one thing we should learn from Bush is the importance of definition. I don't know how closely you followed the Otero Mesa debate but, there you had concerns that drilling for oil there might pollute the largest aquifer in a state where water is already a huge concern. Not to worry, the drilling will not produce any pollution; pollution has been defined to not include petroleum-based contaminants. I feel so much better.
That definition of terrorist? I don't have it to hand and I need to go deal with the rest of my life, by I read it carefully a while back and realized that if someone really wanted to they could apply it to me for opposing the Wal-Mart they want to build at Menaul and Wyoming. Marty Chavez hasn't quite reached that level of paranoia yet, but the point is, should he, he could. On 3/22/08, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh noes! We need Danas! :-) > > Seriously, I think that the reason this Bush could have done so much > good, and ended up doing so much evil, stems directly from the lack of > challenge to power. > > Bush kept asking for ponies, and congress just kept giving them to him. > > Challeng is exactly what we need. > > But I'm intrigued about the POWs and combatants... and the > definitions... we're debating that in the courts now too, sorta like > torture, right? > > Isn't it kind of scary when it's so easy to be defined as, say, a > terrorist, and terrorists get treated "special"? > > -- > "What potions have I drunk of Siren tears, > Distill'd from limbecks foul as hell within, > Applying fears to hopes, and hopes to fears, > Still losing when I saw myself to win!" > ---- Will - Sonnets > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > combatant != prisoner of war > > > > You should move, seriously. We don't want you. We have enough loonies > > that belong here. > > > > > > > > Dana wrote: > > > i have been trying to stay out of this because really, I don't have > > > time. However let me try one more time... > > > > > > > > >> I spent two years working with former Soviet states on energy programs > > and I > > >> often used former Russian defectors as interpreters. > > > > > > And what did you learn from this? You're defending the right of the > > > governement to just come take you away, my friend. Really, you are. > > > Because if it is ok to do this to terrorists... you need to check out > > > the definition of terrorist. > > > > > >> In some rosy past when we were nice little American boys and girls? > > That's a > > >> fairy tale. > > > > > > and yet it is still true according to you below. You aren't making sense. > > > > > >>> We had a stance like "you can torture us, but we will not torture > > >>> you"-- we WILL NOT SINK TO THAT LEVEL. > > >>> > > >> We still do. The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib have been tried and > > convicted. > > >> The CIA secret jails thing has been hashed out in public and in > > Congress. > > >> The waterboarding thing has been all over the news forever. > > > > > > The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib :) ha. A few soldiers who followed > > > orders were sacrificed like pawns. The secret jails, the > > > extraordinary renditions, the black flights have *not* been hashed > > > out. You've still never heard of Maher Arar and there is still a > > > fifteen year old boy at Guantanamo being held without legal > > > representation because of who his family knows. > > > > > >> I'm implying no such thing. I'm suggesting that at the highest > > >>> levels, the "definition" of torture is being tested. > > >>> > > >> That is why we have an indepedent judiciary, to provide clarity on the > > >> limits of Executive and Legislative power. > > > > > > Yes and the Executive says it does not want to be reviewed by the > > > judiciary. DId you sleep through the whole FISA thing? > > > > > >> If you believe that then you obviously haven't studied Constitutional > > >> history. People are people, they do good and bad. Our structure of > > >> government is designed to contain the damage that can be done by any > > single > > >> branch of government, precisely because the Founders expected each > > branch of > > >> government to push the envelope. > > > > > > Yes but the Constitution you think protects us is being blatantly > > disregarded. > > > > > >> I don't support it. I support specific measures that are finite in > > scope and > > >> duration to combat terrorism. As I noted in another thread, this > > business of > > >> using the Patriot Act to nail Spitzer for prostitution is no good, and > > the > > >> rules need to be changed. > > > > > > But see, that's just it. SInce anyone can be a terrorist -- you really > > > need to check out that definition --- all those measures apply to > > > *everyone.* And a measure that is for the duration of the war on > > > terror might as well be eternal. > > > > > >> They don't have uniforms, but they definitely are combatants. Why don't > > you > > >> ask one of the soldiers on the list if they think they guys shooting at > > them > > >> in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't combatants? > > > > > > But they aren't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you. > > > They are not combattants and therefore the Geneva Convention is quaint > > > and and they can be locked up as long as the administratoin pleases. > > > If you don't believe me just ask Alberto Gonzales. > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257189 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
