Detained at the whim of the president

The Wolf wrote:


If a foreign power came to US terrritory and took Us citizens to Cuba, would
the US think they should have rights?

If they were serving as part of foreign militaries then why doesn't the
geneva convention apply?

A U.S. Oversees military base is not U.S. Soil, that is the whole point.

For instance if a child is born in a U.S. Military hospital base oversees
and both his parents are U.S. Citizens the child is a naturalized citizen
and therefore can never be president.

You will have to pardon our misunderstanding. We were led to believe that the US
held certain rights to be those rights are to be extended to all people.
Meanwhile, the US wants to bring people to justice from anywhere in the world for
crimes against Americans.

"user" wrote in message
...
What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
Muslims for simply that, being free. The members of the coalition that
you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you
people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike


You obviously do not know history or read the news. Muslims across the
world are murdering non-Muslims (primarlily Christians and Jews) and trying
to take control over nation's governments. This is nothing new. Islam was
birthed in war and spread through military conquest. Muhummad's sword can
even be seen in Turkey. It has the blood of many non-Muslims on it. Why?
Because they were not Muslims and refused to convert! Look at the
Philipppines, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Sudan, and Israel.
These are just a few of the numerous countries experiencing the holy war of
Islam. From the beginning of the invention of Islam, Islam has been at war
with everybody else. Islam is a religion of war. If it is not stopped now,
it will come to our shores. In fact, maybe you missed it on September 11,
2001. It has already been brought to the US by bin Laden and supported by
not only Hussein, but many Muslim nations. If President Bush did not go
after both bin Laden and Hussein, we would still be dealing with terrorist
attacks. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the war of Islam.
Honestly, the best we can hope for is a slowdown of hostilities as we remove
the ability to quickly wage war by taking away their weapons. It will NOT
stop until Christ returns on his horse of war. Only then will there be true
peace.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:44:40 -0600, John Gaughan
wrote:

Mike Dobony wrote:
That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
preparing to attack again and again and again.

And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"

If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
everyone is happy.

Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
starters) that want the United States of the World.

"John Gaughan" wrote in message
...
Mike Dobony wrote:
That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
preparing to attack again and again and again.

And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"

If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
everyone is happy.


Bees are nothing like hate-filled terrorists. Bees are reasonable and
predictible. Leave them in peace and they will leave you alone. Terrorists
are so filled with hate that they are irrational. It is impossible to
reason with an irrational person or group of people. All they want ot do is
kill you, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or a Libertarian. Your
Libertarian president would probably just ignore 9-11 and just let the
terrorists go free to continue their war on the United States until it too
becomes a slave of Islam. If you are not a Muslim, you are an enemy to be
destroyed or converted. And even then, Muslims also hate Muslims of
different faiths.

Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
starters) that want the United States of the World.


Deliberate ignorace is still stupid.

--
Mike D.

www.stopassaultnow.org

Remove .spamnot to respond by email


--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

"Polybus" wrote in message
om...
"Nik" wrote in message
...
"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you

Hmmm, first of all: the US was NEVER attacked by Iraq, NEVER EVER
EVER. Moreover, Iraq was a secular, socialist 'One Nation' state
(Baathism, remember?) where even some moderate religious factions
where being oppressed.

people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that

If Guantanamo is any indication of how American government works;... I
believe I'd probably rather be living on the other side of the fence
in Cuba - where people, although not free, have at least free
education, social security, the beach, the sex and the rumba....

when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike

Hmmm, you're right the we attacked !!! Under false pretences (What
happened to the WMD?), to serve the interests of W. Bush and his
military junta (www.pnac.org); and we now find ourselves in a dirty
mess. Besides, in my view it remains very doubtful if the majority
really supported the invasion. The invasion of Iraq has only been
possible, thanks to a high degree of media manipulation, intelligence
failures, intellectual dishonesty and presidential lies, political
corruption and corporate influence. An absolute folly, for which we'll
be paying for generations to come !!! Don't mention the hundreds of
soldiers that are dying in this foreign country.

