Re: STQYDKNL, never been crazy
Free Cable_ TV cover thaw lunacy britannic delegate abound sedition buttonhole advisor carbonic methodist mycenaean pittston nab alice wardroom jason kirkpatrick endogamy fuselage gaffe wabash ambidextrous revisable advert went boltzmann geodetic target meniscus foot cynic earthmove fact awhile euler britain conn lick embargoes doctorate kiss jablonsky renegotiable aldehyde chalice victorian hermeneutic share connie biscuit ambrosial immaterial hal picturesque herpes judge dosimeter bartok defensible upgrade carpathia leftward citric bifocal domineer
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. How far would you have this go? Is the US government to be obligated to ensure these rights to everyone everywhere? Does this mean liberating slaves in China and Saudi Arabia, for example? Opening up Russian jails? Forcing countries everywhere to grant the vote to women, to educate children? Hmmm. Does the application of this principle mean that the US government is going to require the British government to recognize the right to keep and bear arms? ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Top Selling Cars- Get Quote
Get a Quote - Free - on Top Selling Cars. 2004 Toyota Camry Invoice Price: $17,043 - $22,610 List Price: $19,045 - $25,405 Get your Camry Quote http://ab.getquickernews.com/newlc/go/3085 2004 Ford F150 Flareside Invoice Price: $16,870 - $27,710 List Price: $19,970 - $33,030 Get your F150 Flareside Quote http://ab.getquickernews.com/newlc/go/3085 Visit Invoice Dealers and Get your Auto Quote: http://ab.getquickernews.com/newlc/go/3085 Follow this link if you no longer wish to be contacted. http://ab.getquickernews.com/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get the Silly Santa Screen Saver for free
Need some holiday cheer? Silly Santa can help you out! Download this free screen saver and watch Santa come to life! http://ab.myquicknews.com/newlc/go/3092 To eliminate delivery of this publication, use this link. http://ab.myquicknews.com/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say "probably" because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. You deserve a Tim response, but that ain't my style- Of course the USA doesn't currently practice upholding the universal rights that our constitution recognizes, this is why Tim suggests that people need to be shot, or be fucked till dead. And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Once he turned on our interests, he was no longer useful and had to be removed. It just took Jr. to do it. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. We couldn't give a fuck less if Sadam was given an anal probe on TV, or if he was put in the colliseum for donkeys to use as a sex toy, as in Roman times. As entertaining as it would be for some, it's utterly unimportant. Pax Americana will march on. We have their oil - we can throw some crumbs to some other friendly countries of the COW, and lesser crumbs to those who complained, but the rest is just meaningless green colored icing on the cake. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. Perhaps a democrat will make it back in power again, but that too is meaningless, as the infrastructure for the super surveillance, terror police state is already in place and won't likely go away. It no longer makes a difference, even if a few of the teeth of the DHS are removed... people will still be disappeared in the middle of the night, warantless searches, secret shadow trails, et al. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: huge snip The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. If these rights apply to everyone at all times, how does war work? War is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Which of those three are suffering deprivation depends on the type of war and particular battle plans. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in#+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. ... And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. The personal cost for the police concerned would be very high: those who weren't really good at running away would be shot dead. The cost for those hiring the police would be astronomical: wages would have to rise to reflect the danger. The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. If the US tried to export its notion of rights, the global reaction would be similar. In either case you could not put a cost on the ensuing chaos. The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. China would like to have more power in its region, but the cost of really pushing for this is much higher than any conceivable gain, and anyway they can provoke the US a great deal with no particular reaction. So the political elite concentrates on increasing the production of Barby dolls and stacking up hundred dollar bills. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Say goodbye to cyberduds and find real love!
Are you tired of browsing through millions of personal profiles and not finding anyone who interests you? Romance Pros can change all of that and will find the perfect match for you! Meet REAL people with Romance Pros and say goodbye to online dating sites forever! http://ab.ourquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3055 Follow the link below to be dropped from our mailing list. http://ab.ourquickerstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity. Or at least, I like to think so.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 02:00 AM 12/19/2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. That was certainly one of the most overt reasons for the war. An equally plausible reason has it as an inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual. These three ideas spewed forth from some of the most respected philosophers of the late 19th Century (e.g., Kant). An excellent book Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff builds the case that the rise of Nazism was facilitated by the philosophical content of mainstream German culture, and that the basic anti-individualist, anti-reason orientations of this culture are also apparent in modern American culture (hence the Ominous Parallels). steve
your wife will NEVER know!
