On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Dana wrote:
> nobody outside New Mexico understands the whole Land of Entrapment thing. I
> was trying to explain it at CF-United, without success. I see no point in
> trying to explain it to Sam of all people.
Heh. Just warning him: it's a beautiful state!
> B
nobody outside New Mexico understands the whole Land of Entrapment thing. I
was trying to explain it at CF-United, without success. I see no point in
trying to explain it to Sam of all people.
By the way, the trip to DC totally validated all the reasons I had for
leaving it. It's a nice city wit
> Sam wrote:
> The victory for al Qaeda will be if people like you convince the
> masses to stop fighting and treat terrorism as a criminal matter
> instead of a war.
>
So suspend everyone's rights, put everyone in jail, and go to war with
every nation in the Middle East. Cause that's "war".
You
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Sam wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, denstar wrote:
>> The current administration's actions, and those that support them,
>> support darkness, in many senses.
>
> I think It's time to consider rehab.
> At least get out of NM
Once you've been in NM for a w
Yeshthe terrorists in the white house..
OOPS!!
2008/6/22 Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In other words if you support the Constitution then the terrorists have won.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most import
>The victory for al Qaeda will be if people like you convince the
>masses to stop fighting and treat terrorism as a criminal matter
>instead of a war.
>
In other words if you support the Constitution then the terrorists have won.
~~~
No. To set the record straight there are several that are accused of attacking
Americans, for instance Omar Khadr, a teenager from Ontario is accused of
throwing a grenade at an American patrol in Afghanistan.
> Oh, FYI:
>
> * According to the Department of Defense's published and unpublished
>
SOLAR POWER FOR THE WIN!!
2008/6/22 denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The current administration's actions, and those that support them,
> support darkness, in many senses.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important a
I think It's time to consider rehab.
At least get out of NM
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current administration's actions, and those that support them,
> support darkness, in many senses.
~~~
they shold not be considered benevolent as a point of faith. Because they
are not.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > (1.) You either think that the human rights the US is founded on are
> > universal
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> (1.) You either think that the human rights the US is founded on are
> universal or you don't.
>
> (2.) You either think that the best way to provide those rights to all
> humans is leading by example or you don't.
>
> (3.) You either think
The victory for al Qaeda will be if people like you convince the
masses to stop fighting and treat terrorism as a criminal matter
instead of a war.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sam wrote:
>> You left out a bit of the description making it sound like th
That report was put out by lawyers that work for Obama and represent
Gitmo detainies.
Abdullah Salih Al Ajmi didn't attack Americans:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/08/ex_detainee_linked_to_iraq_bombing/
May 8, 2008
The Pentagon press office yesterday listed a dozen
At the most one person, but its consistent through multiple sources.
I am sure its a large conspiracy all those foreigner types just wanting to show
how bad our brave interrogators are.
Next thing you know you'll be claiming that it was done by invisible pink
unicorns.
>It still could have h
> Sam wrote:
> Seems like this guy was on his way to Afghanistan to kill Americans.
>
Oh, FYI:
* According to the Department of Defense's published and unpublished
data and reports, not a single released Guantánamo detainee has ever
attacked any Americans.
* The Department of Defense does not ha
It still could have happened in their home countries, or been done by a
third party.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> You did read this sentence:
>>
>> "While the report presents synopses of the detainees' backgrounds
>> based on interviews with them, the authors did not have access to the
>> detainees'
I didn't say it was a cause of the war, although because of Muslim laws
on how to deal with disbelievers you could certainly extrapolate that.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> There you go putting words in my mouth, I didn't say it was because they
>> were Islamic, I said they also happened to be Islamic.
and they aren't', an IED attack is a hidden weapon, a suicide bomber
hides his weapon, and they have no distinctive markings, dressing the
exact same as the common person.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> Actually, even the militia/insurgents are required to wear a uniform
>> during military actions, whic
> You did read this sentence:
>
> "While the report presents synopses of the detainees' backgrounds
> based on interviews with them, the authors did not have access to the
> detainees' medical histories. Therefore, there's no way to know
> whether any of the inmates may have had medical or men
>There you go putting words in my mouth, I didn't say it was because they
>were Islamic, I said they also happened to be Islamic. Not the same thing.
>
"... the barbary pirates, who by the way were also Muslims."