Meanwhile innocent people (most of them unlucky bystanders, who've
never been off their lands or out of their village) are rotting away
in their cages at Guantanamo - being isolated incommunicado (without
ever having seen/ever seeing ANYONE!) for years at a time, not to
mention the absence of legal counseling or the
communication/information of their due legal process. All we know is
that W. Bush (the centrepoint of the executive branch, who disposes
over almost dictatorial executive power) has already branded them to
be 'very, very bad people'. At least a President who's received a
bachelor's degree in HISTORY from Yale University in 1968, should know
that this is in clear breach with the international conventions on
human rights and POW.

Finally, can someone explain me why one has to be a "LIBERAL", a
"PEACENIK" or an "ATHEIST" to be against what's going at Guantanamo
??? Where is the humanity in that "black and white", "you are with us
or against us" kind of argument? What the hell happened to
Compassionate Conservatism and to the new Ethics at the White House??

You have a measure of good point here. However, these are not just
prisoners, but prisoners of war. They are being treated as such. Prisoners
of war do not get trials. They are simply held until hostilities cease and
then are dealt with. The only trial that needs to be held is whether or not
the American-born people still hold American citizenship since they joined a
foreign and hostile military. You are correct here. These American-born
men need a speedy trial to determine if they are considered traitors or
prisoners of war.

--
Mike D.

www.stopassaultnow.org

Remove .spamnot to respond by email

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
They have been taking pot shots at US aircraft for the better part of
last
ten years, they tried to assassinate an American president, they
supported
terror again the US and our allies.

Give us a break. The West (U.S. and Britian specifically) have been
raping the Middle East of their one and only major natural resource
for the better part of a century now. In addition to dictating what
kinds of governments these countries are allowed to have, forcefully
overthrowing those we don't like (in a few cases, democratically
elected governments), and otherwise doing everything we can to
treat Arab countries like dog **** and make as many enemies in the
region as possible. Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
this fight.

Remember Kuwuit? What did we do to provoke 9-11? Forgetting that the
Muslim oil producing nations use their profits to fund terror against all
non-Muslims?


Rick

"robert" wrote in message
et...

snipped

Ah but he will be reelected. There is no strong personality to replace
him.



Of course he will, if he can just get Georgia to buy those Diebold machines
and 'go along with the rest of the country' (HA!).

If Maryland stays ****ed off, but pays 'out the yin-yang' for a paper trail
for *their* Diebold machines anyway, though, King Shrub may be in for a
bumpy ride. I don't think this lot is gonna get away with trying to 'fix'
things for this elections. Too many people have too many reservations about
'touch-screen voting' (thank GOD).

Maybe when it's time for Hillary! to debut as a 'serious contender' for Prez
in '08. I'm sure the Clintons haven't served their, erm, 'higher purpose'
yet...

BTW, a 'strong personality' has nothing to do with it. The Dems have SEVERAL
'strong personalities', but none of them (Kucinich, Clark, Sharpton, and
Mosley-Braun) have a prayer. At least, so sayeth "The Great And Powerful
News", especially at ABC
(http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_121003.php).

Before it's all over, you mark my words: the 'major television networks' are
going to see to it that none of these 'strong personalities' get much (if
any) airtime. And they'll screw the Libertarian Party again, too, just like
they did in 2000.

Civil disobedience? You betcha. I think it's time. If you go to vote, and
someone wants you to 'touch the screen' to cast your vote, tell 'em you want
a 'paper trail', and you aren't leaving until you get one. I wanna see the
local election authorities try to have someone arrested for making a stink
at the precinct about *that*. It would be verrrrry interesting....

Hell, I've run out of fingers already, counting the number of my lawyer pals
who would love to get their hands on a case like that.

mellstrr--wishing, hoping...

"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

Finally, can someone explain me why one has to be a "LIBERAL", a
"PEACENIK" or an "ATHEIST" to be against what's going at Guantanamo
??? Where is the humanity in that "black and white", "you are with us
or against us" kind of argument? What the hell happened to
Compassionate Conservatism and to the new Ethics at the White House??

You have a measure of good point here. However, these are not just
prisoners, but prisoners of war. They are being treated as such.
Prisoners
of war do not get trials. They are simply held until hostilities cease
and
then are dealt with. The only trial that needs to be held is whether or
not
the American-born people still hold American citizenship since they joined
a
foreign and hostile military. You are correct here. These American-born
men need a speedy trial to determine if they are considered traitors or
prisoners of war.
--
Mike D.