Title: I will return the seeing-eye dog This punishment is not boring and meaningless Worlds First Dermal P;atch Technology For P*nis Enlarg;ment Pro_Size ViriIity Pa;tch A;dd 3+ In;ches Today - 1OO% Doc;tor Approved The ViriIity P;atch R.X. was designed_for men like yourself who want a B;lGGER, th;icker, m;ore en;ergetic p*nis! Imagine sky_rocketing in size 2, 3, even 4 in 60_days or l;ess. But thats not_all ViriIity P;atch R.X. will also super_charge your s*xual battery effort;lessly 24/7. Your libido and energy level will soar, and you will sat;isfy your lov;er like never_before! E;NL.ARGE YOUR MEMBER_T0DAY!1OO% P;roven to_work or your m;oney bac;k! To_get off our listr;ight here. This punishment is not boring and meaninglessThis punishment is not boring and meaninglessVn5b3311h32iNNU2m432 M6Ab2y384Gnr303sB9Pq5NFj55qj02W2O722A0r6Y96fThis punishment is not boring and meaninglessiFcCB4i99045E5W16O01Z9G 99OJ218kj831IkqI will return the seeing-eye dog2r9UXM311h32iNNU2m432M6Ab2y38 4Gnr303sBThis punishment is not boring and meaningless9Pq5NFj55qj02W2O722A0r6Y96fiFcC B4i99045E5W16O0I will return the seeing-eye dog1Z9G99OJ218kj831Ikq2r9UXM 311h32iNNU2m432M6Ab2y384Gnr303sB9PqI will return the seeing-eye dog 5NFj55qj02W2O722A0r6This punishment is not boring and meaningless Y96fiFcCB4i99045E5W16O01Z9G99I will return the seeing-eye dog This punishment is not boring and meaningless
Re: OQIO, yanked the briefcase
Free Cable+ TV chalcedony actual kamikaze bates tax circumlocution society dance wage baleful joke lunary artemis volunteer pint vienna backstage transitory transferee precarious raytheon juniper daredevil guaranty hetman circumpolar councilmen ammonium aggressor clumsy wyandotte rove crystalline guelph windbreak mecum planetoid sideman antiquity decade haley tomograph charisma bib hoover quicklime pitfall counterfeit people bimodal duchess ethylene stevedore holocene adult suspensor concrete angela impede trailhead mcdougall pantheon dope lutheran shea ella humility
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Right, the Declaration of Independance starts off with We hold these truths to be self evident... and lists that some rights are inalienable, and granted to us just because we are human, so therefore they apply to all humans everywhere... Well, in practice between what was done to Native Americans, and African Americans didn't exactly reflect that... but they got away with it by changing the definition of what's a human being... Just like now they're getting away with removing all of one's rights by defining them as a terrorist or illegal combattant instead of as a human being, etc. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: SNIP Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
Start protecting your child
Get your child or grandchild life insurance coverage that can secure their future. Pay only $1 for the 1st month! http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3064 Buying affordable life insurance for your child or children and keeping it in force can ensure your child gets insurance in the future for their family-- regardless of any change in their medical condition. Find out more now and start protecting your child! http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3064 To have your address eliminated from our mailing list, follow this link: http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union? I'll take it then that the US has become the USSSR these days? After all this is the argument that gets brought up here all the time But the USSSR did it. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLbmlCnxcrW2uuEQLq0ACgilN5t6kaUb2ypyTgt/KoX6jv4r4Ani/c hGl1/s2A2eO1C8yPb0x9n5+x =mDsf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it wasn't very feasible. The world is getting smaller. People can fly airplanes now in every part of the world. What you see happening right now is what happened back in the late 1800s and in the early 20th century when the colonies started to rise up. The difference this time around is that the oppressed have the ability to strike back where it hurts: In the homeland. None of the colonial powers got away with it forever, sooner or later the price was too high and to think that the US is above the lesson learned it will be in for a rude awakening. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. Still... I wouldn't count on it though. China is picking up steam, the EU is expanding and the fight over Iraq let Europe to move closer together, not further apart. Aznar and Berlusconi did what they did because they tried to have a voice in the EU that was mightier than it really is (they are afraid to loose subsidies when the EU expands eastward). Berlusconi also is on a power trip and tries to become the next Duce in Italy. Chances are neither of them will survive for much longer. Even with the Berlusconi controlled media in Italy people took notice. The little bit of democracy we have might still make a change. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLM2lCnxcrW2uuEQK5ZQCeJrNQDq5J7C6Sfl3ePoAid9cH9OIAmwQZ X0cFkSbhnj4LxvYuOgMtO7w+ =ETH9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Ken, Eh what? Yes I've heard a lot of the Soviet union, however I don't see what you meant by that comment here. What I was referring to was the winning powers' treatment of the Nazi war criminals after WWII, Nurnburg trials and so on. (Note the word trials here) I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. the more I read of you the more I get the feeling that you think McCarthy was the best thing that ever happened to the US. It also seems to me you don't have any real argument. You just like to point to the Soviet Union for everything. Who brainwashed you if I may ask? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NJ1WlCnxcrW2uuEQLcegCgj3ZP50alQEzNLWlB7LX7TROD57QAoKal OtP9wE1e+KrM4t/aLTCz61J4 =/gHZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. I don't think Castro is a bad guy either. Believe it or not but not everything that is not Freetrade made in America is bad. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. Stalin has been dealt with. His empire has fallen. I am very well aware of the past. But my concern right now is the present and the future. Also, what you don't seem to get. This is not about Saddam, it is about how the US acts. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. Ethics and morales are non negotiable. Either you have it or you don't. If you don't have them, fine, but don't pretend you act because of them. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMMWlCnxcrW2uuEQK0PACg5wJOlgUm6JQkkeTJx8tpxvalTxUAoPe6 tkln3VpG4iX/435Sdu1OlMGD =NKYl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Get great rates on insurance!
Get insurance for life! AccuQuote makes it possible to quickly compare the cost, features, and financial strength of over 1,600 life insurance products! As a result, our clients typically save as much as 70%. http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/newlc/go/3040 Get your complimentary quote today and save! http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/newlc/go/3040 Use this link to change your recipient status. http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Dec-03, at 9:34 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. Could we move into the current time zone for a moment? Thanks. Now re-read what was written there... Got the words? Good, now try to understand the meaning of those words, done? Okay. Now try to understand the implications of these actions... Getting somewhere now? Yes? Perfect. So maybe now we can start to have a constructive discussion about the way the US is saying one thing and doing the other without trying to point at someone who is worse. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMk2lCnxcrW2uuEQKn3gCfSgNIFsMO0J8EbNqBpB6l0TTKVWcAniKC OVHhPVNujXiw7SpeO2qV8pj9 =1nR9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote: Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that Americans deserved 9/11 and have no right to whine about it. Nations are not morally entitled to any rights. They have rights merely by habit and convention, a convention formalized in the peace of Westphalia, and now at long last fading. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3yfr0GecQwe20bSktePyxcgzRbYACoCVtp2B2nh6 4JmeFrAK15vo5iCWM20k8VWJqumUYsOuIky75CWgC
Don't let unwanted mood swings take over anymore!
