my list. Right after Spain.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if
you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people
who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon
non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian
populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one
important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally
finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people
specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught
up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with
essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.

Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for
entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these
combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic
*civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they
happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our
full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any
international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of
uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no
legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not
parties.

I think you're wrong there - citizenship is not a test for whether someone
is subject to our laws. During WW2, hundreds of thousands of German and
Italian POWs were held in U.S. territory, many of whom were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. See below for
why. The issue of citizenship was raised by a couple of the German saboteurs
captured in New Jersey. The Supreme Court said citizenship didn't matter.

Even Moses told the Israelites: "You shall have but one law for your
brethren and the sojourner in your midst."


By this definition, the Bush administration was dead wrong in
the Hamdi case - Hamdi was a U.S. citizen - and SCOTUS properly found
this way. But you don't go onto the field of battle - even if it is on
your own domestic soil - and start handing out the full rights of
legal residence to people who are essentially an invading army. This
is sheer insanity possible only by people who think Noam Chomsky is a
genius, Ward Churchill is right, and Barack Obama is a statesman.

There may be practical, political, and PR reasons arguing for- or
against waterboarding or having to listen to Keith Olberman's regular
squealings - both arguably forms of torture - but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one who a)
Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c) Reports to a defined
chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct to the customary rules of
warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting all four of these conditions is an
"unlawful" enemy combatant.

The folks at Gitmo - and Hamdi - are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not
criminals and are not entitled to the protections our Constitution gives to
criminal defendants (trial by jury, lawyer, indictment, etc.). Neither are
they POWs subject to the restrictions of various treaties, conventions, and
the rules of war. As unlawful enemy combatants they are subject to the whim
of the president under his Article II powers.

In wars past, most UECs were summarily executed. These included spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. As distasteful as it
is, belligerent entities are will within their rights according to the
customary rules of war to dispose of UECs forthwith in any manner they see
fit.

Until 1951, the rules governing the conduct of the U.S. Navy ("Rocks and
Shoals") permitted the hanging of captured pirates by any captain of a naval
vessel.

On May 21, 4:25*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if
you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people
who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon
non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian
populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one
important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally
finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people
specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught
up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with
essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.

Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for
entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these
combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic
*civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they
happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our
full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any
international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of
uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no
legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not
parties.

I think you're wrong there - citizenship is not a test for whether someone
is subject to our laws. During WW2, hundreds of thousands of German and
Italian POWs were held in U.S. territory, many of whom were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. See below for
why. The issue of citizenship was raised by a couple of the German saboteurs
captured in New Jersey. The Supreme Court said citizenship didn't matter.

Even Moses told the Israelites: "You shall have but one law for your
brethren and the sojourner in your midst."



By this definition, the Bush administration was dead wrong in
the Hamdi case - Hamdi was a U.S. citizen - and SCOTUS properly found
this way. But you don't go onto the field of battle - even if it is on
your own domestic soil - and start handing out the full rights of
legal residence to people who are essentially an invading army. This
is sheer insanity possible only by people who think Noam Chomsky is a
genius, Ward Churchill is right, and Barack Obama is a statesman.

There may be practical, political, and PR reasons arguing for- or
against waterboarding or having to listen to Keith Olberman's regular
squealings - both arguably forms of torture - but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one who a)
Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c) Reports to a defined
chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct to the customary rules of
warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting all four of these conditions is an
"unlawful" enemy combatant.

The folks at Gitmo - and Hamdi - are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not
criminals and are not entitled to the protections our Constitution gives to
criminal defendants (trial by jury, lawyer, indictment, etc.). Neither are
they POWs subject to the restrictions of various treaties, conventions, and
the rules of war. As unlawful enemy combatants they are subject to the whim
of the president under his Article II powers.

In wars past, most UECs were summarily executed. These included spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. As distasteful as it
is, belligerent entities are will within their rights according to the
customary rules of war to dispose of UECs forthwith in any manner they see
fit.

Until 1951, the rules governing the conduct of the U.S. Navy ("Rocks and
Shoals") permitted the hanging of captured pirates by any captain of a naval
vessel.