You prick,... Do you have any idea of what's going on in Guantanamo? Ever
heard of the Geneva Conventions?? Locking people up incommunicado (for over
20 months now), very often torturing them for 'strategic reasons', to keep
them quiet, or as a way of collective punishment - is no way to treat a POW,
which is probably why the White House is doing everything it can to keep the
International Committee of the Red Cross out of its dirty business as much
as it can, and it is also why its dealings in Cuba have always been
condemned by the entire international community. This is an outright
scandal, with grave consequences for the international reputation of our
country, and W. Bush should, and will be sooner or later, held accountable
over this - if not in the U.S., then maybe before the ICJ.

Let me also remind you that many, if not most, of the Guantanamo detainees
are not fighters who were captured - but mere 'suspects', who were kidnapped
from their houses or from their land. In fact no independent international
organisation, or legislative or judicial U.S. branch, has any control over
what's going on at Guantanamo, over who is there, and why, and for how long,
and what's gonna happen to these people. Meanwhile, the what you call "POW"
and what the president has ruled to be "very, very bad people", are locked
up in cages, chained like animals, treated like the jews on the way to the
concentration camps and constantly beaten, humiliated and/or mentally
abused.

Let me also remind you that there are indeed plans to trial (some of) these
people, be it without - if any - 'proper' due process, without (independent)
legal counseling, although the risk the death penalty. There will be no
appeal. The death penalty, in extreme circumstances, maybe for war
criminals - but no way is it acceptable that the USA would start killing its
what-you-call POW, assuming that's what they are - but then again nobody
knows, because the President doesn't want to be bothered to tell us, or
Congres, or the media, or the UN, or the Red Cross, or Human Rights Watch,
or Amnesty International, or anyone else for that matter. And why should he,
nobody seems to be asking any serious questions, and nobody is able - for
the time being - to keep Bush and his bunch accountable for their acts.

I admit that your view on the Guantanamo POW is very widespread all over the
U.S., largely due to simple ignorance and outright manipulation of the
public opinion, which is made to believe that this is all part of the
so-called 'war on terror'. If that is so, I can only hope that we lose that
"War on Terror", because it certainly isn't my war.

And you, you are a scumbag.

The Shrub has alrady said that some of these guys are guilty. Guilty of what
could be asked since they have not had charges laid.
It is a joke that the Shrub then has final say after any trial that they
might get because he has already said thaye are guilty.
Anyway what sort of trial is it when the prosecution can listen in on
conferences between the lawyer that they allocate to the prisoner?

Craig Welch wrote:
The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?

Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
that? So hidden in your insular little world?

OK, lets rephrase the question: except for the United States, are there any
governments who decided to support the USA invasion of Iraq with the support
of their citizens ?

What financial incentives (read: blackmail) did the USA have to provide to all
those former eastern block countries in exchance for their lack of opposition
to the invasion of Iraq ?

Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's wishes
despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.


Any and every government must be held accountable for their actions outside
their own jurisdiction. Hussein wasn't right in invading Kuwait without the
support of the international community. The USA wasn't right in invading Iraq
without the support of the international community.

Just as there were sanctions against Iraq for having invaded Kuwait, there
should be sanctions against the USA for having invaded Iraq. And the first
person who shoudl be tried at that new Iraqi war crimes tribunal is Goerge W
Bush along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz.

The USA must pay for the damages, but anyone who participated in the
destruction/invasion of Iraq should be under sanctions to prohibit these
countries from benefiting from reconstruction money.

Irak is not populated by neanderthals. They are intelligent enough to decide
how their country shoudl be reconstructed, and more importantly, who should
help them reconstruct it.

Only if Iraq holds a referendum and the pupulation does decide to become a USA
territory/possession would the USA have any right to decide on how Iraq
rebuilds or is administered.

In article "Mike Dobony" writes:



I second your opinion. Bush will win big in 04 precisely because he's done the
right things.


For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or they
would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up those
rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military he
ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in
another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily swares
an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.

That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have
just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
again and again and again.

Corse