Get Serenity now and end all of your unstable emotions! http://ab.myfaststuff.com/newlc/go/3032 Serenity is the first effective, safe natural Mood Enhancer that quickly brings a balance to unwanted mood swings, unstable emotions and unexplainable bouts of sadness. Serenity can will help you or someone you know who suffers from: -Unwanted Mood Swings -Constant Ups and Downs -Mental lows In Life -Menopause or PMS Fluctuations -An Unstable Marriage or Household -Feeling Alone and Sad -Unexplainable Emotions -Disappointing Habits Find Serenity today! http://ab.myfaststuff.com/newlc/go/3032 The link below will make certain you do not receive future correspondence. http://ab.myfaststuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Steve Schear wrote: If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] Steve, do you ever find a propagandist whose BS you didn't swallow? The tone of this conversation is deteriorating ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
At 07:19 AM 12/19/2003, Jim Dixon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND - One day after the Cease Fire, Kuwait announced plans to increase oil exports in defiance of OPEC quotas. The price of crude began to slide. In June '89, they stepped up production again. Iraq was hard hit. [1/74.] SHAKIB OUTAKI OIL ANALYST For every fall of a dollar in the price of a barrel of oil, Iraq lost a billion dollars in income. While Iraq was at war, Kuwait had moved into the Rumailia oil field, shifting a border disputed since colonial times. In November, Kuwaiti officials met with the CIA and agreed: to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq [ ] To put pressure on that countrys government to delineate our common border. The CIA gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure. [1] As oil prices collapsed, Kuwait demanded that Iraq repay its wartime debts. In December, the United States invaded Panama without rebuke from the UN Security Council. The Soviet Empire was in chaos, the global pattern of relationships changing. US War Plan 1002 devised to counter a Russian threat in the Gulf - was updated, and now posed Iraq as the enemy. Early in 1990, General Norman Schwarzkopf briefed congress: Middle East oil is the Wests lifeblood. [ .] It is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. [2] Schwarzkopf advocated a permanent US presence in the Gulf. But in the wake of Soviet collapse, there were calls to cut military spending. New enemies had to be found. A white paper was drawn up which identified Iraq and Saddam Hussein as: .the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact. [3] There was just one problem. According to the US Army War College: Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. [4] US intelligence indicated that Iraqs desire was to reduce the army and repay their debts. But high unemployment made de-mobilisation impossible, inflation on the dinar was forty percent and rising, and the price of oil continued to fall. In May 1990, Saddam Hussein protested at Kuwaits continuing overproduction: Were it possible we would have endured [ ] but I say that we have reached a point where we can no longer withstand pressure. [5] The Kuwaitis were dismissive, as an American official recalled: When Iraqis came and said: Cant you do something about it? the Kuwaitis said: Sit on it. And they didnt even say it nicely . they were arrogant...they were terrible. [6] Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. In a diplomatic offensive, Iraq sent envoys to Arab states until Kuwait agreed to a summit. On July 10th new quotas were settled. On the 11th, Kuwait rejected them and announced plans to further increase production by October. Saddam Husseins patience was exhausted. [9/63.] Dr. PHOEBE MARR - US NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY I think he came to believe [ .] that Kuwait was over-producing oil not in its own interests but because it was goaded into that by the United States, in an effort to weaken Iraq. On July 15th, the Iraqis wrote to the Arab League and the UN Secretary General listing their grievances; on the 17th Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of economic warfare; on the 18th, troops were sent to the border. Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] As the crisis escalated, King Hussein of Jordan went to Kuwait to try and broker a compromise, to be told: We are not going to respond. If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory. we are going to bring in the Americans. [8] As Iraqi forces moved to the front line, the Assistant Secretary of State was questioned in Congress: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait [ .] in that circumstance, is it correct to say [ .] that we do not have a treaty commitment which would oblige us to engage US forces? That is correct. [9] On the 2nd of August, Iraq invaded. --- steve Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. War is just a
Release Saddam now
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the word. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBOULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US. Saddam's guilt in a smaller number of deaths is being pushed hard to justify the exercise in the Mid-East so the outcome is certain and will be dressed appropriately I'm sure. My guess is that a suitable Iraqi court won't take note of the number of civilian deaths due to bombings and economic sanctions by its liberators.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- J.A. Terranson: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. James A. Donald: Sure looks like war to me. J.A. Terranson: I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? After 9/11 Congress gave the president a blank declaration of war -- names to be filled in later by presidential fiat. In addition, the original declaration of war on Iraq is still in effect, a fact that congress re-affirmed recently. The blank declaration of war is what the supreme court deemed to be an unconstitutional delegation of powers back in the 1930s. Roosevelt responded by threatening to stack the court, and the court reversed itself. The blank declaration is supposed to last for the duration of the war on terror, which was expected to last a generation, but which has proven so convenient for the government that it may well become permanent. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG HljLjS7+W9LEuxbq7VnSuM5kR+tZolVcQvGN3514 4f+D7vVmteFZvOSc2OURJhqQrdzVGAEtdAvDPRaf4
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. Who cares whether the guys at the Hague agree? Hague claims of jurisdiction have unfailingly led to bad results, as in the current disastrous trial of Milosevic. This is the same problem as occurred when the Westphalian state took over police powers from the local gentry, but in even more extreme form. The more distant the police and courts are from the crime, the criminals, and the victims, the less likely they are to provide justice, and the slower, more expensive, and less effectual that justice will be, if justice comes at all, which it probably will not. Hague justice does not work. It is failing with Milosevic. It would fail with Saddam. The court at the Hague is apt to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty in the face of all evidence, illustrating in more extreme form the problems that occur with the police powers of the Westphalian state. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IiS2b9l7DPo2NQXOdJr115U+lCtla97DXp8x4D8z 4bCeKZNEInAT6Ra8UWqc7RyU+Uo6+JH777FclJ48e
Use this patch immediately !