I read your dissertation and a lot of it works for me. That is when it
comes to dealing with UEC's.
However, where does torture come in? You well know, that you can get
ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING.
So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?
Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

" Look honey, I nuked that country because they were going to nuke
us!"
"oops, I better get somebody to say that they WERE, in fact, going to
nuke us."

The thing that ****es me off and many others, world-wide, is that
slimy, dirty apologists' revisionist history which is used to cloak
the real reasons for killing 4000+ of your finest soldiers: greed.
There is NO justification to kill and torture for greed.

HeyBub wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if
you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people
who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon
non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian
populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one
important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally
finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people
specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught
up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with
essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.

Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for
entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these
combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic
*civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they
happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our
full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any
international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of
uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no
legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not
parties.

I think you're wrong there - citizenship is not a test for whether someone
is subject to our laws. During WW2, hundreds of thousands of German and
Italian POWs were held in U.S. territory, many of whom were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. See below for
why. The issue of citizenship was raised by a couple of the German saboteurs
captured in New Jersey. The Supreme Court said citizenship didn't matter.

I'm saying something slightly different than you read. The *only*
people who have any standing to our social/legal contract are people
parties to that contract: citizens and people here lawfully. (Though
for a variety of practical reasons we extend that standing some
people here *illegally*.) Now, it is certainly true that there have
been times when even citizens have been denied due process under that
standing, but I think this is wrong. Apparently, so too does SCOTUS
in their slapdown of the Bush administration in the Hamdi case. But
the larger and more important point here is that foreign invaders
not citizens bent upon harming us do NOT have standing as a civil/criminal
matter. They're ... well ... an invading army, in this case (as you point
out) an "illegal" army, where "illegal" means not recognized or protected
by treaties between nations, let alone domestic law.



Even Moses told the Israelites: "You shall have but one law for your
brethren and the sojourner in your midst."

Yeah, but Moses didn't write U.S. law and we're not a theocracy -
though with all the Obama messianic fervor, it's sure feels like one.



The folks at Gitmo - and Hamdi - are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not
criminals and are not entitled to the protections our Constitution gives to
criminal defendants (trial by jury, lawyer, indictment, etc.). Neither are
they POWs subject to the restrictions of various treaties, conventions, and
the rules of war. As unlawful enemy combatants they are subject to the whim
of the president under his Article II powers.

Agreed. But you have to stipulate that it may be in *our* interest to
not act capriciously insofar as it makes *us* look bad. I'm deeply
conflicted on the whole waterboarding thing. On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to
do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,
notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture." If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate something
that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost his party
reelection? It boggles the mind that the entirety of the executive
branch, Nancy Pelosi-O (the lying puppet of her father Geppetomaba)
and the congress, the military operators, and the CIA field people
would all conspire to support a contentious practice that didn't work
at all.

OTOH, waterboarding has been incredibly contentious within the nation
and a real source of conflict with our allies and their citizens.
We're supposed to be the good guys occupying the moral high ground.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this practice if it had been
done with some kind of military legal supervision comparable to
a FISA court. Maybe it was, but thus far such oversight seems
somewhat (entirely?) lacking. There may be times to push the envelope
of what constitutes proper behavior - as I said, I see no legal reason
not to - but it ought to be done as transparently as possible ...
and transparency is something pretty much no president or party ever
really wants...




In wars past, most UECs were summarily executed. These included spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. As distasteful as it
is, belligerent entities are will within their rights according to the
customary rules of war to dispose of UECs forthwith in any manner they see
fit.

Until 1951, the rules governing the conduct of the U.S. Navy ("Rocks and
Shoals") permitted the hanging of captured pirates by any captain of a naval
vessel.

Yes, but there is a moral and qualitative difference between executing
a traitor or invader vs. torturing them. Torture can be worse than
death. That said, I do continue to have trouble buying the idea that
waterboarding itself is "torture" insofar as the results are not permanent.
(Torture is listening to Barney "The Weasel" Frank whine is way through
an explanation of how none of what's going on right now is his fault.)




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

On May 21, 5:21*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to
do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate something
that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost his party
reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

"HeyBub" wrote:

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one who a)
Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c) Reports to a defined
chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct to the customary rules of
warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting all four of these conditions is an
"unlawful" enemy combatant.

