Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)

Guantánamo

NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
for the better part of two years.
..
Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
..
These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
checking executive power.
..
In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
..
In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
the courts something less than independent judicial review.
..
This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
offense.
..
What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
"over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
"be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
case.
..
In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
more than that - for example, international law protections for the
treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
heard by an independent court.
..
As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
executive's subsequent conduct.
..
In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
wisdom of the executive's conduct.
..
In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
during World War II.
..
Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
..
The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.



"Polybus" > wrote in message
m...
> Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)
>
> Guantánamo
>
> NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
> recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
> people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
> for the better part of two years.
> .
> Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
> repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
> review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
> later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
> to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
> more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
> .
> These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
> broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
> after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
> the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
> Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
> lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
> Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
> to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
> administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
> been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
> checking executive power.
> .
> In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
> established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
> federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
> States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
> the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
> subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
> their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
> decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
> .
> In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
> their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
> observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
> detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
> the courts something less than independent judicial review.
> .
> This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
> justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
> while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
> released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
> prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
> held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
> that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
> administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
> must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
> military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
> prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
> offense.
> .
> What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
> would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
> "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
> granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
> with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
> Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
> "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
> case.
> .
> In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
> nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
> more than that - for example, international law protections for the
> treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
> be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
> heard by an independent court.
> .
> As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
> support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
> military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
> World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
> rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
> special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
> cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
> strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
> court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
> claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
> executive's subsequent conduct.
> .
> In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
> cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
> resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
> the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
> the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
> calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
> wisdom of the executive's conduct.
> .
> In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
> the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
> Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
> descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
> during World War II.
> .
> Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
> appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
> Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
> should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
> court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
> that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
> .
> The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
> Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
> Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
> Sept. 11 attacks.

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached.


Corse

"Corse" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
> chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating
on
> these issues day in and day out in the press.
>
> Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached.
>
>

For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or they
would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up those
rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military he
ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in
another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily swares
an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.

That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have
just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
again and again and again.

> Corse
>
>
>

Mike Dobony wrote:
> That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
> would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
> preparing to attack again and again and again.

And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"

If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
everyone is happy.

Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
starters) that want the United States of the World.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

Ken Davey wrote:
>
> Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
> were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
> US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
> wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
about that very subject.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>Ken Davey wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
>> were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
>> US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
>> wrong; Someone?; Please?
>
>The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
>That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
>directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
>it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
>about that very subject.

THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
precedent on this from WWII.
But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
some precedent-- the trial of General Yamashita, which the SC heard on
the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
court system did indeed have jurisdiction.
THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
themselves.

"Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corse" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "None" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt
his
> > chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating
> on
> > these issues day in and day out in the press.
> >
> > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.
> >
> >
>
> For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or
they
> would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up
those
> rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military
he
> ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in
> another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily
swares
> an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.
>
> That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would
have
> just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
> again and again and again.
>

Such people should have their due punishment. The problem is, however, that
you only have the word of the military that these people are in fact what
you say they are. And the US military is under undue influence of people
educated by Leo Strauss at the moment....


Nik

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson >
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo
they
> >> were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
> >> US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I
am
> >> wrong; Someone?; Please?
> >
> >The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
> >That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
> >directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
> >it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
> >about that very subject.
>
> THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
> jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
> precedent on this from WWII.
> But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
> Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
> order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
> some precedent-- the trial of General Yamashita, which the SC heard on
> the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
> court system did indeed have jurisdiction.
> THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
> the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
> don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
> themselves.
>

And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.


Nik.

Hey None,
Just exactly what did you mean about "democratic" challengers?
Didn't you mean to say "Democrat"? Do you know the difference between
the two words? Now, I'm not going to decide until next November, when
the election actually is,,,but don't you think it's a little early to
Thank anybody that the incumbent "won't" get re-elected?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:11:03 GMT, "None" > wrote:

>Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
>chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
>these issues day in and day out in the press.
>
>Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
>
>
>"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
>> Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)
>>
>> Guantánamo
>>
>> NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
>> recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
>> people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
>> for the better part of two years.
>> .
>> Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
>> repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
>> review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
>> later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
>> to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
>> more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
>> .
>> These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
>> broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
>> after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
>> the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
>> Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
>> lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
>> Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
>> to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
>> administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
>> been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
>> checking executive power.
>> .
>> In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
>> established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
>> federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
>> States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
>> the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
>> subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
>> their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
>> decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
>> .
>> In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
>> their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
>> observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
>> detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
>> the courts something less than independent judicial review.
>> .
>> This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
>> justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
>> while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
>> released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
>> prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
>> held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
>> that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
>> administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
>> must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
>> military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
>> prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
>> offense.
>> .
>> What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
>> would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
>> "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
>> granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
>> with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
>> Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
>> "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
>> case.
>> .
>> In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
>> nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
>> more than that - for example, international law protections for the
>> treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
>> be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
>> heard by an independent court.
>> .
>> As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
>> support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
>> military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
>> World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
>> rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
>> special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
>> cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
>> strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
>> court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
>> claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
>> executive's subsequent conduct.
>> .
>> In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
>> cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
>> resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
>> the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
>> the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
>> calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
>> wisdom of the executive's conduct.
>> .
>> In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
>> the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
>> Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
>> descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
>> during World War II.
>> .
>> Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
>> appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
>> Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
>> should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
>> court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
>> that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
>> .
>> The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
>> Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
>> Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
>> Sept. 11 attacks.
>

What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
Muslims for simply that, being free. The members of the coalition that
you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you
people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:44:40 -0600, John Gaughan
> wrote:

>Mike Dobony wrote:
>> That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
>> would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
>> preparing to attack again and again and again.
>
>And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
>U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
>with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
>not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"
>
>If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
>the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
>everyone is happy.
>
>Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
>starters) that want the United States of the World.

