Detained at the whim of the president

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

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.

You're wrong,,,is there a US Flag flying on the base?? It's not US
soil sorry Ken.. But I see your point. Good point.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:46:36 -0800, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?
Ken.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:34:02 GMT, user wrote:
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.

I'll beleive that one someone flies a plane into Canary Wharf or
[some-tall-building-in-Japan].


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that things
would be so much easier if he were one?


-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

Nope, you aren't. Sorry.

Good luck trying to convince the sheeple that they've been had. I've been
trying for months.

mellstrr--it's a dirty job, but somebody better do it soon...

Ken Davey wrote:
Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Bush Jr defenders content that Gantanamo isn't technically US Soil. It is
Cuban soil that is leased to the americans.

However, nobody debates the fact that the folks were kidnapped and are being
held by american citizens under orders from the american government.

Funny how the USA conveniently uses the argument that since Gantanamo is not
US territory, its rules don't apply, but its rules applies outside its own
territory when it so convenient (for instance, bringing back that Walker
fellow as a showcase prize and trying him in USA courts.

Bush has gotten away with the kidnapping and illegal detention at Gantanamo
(and many US prosons across the USA) of civilians and military from
Afghanistan because the american media and public were gullible enough to
believe those claims that the kidnapped humans had no human rights.

Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?
Ken.

James Robinson wrote:
The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it.

So what if somebody turned up at Guantanamo with an court order from
Cuba's highest court?

Cheers
David

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:18:23 +0800, "Nik"
wrote:




And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
rent.

That is incorrect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1731704.stm

"Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a
year and now worth just over $4,000, even though Mr Castro refuses to cash
the cheques. "



greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

A few things don't ring true here.

If it isn't US soil what right does the US have to keep people there? If the
US has a right to keep them there why shouldn't they be subject to US law?
If not US law, then what law governs them?

Surely there must be some law that applies to them.

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?

"mellstrr" wrote in message
...

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
would be so much easier if he were one?


-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo
they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I
am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

Nope, you aren't. Sorry.

Good luck trying to convince the sheeple that they've been had. I've been
trying for months.

mellstrr--it's a dirty job, but somebody better do it soon...

"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??