Eh? No. From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses prisoners
of war:

"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of
the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members
of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is
occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
of war.

[...]

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy
spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had
time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms
openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "

Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice no uniform
is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?

No identification of any kind is required under (6).

I can find nothing in the 4th Geneva convention that addresses legal or illegal
combatants at all.

By the way, all four Geneva Conventions were passed on 12 August 1949. They
address different related topics.

See http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...evaconventions

-- Doug

Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 5:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to
do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate something
that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost his party
reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

If you or any of the other people with Bush Derangement Syndrome could
actually prove this (as opposed to using proof by repeated assertion)
I'd be at the front of the line with you demanding a war crimes trial.
However, this seems very unlikely and just more foaming by people who
didn't like W for a whole lot of reasons. I didn't much care for
better than half of his policies but I've never bought the "Bush
(or Cheney) is evil incarnate" argument - it's silly.

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

"Robatoy" wrote:

==================================
Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.
==============================

Listened to Cheney's speech given today.

He continues to throw a lot of crap on the wall in hopes of getting
something to stick, but it hasn't happened yet.

What is driving him?

Does he think the gov't will come after him?

Is he trying to build a defense?

Obama has been spraying "Bush BeGone" all over the Whitehouse, and it
seems to be working.

Too bad there isn't an equivalent spray for Cheney.

Lew

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person..."

Examples include having to listen to Madonna, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Bill
Maher, Nancy Pelosio-O, her father, Geppetobama, and Alec Baldwin.

And ditto heads and rap music and nails on a chalkboard.

"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to
the Sharon Tate murders."

Right he did say that. Now, do you suppose he speaks for all SEALs, past and
present, and/or the rest of the SOGCOM community?

I have no reason to believe he was speaking for anyone other than himself.

... but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The 3rd Geneva Convention defines
prisoner of war and the required treatment of them. A uniform is not required
to be a prisoner of war. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" is never used.

The 4th Geneva Convention specifies the treatment of ALL persons in occupied
territory. The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits torture on all persons.
(So do the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions.)

The UN Convention Against Torture does permit pain to be inflicted incidental to
legal processes. So you can shoot them, you can't torture them.

Disclaimer: I am not an international lawyer. I'm not any kind of lawyer. What
I am saying comes from a plain English reading of the original documents.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person..."
Examples include having to listen to Madonna, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Bill
Maher, Nancy Pelosio-O, her father, Geppetobama, and Alec Baldwin.

And ditto heads and rap music and nails on a chalkboard.

"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to
the Sharon Tate murders."
Right he did say that. Now, do you suppose he speaks for all SEALs, past and
present, and/or the rest of the SOGCOM community?

I have no reason to believe he was speaking for anyone other than himself.

... but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The 3rd Geneva Convention defines
prisoner of war and the required treatment of them. A uniform is not required
to be a prisoner of war. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" is never used.

The 4th Geneva Convention specifies the treatment of ALL persons in occupied
territory. The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits torture on all persons.
(So do the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions.)

The UN Convention Against Torture does permit pain to be inflicted incidental to
legal processes. So you can shoot them, you can't torture them.

Disclaimer: I am not an international lawyer. I'm not any kind of lawyer. What
I am saying comes from a plain English reading of the original documents.

-- Doug

I shall go back and reread them ... this is not quite my recollection of
their usual meaning ...



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

Any B.J.s in the White House during the Bushwhacker's time there that
we should also look into ?

Robatoy wrote:

I read your dissertation and a lot of it works for me. That is when it
comes to dealing with UEC's.
However, where does torture come in? You well know, that you can get
ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING.
So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?

The original popular reason for torture was confession. During the Middle
Ages, many were convicted of crimes or heresy that involved the death
penalty. But unless they admitted their guilt, their souls were doomed to
Hell. Therefore the Church instituted torture as a method of salvation for
the doomed. By removing one's entrails, the torturer was actually doing the
recipient a favor.

In the case of UECs, we don't want a confession - we want information.

* Where is the bomb?
* What are the account numbers?
* Where are the ammunition stores?
* Who is the contact?
* Who was at the meeting?
* Where and when was the plot developed?

and so on. The answers to these questions are easy enough to check.

Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

There is none, and coercive techniques were not undertaken with that in
mind.


The thing that ****es me off and many others, world-wide, is that
slimy, dirty apologists' revisionist history which is used to cloak
the real reasons for killing 4000+ of your finest soldiers: greed.
There is NO justification to kill and torture for greed.

Greed is good, but leaving that aside, our soldiers were and are volunteers.
They joined - knowing full well the possible risk of death or injury - for
the chance to kill people and blow things up. Not only did they join, they
reenlist at an 85% rate (the remaining 15% are invalided out, retire, or
marry harridans). Being in the military is, in some ways, no different than
skydiving, mountain climbing, race-car driving, or any other high-risk
activity.

No, our warrior class - the hard, the strong - march. For their lands. For
their families. For our freedom.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 5:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to
do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

Article II of the Constitution nominates the president as Commander in
Chief. As such, he is solely in charge of war-making and his decisions
cannot be gainsaid by anyone.


notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

Well, there's that. You may be overlooking, too, the shear fun of it (which
makes about as much sense).


If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate
something that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost
his party reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

I've already agreed with you that the Bush administration was arrogant - all
administrations are arrogant. But you're wrong in one observation. To my
knowledge, no confessions were obtained by coercive techniques. We, like the
early church, didn't need confessions to prove anything - guilt was already
established. We wanted, like the church, something completely different: The
church wanted a soul-cleansing on the part of the condemned; we wanted
information to prevent more attacks.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one
who a) Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c)
Reports to a defined chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct
to the customary rules of warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting
all four of these conditions is an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

Eh? No. From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses
prisoners of war:

"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well
as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being
commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of
having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that
of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[...]

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war. "

Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice
no uniform is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?

No identification of any kind is required under (6).

I can find nothing in the 4th Geneva convention that addresses legal
or illegal combatants at all.

My mistake. The 3rd Geneva Convention is correct. "Lawful enemy combatant"
is defined in the Military Commissions Act and tracks exactly the
definitions given in the 3rd Convention. By extension, those not qualifying
under the 3rd Convention or the Military Commissions Act as "lawful" enemy
combatants must, perforce, be "unlawful" enemy combatants.

You are correct also in my misuse of the word "uniform," when distinctive
emblem is the standard. But (6) doesn't really apply to al Queda operatives
from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and other places scooped up while fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

HeyBub wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
I read your dissertation and a lot of it works for me. That is when it
comes to dealing with UEC's.
However, where does torture come in? You well know, that you can get
ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING.
So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?

The original popular reason for torture was confession. During the Middle
Ages, many were convicted of crimes or heresy that involved the death
penalty. But unless they admitted their guilt, their souls were doomed to
Hell. Therefore the Church instituted torture as a method of salvation for
the doomed. By removing one's entrails, the torturer was actually doing the
recipient a favor.

In the case of UECs, we don't want a confession - we want information.

* Where is the bomb?
* What are the account numbers?
* Where are the ammunition stores?
* Who is the contact?
* Who was at the meeting?
* Where and when was the plot developed?

and so on. The answers to these questions are easy enough to check.

Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

There is none, and coercive techniques were not undertaken with that in
mind.

The thing that ****es me off and many others, world-wide, is that
slimy, dirty apologists' revisionist history which is used to cloak
the real reasons for killing 4000+ of your finest soldiers: greed.
There is NO justification to kill and torture for greed.

Greed is good, but leaving that aside, our soldiers were and are volunteers.
They joined - knowing full well the possible risk of death or injury - for
the chance to kill people and blow things up. Not only did they join, they
reenlist at an 85% rate (the remaining 15% are invalided out, retire, or
marry harridans). Being in the military is, in some ways, no different than
skydiving, mountain climbing, race-car driving, or any other high-risk
activity.

No, our warrior class - the hard, the strong - march. For their lands. For
their families. For our freedom.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.



+1 (on all counts)

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 5:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right
to do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

Article II of the Constitution nominates the president as Commander in
Chief. As such, he is solely in charge of war-making and his decisions
cannot be gainsaid by anyone.


notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

Well, there's that. You may be overlooking, too, the shear fun of it
(which makes about as much sense).