In that case I guess the bullshit fairy must have slipped it into your post
when
> Actually, even the militia/insurgents are required to wear a uniform
> during military actions, which neither force does, so no they don't
> fit
> the bill.
Nope they just have to be identifiable from a distance. the chief points in
article 4:
# that of having a fixed distinctive sign recogn
> Sam wrote:
> You left out a bit of the description making it sound like the US
Guantanamo Bay is a monument to Al Quaeda's defeat of US values and culture.
(1.) You either think that the human rights the US is founded on are
universal or you don't.
(2.) You either think that the best way to pr
war crime? That's for people like Milosevic.
Failure to produce ID is hardly in the same category, even if it goes to
whether the Geneva Convention applies. Perhaps -- don't feel like parsing
legalities. Common sense says however that locking up dirt-poor villagers who
are defending their home
g it.
>>>
>>> Burden of proof lies with the accusor, not the accused.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "CF-Community"
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:54 PM
and what reality is that? The one where this only happens to people who look
Muslim?
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> come back to reality, gruss.
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> >
> > Think of what you're saying here: you're sayin
Maybe we do now. But quite a few of the guys in Gyantanamo claim to be taxi
drivers and waiters who were caught up in something thasnothing, actually,to
do with them. At least according to their lawyers. But his says that these
stories have another side.
> I'm speaking specifically of captured e
Al Qaeda is not a country. And think about what you are saying. Most of
those people were never in the US. So even assuming they are in fact an
enemy of the US... well, put it this way, Aren't you one of the people who
is very against the French government? What if they applied the same logic
to yo
; Or, how about people have the right to force someone to prove they were
> > doing it.
> >
> > Burden of proof lies with the accusor, not the accused.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: &qu
You left out a bit of the description making it sound like the US
picks random countries, then random people and then torture them for
six years.
"They may be radical Islamists, but they have definitely not committed
any crime" - The UN special raporteur on torture, Manfred Novak
Guess why. Becau
> tBone wrote:
> See thats why we NEED guns :)
>
HA! Touché my friend, point conceded, and agreed.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.
> come back to reality, gruss.
>
So you watch others lose liberty, do nothing, and say it can't happen
to you. Because we should trust government.
That's the death knell of liberty.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the mos
come back to reality, gruss.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> Think of what you're saying here: you're saying a nation's military
> should be free to imprison indefinitely anyone at anytime, based on
> their own identification process, and deny due-process as they see
> fit.
>
See thats why we NEED guns :)
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> Second, all that was bonian bosnian bosnian, not in the US.
>>
>
> But that's the point! If our government supports doing it there then
> how far is it from happening here? What's you argument - that the
> government has respect
> tBone wrote:
> Second, all that was bonian bosnian bosnian, not in the US.
>
But that's the point! If our government supports doing it there then
how far is it from happening here? What's you argument - that the
government has respect for the judicial branch??
And if the response is, "oh, tha
Fist, not a Bush supporter.
Second, all that was bonian bosnian bosnian, not in the US.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> Our constitution wouldn't allow for it, doesn't mean some other
>> countries doesn't.
>>
>
> Dude - the Bush administration disagrees with you. They don't give a
> fuck
> tBone wrote:
> Our constitution wouldn't allow for it, doesn't mean some other
> countries doesn't.
>
Dude - the Bush administration disagrees with you. They don't give a
fuck about the constitution and your rights nor do anyone who
supports this kind of stupid shit; either that or they don't r
so we can kick your ass more easily. You get all these
cool perks ..."
- Original Message -
From: "Loathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Confirming what we already knew - gitmo detainees were
tort
There you go putting words in my mouth, I didn't say it was because they
were Islamic, I said they also happened to be Islamic. Not the same thing.
Larry Lyons wrote:
> That conflict was because of piracy NOT because they were Islamic. If they
> were catholic or animist then the war still would
Our constitution wouldn't allow for it, doesn't mean some other
countries doesn't.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> You didn't say in France, you said come in your home (he lives in the
>> states) and grab your wife.
>>
>
> k, it's the USA and you just disappeared after being captured "on th
Actually, even the militia/insurgents are required to wear a uniform
during military actions, which neither force does, so no they don't fit
the bill.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> You know these aren't legitimate and internationally recognized
>> insurgent groups Larry.
>>
>
> So, however by the defi
That conflict was because of piracy NOT because they were Islamic. If they were
catholic or animist then the war still would have happened. Being muslim was
only incidental. By bringing in Islam you're bullshitting us.