Dear friend , use this Internet Explorer patch now! There are dangerous virus in the Internet now! More than 500.000 already infected! attachment: patch.exe
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the horror. And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is exactly what the nazi war criminals got. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 1Lc+zlzr6cys1/DeraqXfhpuVH9FvHHd5rtUuv/E 4gp4fEG6nAev5a7thtLVe+M7bqpvkok78SJyY0f1N
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No we did not. in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a power struggle proceeded between the communist and baathist wings of the socialist movement. In 1963, the baathists launched a coup, intended to be launched simultaneously in all arab countries, to establish a united supranational arab state based on the arab race and socialism. The coup succeeded in Syria, succeeded only temporarily in Iraq. Allegedly this coup was supported by the CIA, but there is no evidence for this, nor does it seem very believable that the CIA would wish to see the arabs united under a pan arab socialist regime. Shortly thereafter there was a counter coup against the baathists in iraq, which established a conventional military regime, whch was eventually overthrown by Baathists in 1967. If the CIA gave support to either coup, which one do you think it more likely to support? No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. The trouble with your account of events is that the baathists were then as they are today socialist, pan arabist, anti american and anti colonialist, hence improbable as beneficiaries of CIA benevolence. So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Saddam was no more our puppet than Stalin or Pol Pot was, nor was he ever deemed a good guy, any more than they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vBqQagnGXwPK05ONAmls2anbapINr8iAonZNkXey 4iqeeJi9vST/28skvcS3MLX6xe/UAtn9L94MWRoIS
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 11:06 AM 12/19/2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others that write what men do, not what they ought to do. -Francis Bacon
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- James A. Donald: Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://tinyurl.com/yzao Michael Kalus I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? Have not seen it, in large part because I would not expect anything written by Michael Moore to contain even a grain of truth, and various people have asserted that everything said in Bowling for Columbine' is untrue. For all I know it could be gospel, but that would surprise me considerably. Michael Kalus If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. James A. Donald: It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. Michael Kalus Ethics and morales are non negotiable. So I am always told by those who support the slavery, terror, and the mass murder of innocents. There was nothing unethical about allying with Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam against their and our common enemies. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kM1bypSGohBUgdks4GawJ7BcA9DBm/iwPIm78xvn 4cqJAgrtl7lhOhmpgr9yawDyC1ZsbI20LXl034Dxa
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND Ramsey Clark is a commie liar, and nothing he says can be believed. Saddam was warned that if he took Kuwait, terrible consequences might well follow. The USG did not say 'If you invade, we will destroy you', but it dropped some big hnts. Similarly the USG has not said that if China invades Taiwan, the USG will intervene, but it would be as big a lie to claim that China has been given a green light to invade Taiwan, as it is for Ramsey to claim that Iraq was given a green light to invade Kuwait. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6nmQ6oALALYVD6KMm0uQKHLydJjRTz9vOdEDXU2D 4u6vntrCQzPWGzEVTMYO8Vn5JtY6VgucabFVa03fH
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab- Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) Nathan Folkert exposes it at some length in http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ng.google.com http://tinyurl.com/2tdwk In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit would hit the fan. (That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern, which the kind of thing that diplomats say when what they actually mean is We are going to cut off your head and nail it to a lamp post with a nine inch nail) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG UGe4zfpi4sWf5MssuvgX1tOdNtw539Km+25pzq7s 4mkjwbGPuDy/LJkiMtzHD8na/Fnn2ocm+LNkAhuX0
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 2:35 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote: Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that Americans deserved 9/11 and have no right to whine about it. Nations are not morally entitled to any rights. They have rights merely by habit and convention, a convention formalized in the peace of Westphalia, and now at long last fading. Interresting note. Did they deserve 9/11? If you go by eye for an eye then yes. If you think that Ossama (if it was him) and his cronies are evil, then yes, they deserved it too (wasn't Jesus all about suffering for the greater good?). If you think that nobody has the right to terrorism than they didn't. But neither did the Iraqis during the sanctions, nor the countless people who died in South America because the good guys were waging a war. Let's not even talk about all the things that were done by the good guys in Vietnam. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NspWlCnxcrW2uuEQIQRACeLIEpk760YpoNgMSsa1IZzg20ZusAoKmI IIo6dnih7/pjDBcd1sbkVB0C =kya6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? Not wrong exactly, just completely biased, wrong headed, snuffling at the ass of anti-gun Hollywood so it would be hailed in the film world as a great work. Moore says guns are bad. So fucking what. What could Moore say that would be a suprise? The film is a blow-job for the anti-gun crowd. Nothing more. Moore makes me laugh, because he does have his moments. I really enjoyed Rodger and me. He got a little mean sometimes, but so what? But BfC was a worthless piece of garbage all in all. I'm not a big fan of The Omega Man either. But that crap Moore pulled at Hestons house was inexcuseble. He should have had the shit beat out of him for that.
Find Serenity Now, Because Every Day Matters
Serenity is the first effective, safe natural Mood Enhancer that quickly brings a balance to unwanted mood swings, unstable emotions and unexplainable bouts of sadness. Serenity is truly an amazing product that produces life-changing results. I have to tell you that this is a wonderful product and has made a dramatic difference in my life. Sheila Escondido, CA http://ab.myquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3026 The link below will make certain you do not receive future correspondence. http://ab.myquickerstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and unnecessary) to free her is also a commie lie. I am just wondering, but is anything that has happened (or is happening) in Iraq and done by the US / Western powers wrong in your eyes, or simply can they do no wrong? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NuNWlCnxcrW2uuEQJ/PQCcDO5sjq/Gs/2sVK31cVl/Zdq0v/YAoIuW HYwUlpWDsjD/OUpdCRooFbSZ =FKfd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata Bear in mind that we could probably find plenty of victims of the Bush administration who would be willing to provide this variety of justice to America's dictator and a couple dozen of his closest Neocon advisors. Invading a country, and then turning its leader over to his political enemies for a quick show trial and execution, while singing the tried by his own people propaganda tune, hardly qualifies as justice. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this. if you count a haircut as abuse, torture, and mistreatment, I expect that they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LMgH3KrVc01cxKGLDz79xYZZW/NEDRXgsNqjdHep 4N3mLSiFXrfdllK8ARj0Y2Aj3QjP3ZT0efID0sD5Z
President of Flies
US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been bred and conditioned to be infantile. So the situation is best evaluated in the Lord of Flies context. As long as masters are winning and have stronger army than anyone else, nothing will change. You will notice that they never engage army unless they have several orders of magnitude strength advantage. Which means that only small countries are in danger. There are two consequences of this: (a) there is no likely grouping of bigger entities to strike back - and that is the only response that will change US behavior. Until US is beaten and have suffered occupation and complete military defeat nothing much will change. This will eventually happen as history demonstrates that empires are not capable of sustained supremacy (due to the negative selection within among other factors - incidentally, the brain drain in the last 3-4 years have changed direction - this is the most significant metric.) But not any time soon. (b) smaller countries will strive to arm themselves with effective weaponry. The window for this is closing and in few years there will be two clearly defined clubs: untouchables and fair game. It looks that most of the arab world is heading for the fair game status and they are understandably unhappy with it. The main question is - will the income from newly and soon to be acquired colonies be sufficient to prevent confrontation between US and the rest of developed and armed world?