If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate
something that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost
his party reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

I've already agreed with you that the Bush administration was arrogant
- all administrations are arrogant. But you're wrong in one
observation. To my knowledge, no confessions were obtained by coercive
techniques. We, like the early church, didn't need confessions to
prove anything - guilt was already established. We wanted, like the
church, something completely different: The church wanted a
soul-cleansing on the part of the condemned; we wanted information to
prevent more attacks.

Why as there any need for declarations of war, the Tonkin resolution, the
Iraq equivalent of that resolution?

I thought that Congress had the power to declare war, or the modern
equivalent of that declaration.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On May 21, 9:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

I read your dissertation and a lot of it works for me. That is when it
comes to dealing with UEC's.
However, where does torture come in? You well know, that you can get
ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING.
So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?

The original popular reason for torture was confession. During the Middle
Ages, many were convicted of crimes or heresy that involved the death
penalty. But unless they admitted their guilt, their souls were doomed to
Hell. Therefore the Church instituted torture as a method of salvation for
the doomed. By removing one's entrails, the torturer was actually doing the
recipient a favor.

In the case of UECs, we don't want a confession - we want information.

* Where is the bomb?
* What are the account numbers?
* Where are the ammunition stores?
* Who is the contact?
* Who was at the meeting?
* Where and when was the plot developed?

and so on. The answers to these questions are easy enough to check.

Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

There is none, and coercive techniques were not undertaken with that in
mind.

....he says with certainty...

On Thu, 21 May 2009 13:59:06 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?
Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?



"Don't make me get medieval on your ass."

'Deadeye' Dick Cheney




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 5:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right
to do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

Article II of the Constitution nominates the president as Commander in
Chief. As such, he is solely in charge of war-making and his decisions
cannot be gainsaid by anyone.


notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

Well, there's that. You may be overlooking, too, the shear fun of it
(which makes about as much sense).


If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate
something that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost
his party reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

I've already agreed with you that the Bush administration was arrogant
- all administrations are arrogant. But you're wrong in one
observation. To my knowledge, no confessions were obtained by coercive
techniques. We, like the early church, didn't need confessions to
prove anything - guilt was already established. We wanted, like the
church, something completely different: The church wanted a
soul-cleansing on the part of the condemned; we wanted information to
prevent more attacks.

Why as there any need for declarations of war, the Tonkin resolution, the
Iraq equivalent of that resolution?

I thought that Congress had the power to declare war, or the modern
equivalent of that declaration.

They do and they did. Repeatedly. They just did it again to the tune of $98
billion or so.

Robatoy wrote:

Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit
out the support for a war which was started under false pretences.
IOW, if you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to
say something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

There is none, and coercive techniques were not undertaken with that
in mind.

...he says with certainty...

Your irony is well-taken. Coercive techniques COULD have produced the
results you complain about but I have yet to hear anyone, pro or con,
suggest that was the case.

There is one case where a goblin (forget his name, Ramsey al BoomBoom or
something) was turned over to the Egyptians, they got information
implicating Iraq in this and that, and that information was offered by the
CIA as an excuse for invasion. But WE didn't remove the fingers, the
Egyptians did.

Han wrote:

Why as there any need for declarations of war, the Tonkin resolution,
the Iraq equivalent of that resolution?

I thought that Congress had the power to declare war, or the modern
equivalent of that declaration.

Congress has the sole power to declare war. The president has the sole power
to wage war. The Congress can declare all it wants, but the president could
refuse to do anything about it. The president can wage war all HE wants and
the Congress can do little to prevent his actions (aside from cutting off
funds).

Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president since
FDR (Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia).

On May 22, 8:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Han wrote:

Why as there any need for declarations of war, the Tonkin resolution,
the Iraq equivalent of that resolution?

I thought that Congress had the power to declare war, or the modern
equivalent of that declaration.

Congress has the sole power to declare war. The president has the sole power
to wage war. The Congress can declare all it wants, but the president could
refuse to do anything about it. The president can wage war all HE wants and
the Congress can do little to prevent his actions (aside from cutting off
funds).

Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president since
FDR (Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia).

Any of Clinton's war started by him under false pretences...scratch
that.. LIES???