>Not only that but historically we can point to one of our first
>conflicts
> tBone wrote:
> You didn't say in France, you said come in your home (he lives in the
> states) and grab your wife.
>
k, it's the USA and you just disappeared after being captured "on the
battlefield" (your bedroom). You're being held in an offshore gulag.
You were nabbed because in your recent
>Bullshit. They are at war with us, even if you don't understand that. They
>(Al Qaeda and their affiliates) declared war against the U.S. and any
>nations who aid us. That makes them enemies of the state, not criminals.
>
In that case if they are at war then they are recognized as combatants as
>You know these aren't legitimate and internationally recognized
>insurgent groups Larry.
>
So, however by the definitions offered by the Geneva Conventions and the ICRC
both the taliban and the iraqi insurgents fit the definitions of insurgent
groups. Therefore they have to have the protection
You know these aren't legitimate and internationally recognized
insurgent groups Larry.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> Only the dead have seen the end of war.
>>
>> I'm speaking specifically of captured enemy combatants involved in
>> actions against US interests. Not just dudes rounded up in raids or
You didn't say in France, you said come in your home (he lives in the
states) and grab your wife.
Quite honestly were I in a foreign nation and something happened in
which I were a suspect I would assume I would be snatched up.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> Bad comparison.
>
> It's not
> tBone wrote:
> Bad comparison.
It's not a comparison.
The framework laid out is that those countries who's citizens or
soldiers are attacked by Al Quaeda can apprehend "agents on the
battlefield" and hold them indefinitely without process. Further,
Robert trusts the military implicitly to dec
Bad comparison. The U.S. government hasn't invited the French into our
country as part of our defense, nor have they decided to invade in
response to threats from within our country, or from our failure to meet
the terms of a surrender to French forces (hahahahaha).
I trust my military to deta
Journalism has sure come a long way down when they start printing things
that are not verified by 2 independant sources.
On 6/18/08, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
>
> Well, tortured according to a medical def
>Only the dead have seen the end of war.
>
>I'm speaking specifically of captured enemy combatants involved in
>actions against US interests. Not just dudes rounded up in raids or
>whatever, we turn those guys over to the locals, as we should.
>
>Every combatant has intel, order of battle, organ
So that justifies us doing the same? Does that make us any better? If we
followed that dictum we'd all be blind.
I like to think that we are better than that, but by advocating the same we
drag ourselves down to their level.
>Just remember when they pick us up they cut our fucking heads off on
> RoMunn wrote:
> So before you go into histrionics about us "locking up every a-rab", why
> don't you think logically and seriously about how the military goes about
> identifying who is and is not a member of Al Qaeda.
>
Think of what you're saying here: you're saying a nation's military
should
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'm speaking specifically of captured enemy combatants involved in
actions against US interests. Not just dudes rounded up in raids or
whatever, we turn those guys over to the locals, as we should.
Every combatant has intel, order of battle, organization
Loathe wrote:
> You made the initial comparison, thats what I was commenting on.
>
> I personally think we should execute any one captured that is non
> compliant. We'd be within our rights to do so, and I think once word
> got out about it they would be much more cooperative, and have a harder
You made the initial comparison, thats what I was commenting on.
I personally think we should execute any one captured that is non
compliant. We'd be within our rights to do so, and I think once word
got out about it they would be much more cooperative, and have a harder
time with recruiting.
Loathe wrote:
> Just remember when they pick us up they cut our fucking heads off on camera.
And this is a good ideal to strive for? We should be living up to
'their' standards or ours?
\
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 i
I take a different view, they are they because of attacks on the U.S.
military, period.
The rationale of the 911 attacks doesn't end, because it's when we tire
and move on that it will happen again.
AQ isn't our only enemy in our conflict, and at this point it's
abilities are drastically reduc
I agree, we need to identify the state and non-state entities involved.
This would allow us to push countries like Pakistan and Saudi to
reform, justify conflict with Syria and Iran and assist the Israeli
government in ousting the terrorist governments of the made up nation of
Palestine.
See
Thats the thing here, no one wants to look at quantify and set our
enemy, and it's causing a lot of problems.
Saying just AQ is our enemy isn't near enough. Their sunni sub groups
and allies are world wide. It goes beyond that even to the pervasive
culture of Islamic Extremism taught by wahbis
Not only that but historically we can point to one of our first
conflicts as a nation to support the idea that we can wage war on
non-nation states, the barbary pirates, who by the way were also Muslims.
