I think I have said this before though; I am not sure indefinite detention is preferable to execution. I am not sure I would prefer it, and I am a sedentary intellectual type. For a man accustomed to being outside and physically active, it wold probably be worse.
On 3/22/08, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For em it's not even about terrorists, it's about POW vs. illegal > combatant. It's easy to define. If they aren't in the uniform of a > country, carrying that countries military ID, then they are an illegal > combatant. Thats the litmus test set by the Geneva convention and what > we've been following for decades. > > With illegal combatants the convention allows us to execute them > summarily without trial. Thats why I'm always saying we treat them far > better than they are even entitled to under international law. > > denstar 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:257190 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