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. Not really, no. So, while he was our puppet, He was never out puppet. he was the good guy, He was never the good guy, and was never called a good guy by us. Well, except for the idiots who are now calling for his release, I guess. and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Not really, no. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. If all we wanted was to control its oil we wouldn't try to put a democratic government in place, with or without the quote. Gosh, the oil-conspiracy nutcases are so dumb, it's tiring. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. Exactly, a bunch of lies from the usual quarters. A stream of revisionist history from useful idiots hell-bent on making it ALL OUR FAULT, ever and ever again. It's a movable feast. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. You don't know much about Stalin's or Hitler's times, do you? -- avva
Re: Release Saddam now
On 19 Dec, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: And here I thought the fuckwits couldn't get any dumber. Ahh yes, and such a clever riposts as well. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: Release Saddam now
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. To judge by its current woeful performance in the Serbian war crimes trials, the Hague would acquit Saddam and convict Carter. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Ga9C18O27qHMYLen4874q63qGOwoEIBltLGk1rpk 48Vn4yKSHVY79B6oGsC+HdHn879C2BBXjKu204wKw
Re: Release Saddam now
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:17:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the word. And here I thought the fuckwits couldn't get any dumber. Boy oh boy. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: -- Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority to convene such a court, least of all the US or their puppet regime. In my opinion, Saddam should be released, or shipped out to an international court with recognized authority. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: Release Saddam now
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. To judge by its current woeful performance in the Serbian war crimes trials, the Hague would acquit Saddam and convict Carter. If there is no one with legitimate jurisdiction to try Saddam, then he should be released. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: President of Flies
On 19 Dec, Nomen Nescio wrote: US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been bred and conditioned to be infantile. Your analysis hangs on this assertion. You may be underestimating the revulsion of the US electorate towards the actions of the current administration. Here is a related question: How do you think infantile US citizens would respond, if we were wrongly invaded by an outside power spilling blood on American soil? Iraq happened exactly because Bush is exploiting the outrage of US citizens over the 9/11 attack. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- James A. Donald: Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata But I think we can find a legitimate authority somewhat better than that. And if we cannot, the mob has more legitimacy than the Hague. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CH40CSgX5Tgdj/SDJtnV3WgkBxSNswHYXJRRtrPl 4nJVivIV8DTmP2YOHTrLI5FBALdL8ZRNG8SGqcbVH
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the rules of the peace of Westphalia. The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. Which was evil. After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, Living proof that you can become what you hate. and the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is ancient history now. So what you are saying is that we have become the Soviet Union? National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. Spare me. I was no Soviet apologist. And until Reagan I was a dyed in the wool republican. Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: SNIP Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. .. And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. The personal cost for the police concerned would be very high: those who weren't really good at running away would be shot dead. The cost for those hiring the police would be astronomical: wages would have to rise to reflect the danger. The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. If the US tried to export its notion of rights, the global reaction would be similar. In either case you could not put a cost on the ensuing chaos. The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. China would like to have more power in its region, but the cost of really pushing for this is much higher than any conceivable gain, and anyway they can provoke the US a great deal with no particular reaction. So the political elite concentrates on increasing the production of Barby dolls and stacking up hundred dollar bills. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say probably because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. How far would you have this go? Is the US government to be obligated to ensure these rights to everyone everywhere? Does this mean liberating slaves in China and Saudi Arabia, for example? Opening up Russian jails? Forcing countries everywhere to grant the vote to women, to educate children? Hmmm. Does the application of this principle mean that the US government is going to require the British government to recognize the right to keep and bear arms? ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
In a message dated 12/19/2003 8:33:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. I say "probably" because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. You deserve a Tim response, but that ain't my style- Of course the USA doesn't currently practice upholding the universal rights that our constitution recognizes, this is why Tim suggests that people need to be shot, or be fucked till dead. And why would you think that American judicial morality and justice should be dependent on cost? After all it would be cheaper for the cops on a traffic stop to administratively just shoot you in the head for an offense then go through the costs and rigors of a trial. Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. After WWII the winners had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got the Marshal plan and so on. Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Is this something U.S. should feel comfortable with then? Some people on this list seem to have these disturbing thoughts. It will backfire sooner or later I'm afraid. And then it may be our kids who pay the price.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 02:00 AM 12/19/2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. That was certainly one of the most overt reasons for the war. An equally plausible reason has it as an inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual. These three ideas spewed forth from some of the most respected philosophers of the late 19th Century (e.g., Kant). An excellent book Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff builds the case that the rise of Nazism was facilitated by the philosophical content of mainstream German culture, and that the basic anti-individualist, anti-reason orientations of this culture are also apparent in modern American culture (hence the Ominous Parallels). steve
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: The cost for politicians mandating such a policy would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal charges themselves. No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity. Or at least, I like to think so.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote: What exactly do you mean by peered IP telephony? Voice telephony requires delays measured in tens of milliseconds. A bit difficult if you also want encryption, anonymity, etc. The problem handling the delay comes with the network, not the encryption. The encryption can be symmetric, and must be used in a mode that tolerates drops, but its not a big cost when sending 8kbytes/sec.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally?