Robert Munn wrote:
> Bullshit. They are at war with us, even if you don't understand that. T
Bin Laden is not at Gitmo. Most of the detainees at Gitmo are
unidentified so how do you know they are Al Qaeda? When does the
destruction of the Twin Towers stop being the rationale for every
atrocity the current administration wants to commit?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Robert Munn <[EM
You must be joking. They, meaning Al Qaeda, knocked down the Twin Towers.
Bin Laden then went on video, took credit for the act, and declared war
against the United States, et al. What more evidence do you need?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Maureen wrote:
> In a world were a terrorist is anyo
1. Lots of members of Al Qaeda identify themselves. We don't have to do
anything there- they have declared themselves members of Al Qaeda.
2. The military has a very good track record of capturing men and materials
that yield very detailed intelligence about Al Qaeda- members, activities,
financing
In a world were a terrorist is anyone that Shrub and his minions
decide to label a terrorist, I would demand clear empirical evidence
of wrong-doing before meting out punishment.
It is impossible to state, as you have, that "they" are at war with us
when we don't even know who is being held or wha
> RoMunn wrote:
> Bullshit. They are at war with us, even if you don't understand that. They
> (Al Qaeda and their affiliates) declared war against the U.S. and any
> nations who aid us. That makes them enemies of the state, not criminals.
>
So then who's Al Qaeda and who isn't? Or do we just gr
Bullshit. They are at war with us, even if you don't understand that. They
(Al Qaeda and their affiliates) declared war against the U.S. and any
nations who aid us. That makes them enemies of the state, not criminals.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Gruss G wrote:
> > tBone wrote:
> > Bullshit t
> tBone wrote:
> Bullshit trials have never been a part of the laws of land warfare until
> after the conflict is over.
>
Conflicts between nations; i.e., war. This in not war. This an
international criminal matter in that the perpetrators are not agents
of a foreign nation.
~~~
Bullshit trials have never been a part of the laws of land warfare until
after the conflict is over.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> Weegs wrote:
>> werent they picked up on the battlefield?
>> i mean, jeez... i dont know...
>>
>
> Right now the Bush administration claims that it can come into your
> home
Just remember when they pick us up they cut our fucking heads off on camera.
Ian Skinner wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>> werent they picked up on the battlefield?
>> i mean, jeez... i dont know...
>
> Isn't it rather easy to pick up a whole hell of a lot of people when
> these 'battlefield's are entire
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Confirming what we already knew - gitmo detainees were
> tortured.
>
> Or, how about people have the right to force someone to prove they were
> doing it.
>
> Burden of
> Weegs wrote:
> werent they picked up on the battlefield?
> i mean, jeez... i dont know...
>
Right now the Bush administration claims that it can come into your
home ("the battlefield"), take you into custody, and hold you
indefinitely without process or trial. The issue is jailers that can
cla
Tony wrote:
> werent they picked up on the battlefield?
> i mean, jeez... i dont know...
Isn't it rather easy to pick up a whole hell of a lot of people when
these 'battlefield's are entire cities containing a large population?
Is it ok for the other side to have the same opinion about you? If
e -
> From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Confirming what we already knew - gitmo detainees were
> tortured.
>
>
>> Because people have a right to prove that they were, i
29 (c) 703.220.2835
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:00 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Confirming what we already knew - gitmo detainees were
tortured.
Or, how about people have the right to force someone to prove they were
doing it.
Burd
ct: Re: Confirming what we already knew - gitmo detainees were
tortured.
> Because people have a right to prove that they were, in fact, NOT trying
> to
> kill our people.
>
> Once you prove their guilt, you can do whatever you want with them.
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:
basic rules of war Tony. we treat the pow's like we would like ours to be
treated. Besides its the ethical thing - why descend to their level? I like to
think that we are better than that. A prime example is from the 2nd World War -
the Germans treated some prisoners worse than shit, but we did
Because people have a right to prove that they were, in fact, NOT trying to
kill our people.
Once you prove their guilt, you can do whatever you want with them.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can someone please please please explain why we should grant ANYthin
can someone please please please explain why we should grant ANYthing to ANYone
who is trying to kill our people? just please explain that point.
-- tony
Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.
