On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:01:35AM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with
> the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the
> American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly
> enjoy. It ha
Gore would have appointed folks to federal agencies who were
considerably more regulatory, not even thought about a serious tax
cut, and would have embraced more and more federal regulations.
Bush is marginally better on that score.
As for civil liberties, we wouldn't have had Poindexter but we co
--
On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe
> with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with
> trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that
> Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do wit
"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote:
>
> John Kelsey wrote:
>
> > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of
> > contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for
> > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive
> > regimes like Saudi Arabi
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:18:52PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be
> that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps
> there are thousands who are almost equally angry,
Thousands? Gimme a br
Tyler Durden wrote:
> John Keley wrote...
>
> "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would."
>
> Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy.
"Fucked with". "Trained up and fucked over". Whatever.
> BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war
> with Iraq is
John Keley wrote...
"There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply
allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like
Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human
rights records."
Hummm...kind of an odd argument, don't
John Kelsey wrote:
No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of
contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for
simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive
regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to
countri
At 09:38 AM 1/16/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote:
...
[Question of whether we could have avoided 9/11 and such things by not
having an activist foreign policy]
>Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for
>*not* helpin
At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
>> On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model
>> for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the
world,
>> it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaed
At 10:40 PM 1/13/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote:
...
Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a
decision on the basis of politics instead of a careful reading of the
constitution.
Everything the Supreme Court di
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:47:24AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either,
> but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy
The majority of the damage was done before the election, then again
on 9/11/2002.
Bush h
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model
> for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world,
> it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked
> the World Trade Cent
At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, [Bill Stewart] wrote:
If you've got your brother counting the votes,
and you can prevent anybody else from counting them,
then you don't need to cancel elections.
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote:
Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to se
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote:
At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, you wrote:
If you've got your brother counting the votes,
and you can prevent anybody else from counting them,
then you don't need to cancel elections.
Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supr
At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, you wrote:
If you've got your brother counting the votes,
and you can prevent anybody else from counting them,
then you don't need to cancel elections.
Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a
decision on the basis of politics instead of a
At 09:40 PM 01/09/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
If Bush can decide alone whether or not we are at war, and if
Bush can decide alone with whom we are at war, and if Bush can
decide alone what the boundaries of the war zone are, and if
Bush can decide alone what behavior makes one an ene
Here's a December ruling favorable to the gvt in the Padilla case:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/04/padilla.ruling/index.html
Note this has not been affirmed by an appeals court (yet).
-Declan
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:25:42PM -0600, Wes Hellman wrote:
> Oh, it seems that I've missed the fact
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:11:26PM -0600, Wes Hellman wrote:
> Since terrorists are the enemy, and they (obviously) operate within our
> borders to do harm, it's not a terrible stretch to think that it won't
> be long before a US citizen who's actually here in the states could be
> designated an "e
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:03:03PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon.
>
> This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the
> Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their
> crimes against the Constitution.
Here's the text of the
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:35:36 -0800, you wrote:
>
> I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone
> who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the
> time he was fighting the US.
>
> The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses
> th
At 10:11 AM 01/09/2003 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a
Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not
required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and
vice-versa of course). Private citize
At 10:11 AM 1/9/03 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their
>uniforms so they can "get off on a technicality" if captured. I wonder
>what an Al-Quida uniform looks like?
Yeah, the British had the same problem with the north-american colonial
t
"Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether this man's service in a
foreign army is naughty enough to lose him his constitutional rights."
First of all, I don't even think that "depriving someone of their
constitutional rights" is the major issue in this case.
On a very simplistic level (apparen
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote:
> Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon.
>
> This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the
> Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their
> crimes against the Constitution.
It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds
Michael Cardenas wrote:
> I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone
> who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the
> time he was fighting the US.
Hey, I'm not a USAan and I don't even live there. But I think I know
your Constitution well enough
Oh, it seems that I've missed the fact that the situation I was talking
about seems to be playing itself out nicely with that dirty bomb guy.
Sure, the court didn't say that this applied to his case, but they
didn't say it *didn't* apply, either. They've left it wide open. I
suspect it won't be l
Well, I don't know that it's as bad as he was making it out to be, but I
wouldn't say that it's as cheery as you seem to think it is, either.
While that case in particular seems very obvious, it sets a dangerous
precedent. Also note the wording:
"A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled Presiden
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:35, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone
> who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at
> the time he was fighting the US.
>
> The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and di
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 04:08 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/
Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon.
This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the
Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for the
30 matches
Mail list logo