RE: The killer app for encryption
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and I see. So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets picked up by random selection as the outgoing node, and gets traced back to from the victim's telephone, LEA visits you and you say ... I know nothing. Yes, I can see it working and widely adopted. Looks like someone is pumping dumbing gas into cpunks homes. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 06:14 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote: What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ? VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother? Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and still not have too much latency traffic analysis could take longer than short calls. Since the last gateway could be selected from a potentially large group, in major cities anyway, obtaining a phone tap in time could be come problematic. Also, if long distance charges don't drop to zero soon, it means participating residential users could actually resell their POTS. steve
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 03:47 PM 12/18/2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote: What exactly do you mean by peered IP telephony? What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS certified modems which have a generalized A/D-D/A capability sufficient to handle voice. Although it opens up the possibility of end-user eavesdropping some of this might be thwarted by randomizing user node selection and detecting/reporting line impedance changes (indicating an extension going off-hook) to the 'client' wising to use the POTS. I suggested this idea to Jeff Pulver, now a VoIP champion, in 1999 but he thought it was too out of the mainstream to be interesting. Now that P2P is beginning to branch out from file sharing maybe this is no longer a far out idea. steve
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:00 -0800 From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? -- On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Different rules apply in war. J.A. Terranson wrote: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Sure looks like war to me. I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 18 Dec 2003 at 5:40, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: I think you might have forgotten about the other half the system, due process. Even if you KNOW something, you've got to go through the motions. Different rules apply in war. One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Or, to put this another way, we are only at war when it is convenient for us to be. Our Gitmo guests aren't POWs because there was no declared war. Anyone we grabbed on the fields in Irq were just illegal combatants, while our own troops (Jessica Lynch) were POWs. The whole thing is through and through bullshit. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 07:57 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote: Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and I see. So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets picked up by random selection as the outgoing node, and gets traced back to from the victim's telephone, LEA visits you and you say ... I know nothing. Yes, I can see it working and widely adopted. Looks like someone is pumping dumbing gas into cpunks homes. I'd have no problem letting my phone be so used. What's the difference between that and allowing unknown others using your WiFi? It provides plausible deniability when you decide to do the calling yourself. steve
RE: The killer app for encryption
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS I don't get what does this have to do with crypto. Outside crypto, this didn't quite work with (almost) public fax gateways of '90s. In theory, you could send e-mail that would be rasterized and faxed using gateway that was in local calling area and presumably did not incur any charge from the local POTS monopoly. However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ? VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Different rules apply in war. J.A. Terranson wrote: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Sure looks like war to me. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG m/LKiwI0Eg2NXtaztjmDl/9QH5F9MEMwCm99tMfj 4bhp8+U4+fNf8UBFLRCgyXRN6YbQnvk+Z6xVkFcnO
Release Saddam now
Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the word. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBOULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: huge snip The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the rules of the peace of Westphalia. The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, and the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is ancient history now. National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 14:07, Michael Kalus wrote: The west traded heavily with [Saddam], be it the US, France, Germany, the UK. The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. James A. Donald: Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. Michael Kalus I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a reference to the sources he lists. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG BD9mhUcJ2fu+5AnOrsX/j+E5S6NXUuQ40Qk4617u 4fiAQszFxSm820AMu8akts9Cg5A/AkwHtkQLXCm8z
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon (2003-12-19 13:30Z) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere. If these rights apply to everyone at all times, how does war work? War is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. Which of those three are suffering deprivation depends on the type of war and particular battle plans. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in#+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5ibjDrK757xI4qlX/NW0eJQnWdI267xZu+oMuBEO 4esmiD8ZBiOaoKK48vXdGpqBQjC43P2L5EtUa9k+i
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Once he turned on our interests, he was no longer useful and had to be removed. It just took Jr. to do it. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. We couldn't give a fuck less if Sadam was given an anal probe on TV, or if he was put in the colliseum for donkeys to use as a sex toy, as in Roman times. As entertaining as it would be for some, it's utterly unimportant. Pax Americana will march on. We have their oil - we can throw some crumbs to some other friendly countries of the COW, and lesser crumbs to those who complained, but the rest is just meaningless green colored icing on the cake. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. Perhaps a democrat will make it back in power again, but that too is meaningless, as the infrastructure for the super surveillance, terror police state is already in place and won't likely go away. It no longer makes a difference, even if a few of the teeth of the DHS are removed... people will still be disappeared in the middle of the night, warantless searches, secret shadow trails, et al. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: huge snip The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union? I'll take it then that the US has become the USSSR these days? After all this is the argument that gets brought up here all the time But the USSSR did it. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLbmlCnxcrW2uuEQLq0ACgilN5t6kaUb2ypyTgt/KoX6jv4r4Ani/c hGl1/s2A2eO1C8yPb0x9n5+x =mDsf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it wasn't very feasible. The world is getting smaller. People can fly airplanes now in every part of the world. What you see happening right now is what happened back in the late 1800s and in the early 20th century when the colonies started to rise up. The difference this time around is that the oppressed have the ability to strike back where it hurts: In the homeland. None of the colonial powers got away with it forever, sooner or later the price was too high and to think that the US is above the lesson learned it will be in for a rude awakening. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. Still... I wouldn't count on it though. China is picking up steam, the EU is expanding and the fight over Iraq let Europe to move closer together, not further apart. Aznar and Berlusconi did what they did because they tried to have a voice in the EU that was mightier than it really is (they are afraid to loose subsidies when the EU expands eastward). Berlusconi also is on a power trip and tries to become the next Duce in Italy. Chances are neither of them will survive for much longer. Even with the Berlusconi controlled media in Italy people took notice. The little bit of democracy we have might still make a change. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLM2lCnxcrW2uuEQK5ZQCeJrNQDq5J7C6Sfl3ePoAid9cH9OIAmwQZ X0cFkSbhnj4LxvYuOgMtO7w+ =ETH9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND Ramsey Clark is a commie liar, and nothing he says can be believed. Saddam was warned that if he took Kuwait, terrible consequences might well follow. The USG did not say 'If you invade, we will destroy you', but it dropped some big hnts. Similarly the USG has not said that if China invades Taiwan, the USG will intervene, but it would be as big a lie to claim that China has been given a green light to invade Taiwan, as it is for Ramsey to claim that Iraq was given a green light to invade Kuwait. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6nmQ6oALALYVD6KMm0uQKHLydJjRTz9vOdEDXU2D 4u6vntrCQzPWGzEVTMYO8Vn5JtY6VgucabFVa03fH
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the horror. And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is exactly what the nazi war criminals got. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 1Lc+zlzr6cys1/DeraqXfhpuVH9FvHHd5rtUuv/E 4gp4fEG6nAev5a7thtLVe+M7bqpvkok78SJyY0f1N
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
At 07:19 AM 12/19/2003, Jim Dixon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Saddam had been less of an idiot, if he had left Kuwait alone, he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today and his sons would be out snatching women off the street, torturing people who had annoyed them -- you know, having a good night out. [Jim, don't you ever do a bit of research on historical topics before spouting off? Google is your friend. Use it.] From Ramsey Clark's excellent The Fire This Time. http://www.firethistime.org/linesscript.htm TRACK 3 : LINES IN THE SAND - One day after the Cease Fire, Kuwait announced plans to increase oil exports in defiance of OPEC quotas. The price of crude began to slide. In June '89, they stepped up production again. Iraq was hard hit. [1/74.] SHAKIB OUTAKI OIL ANALYST For every fall of a dollar in the price of a barrel of oil, Iraq lost a billion dollars in income. While Iraq was at war, Kuwait had moved into the Rumailia oil field, shifting a border disputed since colonial times. In November, Kuwaiti officials met with the CIA and agreed: to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq [ ] To put pressure on that countrys government to delineate our common border. The CIA gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure. [1] As oil prices collapsed, Kuwait demanded that Iraq repay its wartime debts. In December, the United States invaded Panama without rebuke from the UN Security Council. The Soviet Empire was in chaos, the global pattern of relationships changing. US War Plan 1002 devised to counter a Russian threat in the Gulf - was updated, and now posed Iraq as the enemy. Early in 1990, General Norman Schwarzkopf briefed congress: Middle East oil is the Wests lifeblood. [ .] It is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. [2] Schwarzkopf advocated a permanent US presence in the Gulf. But in the wake of Soviet collapse, there were calls to cut military spending. New enemies had to be found. A white paper was drawn up which identified Iraq and Saddam Hussein as: .the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact. [3] There was just one problem. According to the US Army War College: Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. [4] US intelligence indicated that Iraqs desire was to reduce the army and repay their debts. But high unemployment made de-mobilisation impossible, inflation on the dinar was forty percent and rising, and the price of oil continued to fall. In May 1990, Saddam Hussein protested at Kuwaits continuing overproduction: Were it possible we would have endured [ ] but I say that we have reached a point where we can no longer withstand pressure. [5] The Kuwaitis were dismissive, as an American official recalled: When Iraqis came and said: Cant you do something about it? the Kuwaitis said: Sit on it. And they didnt even say it nicely . they were arrogant...they were terrible. [6] Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. In a diplomatic offensive, Iraq sent envoys to Arab states until Kuwait agreed to a summit. On July 10th new quotas were settled. On the 11th, Kuwait rejected them and announced plans to further increase production by October. Saddam Husseins patience was exhausted. [9/63.] Dr. PHOEBE MARR - US NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY I think he came to believe [ .] that Kuwait was over-producing oil not in its own interests but because it was goaded into that by the United States, in an effort to weaken Iraq. On July 15th, the Iraqis wrote to the Arab League and the UN Secretary General listing their grievances; on the 17th Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of economic warfare; on the 18th, troops were sent to the border. Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] As the crisis escalated, King Hussein of Jordan went to Kuwait to try and broker a compromise, to be told: We are not going to respond. If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory. we are going to bring in the Americans. [8] As Iraqi forces moved to the front line, the Assistant Secretary of State was questioned in Congress: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait [ .] in that circumstance, is it correct to say [ .] that we do not have a treaty commitment which would oblige us to engage US forces? That is correct. [9] On the 2nd of August, Iraq invaded. --- steve Charles Allen, the CIAs Officer for Warning predicted that Iraq would invade Kuwait. His report was shelved. War is just a
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57, Steve Schear wrote: Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [ ] Our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab- Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [7] This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) Nathan Folkert exposes it at some length in http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ng.google.com http://tinyurl.com/2tdwk In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit would hit the fan. (That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern, which the kind of thing that diplomats say when what they actually mean is We are going to cut off your head and nail it to a lamp post with a nine inch nail) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG UGe4zfpi4sWf5MssuvgX1tOdNtw539Km+25pzq7s 4mkjwbGPuDy/LJkiMtzHD8na/Fnn2ocm+LNkAhuX0
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Ken, Eh what? Yes I've heard a lot of the Soviet union, however I don't see what you meant by that comment here. What I was referring to was the winning powers' treatment of the Nazi war criminals after WWII, Nurnburg trials and so on. (Note the word trials here) I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this.