-- siddhartha gautama
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM, sam morris <[EMAI
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26309
> I was generally complaining about the whole situation. The thing is
> that from my contacts from England, Canada, Sinapore and Argentina. I
> don't know of another time when the US was so hated. And according to
> these people
I was generally complaining about the whole situation. The thing is that from
my contacts from England, Canada, Sinapore and Argentina. I don't know of
another time when the US was so hated. And according to these people its how
the US has acted in the last 7 years. Surveys have shown that when
Not sure why you responded to my post with this...which essentially agrees
with what I was saying?
We ARE the good guys, but it's not necessarily because we have a bunch of
human beings over here who are altruistic, while people in other countries
are assholes. It more has to do with our syste
I think an investigation would be a good idea, actually. Maybe in The Hague.
On 6/18/08, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Until then we have to assume that any human rights group has a
> > "anti-us bias" and their results will be skewed in that direction
> >
> > I'd like to see the
it quotes one former prisoner. It ALSO quoted a representative of a group of
doctors who gave each of eleven inmates a two-day physical examonation:
"In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical
evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation,
ok let's grant you this point. I disagree with it, but here is what's more
important... many if not most of the people in custody have nother repeat
nothing to do with beheading anyone much less 9/11. What you are saying is
equivalent to me improsoning Larry for what you are saying here. Because yo
It still doesn't justify torturing other people. Why bring ourselves down to
the level of pond scum? I thought we were better than that. Or am I mistaken?
If so I want to be somewhere else. I thought we were the good guys. But soem of
the shit I'm reading here makes me wonder.
>Watching as peo
of course this may be hard to come by, as the detainees are not really being
given access to the legal process let alone human rights groups :)
On 6/18/08, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Until then we have to assume that any human rights group has a
> > "anti-us bias" and their r
> Greg wrote:
> I believe there's degrees of actions, as long as we're not stooping
> down to their level then yeah we're above them
A gulag is stooping down to their level.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most importan
> gMoney wrote:
> #2 is in place to prevent just the type of emotional response
Exactly:
*who* is in GitMo,
*why* are they being held,
*what* is the evidence against them,
*how* will that evidence be presented and,
*when* will it be adjudicated?
Nuttin' more American than those questions. Cause
> Until then we have to assume that any human rights group has a
> "anti-us bias" and their results will be skewed in that direction
>
> I'd like to see the UN or the Hague do the same independant
> investigation and see what they come up with.
That was my immediate impression reading this as w
One side claiming they were tortured because "of course it's true, I
just know it" is no better than the other side claiming they are all
guilty because "of course it's true, I just know it".
-Cameron
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008
I believe there's degrees of actions, as long as we're not stooping
down to their level then yeah we're above them, we are better than
them. If they acted humane to begin with we wouldn't have had to
resort to such levels to get information from them to help prevent
future acts of inhumanity. By de
You did read this sentence:
"While the report presents synopses of the detainees' backgrounds based on
interviews with them, the authors did not have access to the detainees' medical
histories. Therefore, there's no way to know whether any of the inmates may
have had medical or mental problems
Did you read the story? It was so full of holes it's ridiculous, there
were no facts in there at all. The one torture victim they quote talked
about what happened in an Afghani prison, not American.
Vivec wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Greg Morphis wrote:
> Then they are below you..
And how you treat others that are perceived as below you, tells much
more what type of person YOU are then anything else.
Saying that people behave inhumanly gives one license to behave
inhumanly to them is simply an endless circle. Guess what, s
Watching as people jumped from the burning towers on 9/11, it was already
difficult to fathom that human beings could be responsible for something so
awful.
But they are. We set up systems to handle people who commit acts so heinous
as to be unthinkable. We do that for two reasonsbecause:
1)
Sorry dude.. when you see the killing over there, killing of their own
people, women and children, beheadings and mutilations of corpses, how
can you see them as human? As the same as you? Would you do that to
someone? No? Then they are below you..
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Jerry Johnson <
Ah, I wish we still had Americans who expected America to be bigger, better,
faster, stronger, smarter, richer, nicer, meaner than all the other kids on
the block.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Greg Morphis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Especially the ones who kill innocent people, they are
Especially the ones who kill innocent people, they are sub-human and
no they don't deserve any rights period.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
>
> Well, tortured according to a medi
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Well, tortured according to a medical definition at least.
We know that detainees are actually guilty sub-humans and don't
deserve any human rights.
~~~
99 matches
Mail list logo