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and unnecessary) to free her is also a commie lie. I am just wondering, but is anything that has happened (or is happening) in Iraq and done by the US / Western powers wrong in your eyes, or simply can they do no wrong? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NuNWlCnxcrW2uuEQJ/PQCcDO5sjq/Gs/2sVK31cVl/Zdq0v/YAoIuW HYwUlpWDsjD/OUpdCRooFbSZ =FKfd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US. Saddam's guilt in a smaller number of deaths is being pushed hard to justify the exercise in the Mid-East so the outcome is certain and will be dressed appropriately I'm sure. My guess is that a suitable Iraqi court won't take note of the number of civilian deaths due to bombings and economic sanctions by its liberators.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. Who cares whether the guys at the Hague agree? Hague claims of jurisdiction have unfailingly led to bad results, as in the current disastrous trial of Milosevic. This is the same problem as occurred when the Westphalian state took over police powers from the local gentry, but in even more extreme form. The more distant the police and courts are from the crime, the criminals, and the victims, the less likely they are to provide justice, and the slower, more expensive, and less effectual that justice will be, if justice comes at all, which it probably will not. Hague justice does not work. It is failing with Milosevic. It would fail with Saddam. The court at the Hague is apt to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty in the face of all evidence, illustrating in more extreme form the problems that occur with the police powers of the Westphalian state. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IiS2b9l7DPo2NQXOdJr115U+lCtla97DXp8x4D8z 4bCeKZNEInAT6Ra8UWqc7RyU+Uo6+JH777FclJ48e
Re: Release Saddam now
On 19 Dec, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: And here I thought the fuckwits couldn't get any dumber. Ahh yes, and such a clever riposts as well. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: Release Saddam now
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:17:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. Advocate for the release of Saddam Hussein, and the withdrawal of the USurpers. Pass the word. And here I thought the fuckwits couldn't get any dumber. Boy oh boy. -- avva
Re: Release Saddam now
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. To judge by its current woeful performance in the Serbian war crimes trials, the Hague would acquit Saddam and convict Carter. If there is no one with legitimate jurisdiction to try Saddam, then he should be released. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: President of Flies
On 19 Dec, Nomen Nescio wrote: US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been bred and conditioned to be infantile. Your analysis hangs on this assertion. You may be underestimating the revulsion of the US electorate towards the actions of the current administration. Here is a related question: How do you think infantile US citizens would respond, if we were wrongly invaded by an outside power spilling blood on American soil? Iraq happened exactly because Bush is exploiting the outrage of US citizens over the 9/11 attack. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. Not really, no. So, while he was our puppet, He was never out puppet. he was the good guy, He was never the good guy, and was never called a good guy by us. Well, except for the idiots who are now calling for his release, I guess. and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Not really, no. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. If all we wanted was to control its oil we wouldn't try to put a democratic government in place, with or without the quote. Gosh, the oil-conspiracy nutcases are so dumb, it's tiring. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. Exactly, a bunch of lies from the usual quarters. A stream of revisionist history from useful idiots hell-bent on making it ALL OUR FAULT, ever and ever again. It's a movable feast. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. You don't know much about Stalin's or Hitler's times, do you? -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- J.A. Terranson: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. James A. Donald: Sure looks like war to me. J.A. Terranson: I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? After 9/11 Congress gave the president a blank declaration of war -- names to be filled in later by presidential fiat. In addition, the original declaration of war on Iraq is still in effect, a fact that congress re-affirmed recently. The blank declaration of war is what the supreme court deemed to be an unconstitutional delegation of powers back in the 1930s. Roosevelt responded by threatening to stack the court, and the court reversed itself. The blank declaration is supposed to last for the duration of the war on terror, which was expected to last a generation, but which has proven so convenient for the government that it may well become permanent. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG HljLjS7+W9LEuxbq7VnSuM5kR+tZolVcQvGN3514 4f+D7vVmteFZvOSc2OURJhqQrdzVGAEtdAvDPRaf4
President of Flies
US is currently run by thugs supported by the cheering consumer crowds that have been bred and conditioned to be infantile. So the situation is best evaluated in the Lord of Flies context. As long as masters are winning and have stronger army than anyone else, nothing will change. You will notice that they never engage army unless they have several orders of magnitude strength advantage. Which means that only small countries are in danger. There are two consequences of this: (a) there is no likely grouping of bigger entities to strike back - and that is the only response that will change US behavior. Until US is beaten and have suffered occupation and complete military defeat nothing much will change. This will eventually happen as history demonstrates that empires are not capable of sustained supremacy (due to the negative selection within among other factors - incidentally, the brain drain in the last 3-4 years have changed direction - this is the most significant metric.) But not any time soon. (b) smaller countries will strive to arm themselves with effective weaponry. The window for this is closing and in few years there will be two clearly defined clubs: untouchables and fair game. It looks that most of the arab world is heading for the fair game status and they are understandably unhappy with it. The main question is - will the income from newly and soon to be acquired colonies be sufficient to prevent confrontation between US and the rest of developed and armed world?
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- James A. Donald: Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata But I think we can find a legitimate authority somewhat better than that. And if we cannot, the mob has more legitimacy than the Hague. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CH40CSgX5Tgdj/SDJtnV3WgkBxSNswHYXJRRtrPl 4nJVivIV8DTmP2YOHTrLI5FBALdL8ZRNG8SGqcbVH
Re: Release Saddam now
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 13:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saddam is being wrongly held by illegal invaders and occupiers. He should be immediately released or turned over to legitimate authorities, such as the international courts. To judge by its current woeful performance in the Serbian war crimes trials, the Hague would acquit Saddam and convict Carter. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Ga9C18O27qHMYLen4874q63qGOwoEIBltLGk1rpk 48Vn4yKSHVY79B6oGsC+HdHn879C2BBXjKu204wKw
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: -- Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority to convene such a court, least of all the US or their puppet regime. In my opinion, Saddam should be released, or shipped out to an international court with recognized authority. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: Release Saddam now
On 19 Dec, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: But Saddam's regime itself stemmed from illegal takeover of a previous regime -- doesn't that make all of his regime illegitimate and his authority void? No, by this argument nearly all the regimes of the world would be illegitimate. Saddam ruled a terrible regime, but he also overthrew a terrible regime. Anyway, Saddam enjoyed the authority of democratic acquiescence, which is the accepted standard. Even if Saddam's regime were illegitimate, which it was not, the aggresive acts of the US were still illegal. No authority can be derived from an aggressive and illegal invasion. By extension, the US puppet government in Iraq also has no plausible claim to authority. Why not? By definition, a puppet government rules by the leave of the military power, the US, which has no claim in this case to any legitimacy in Iraq. Thus, the puppet government can have no claim to legitimacy either. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