You're wrong,,,is there a US Flag flying on the base?? It's not US
soil sorry Ken.. But I see your point. Good point.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:46:36 -0800, "Ken Davey" >
wrote:

>Corse wrote:
>> "None" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
>> hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
>> are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
>>
>> Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
>> impeached.
>>
>Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
>were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
>US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
>wrong; Someone?; Please?
>Ken.
>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:34:02 GMT, user > wrote:
>What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
>****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
>Muslims for simply that, being free.

I'll beleive that one someone flies a plane into Canary Wharf or
[some-tall-building-in-Japan].


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Ken Davey" > wrote in message
...
> Corse wrote:
> > "None" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
> > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> >
> > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that things
would be so much easier if he were one?

> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
> > impeached.
> >
> Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
> were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
> US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
> wrong; Someone?; Please?

Nope, you aren't. Sorry.

Good luck trying to convince the sheeple that they've been had. I've been
trying for months.

mellstrr--it's a dirty job, but somebody better do it soon...

Corse wrote:
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
> are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
>
> Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
> impeached.
>
Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?
Ken.

James Robinson wrote:
> The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
> That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
> directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
> it.

So what if somebody turned up at Guantanamo with an court order from
Cuba's highest court?

Cheers
David

"mellstrr" > wrote in message
...

> > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
> > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > >
> > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
> think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
> would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
OFF.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:18:23 +0800, "Nik"
> wrote:

>

>
>And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
>rent.

That is incorrect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1731704.stm

"Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a
year and now worth just over $4,000, even though Mr Castro refuses to cash
the cheques. "



greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

A few things don't ring true here.

If it isn't US soil what right does the US have to keep people there? If the
US has a right to keep them there why shouldn't they be subject to US law?
If not US law, then what law governs them?

Surely there must be some law that applies to them.

If a foreign power came to US terrritory and took Us citizens to Cuba, would
the US think they should have rights?

If they were serving as part of foreign militaries then why doesn't the
geneva convention apply?

"mellstrr" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Davey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Corse wrote:
> > > "None" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
> > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > >
> > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
> think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
> would be so much easier if he were one?
>
> > >
> > > -----------------------
> > >
> > > Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
> > > impeached.
> > >
> > Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo
they
> > were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
> the
> > US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I
am
> > wrong; Someone?; Please?
>
> Nope, you aren't. Sorry.
>
> Good luck trying to convince the sheeple that they've been had. I've been
> trying for months.
>
> mellstrr--it's a dirty job, but somebody better do it soon...
>
>

"Nik" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
> ...

> you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
> currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
> watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
> fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
> sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
> forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you

Hmmm, first of all: the US was NEVER attacked by Iraq, NEVER EVER
EVER. Moreover, Iraq was a secular, socialist 'One Nation' state
(Baathism, remember?) where even some moderate religious factions
where being oppressed.

> people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
> couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
> guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that

If Guantanamo is any indication of how American government works;... I
believe I'd probably rather be living on the other side of the fence
in Cuba - where people, although not free, have at least free
education, social security, the beach, the sex and the rumba....

> when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
> the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
> know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike

Hmmm, you're right the we attacked !!! Under false pretences (What
happened to the WMD?), to serve the interests of W. Bush and his
military junta (www.pnac.org); and we now find ourselves in a dirty
mess. Besides, in my view it remains very doubtful if the majority
really supported the invasion. The invasion of Iraq has only been
possible, thanks to a high degree of media manipulation, intelligence
failures, intellectual dishonesty and presidential lies, political
corruption and corporate influence. An absolute folly, for which we'll
be paying for generations to come !!! Don't mention the hundreds of
soldiers that are dying in this foreign country.

Meanwhile innocent people (most of them unlucky bystanders, who've
never been off their lands or out of their village) are rotting away
in their cages at Guantanamo - being isolated incommunicado (without
ever having seen/ever seeing ANYONE!) for years at a time, not to
mention the absence of legal counseling or the
communication/information of their due legal process. All we know is
that W. Bush (the centrepoint of the executive branch, who disposes
over almost dictatorial executive power) has already branded them to
be 'very, very bad people'. At least a President who's received a
bachelor's degree in HISTORY from Yale University in 1968, should know
that this is in clear breach with the international conventions on
human rights and POW.

Finally, can someone explain me why one has to be a "LIBERAL", a
"PEACENIK" or an "ATHEIST" to be against what's going at Guantanamo
??? Where is the humanity in that "black and white", "you are with us
or against us" kind of argument? What the hell happened to
Compassionate Conservatism and to the new Ethics at the White House??

user > wrote in message >. ..

Hmm, I think the best argument in this (somewhat complicated) case is
to consider the fact that we are are flying the American flag over
there, and the territory was sealed off, for any ordinary Cubans (even
Cuban exiles are no longer allowed to come to the base).

>> And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't
>> paid rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.


For your information: the U.S. IS PAYING 2,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR !
Ever heard of SCUBA-diving and the Callypso-expeditions? (I have seen
this documentary myself!)

In 1985 President Fidel Castro told Captain Cousteau (the French
film-maker, who is also the inventor of Scuba-technology) that Cuba
does not recognize the US claim to Guantanamo and showed him the
uncashed rent payments. Captain Cousteau crossed the mined
no-man's-land to Guantanamo Base, the first non-Cuban to make the
crossing since 1961, to discuss Castro's remarks with the base
commander, who explained the base's use to train the fleet. In
contrast to the historic island, the base looks like many American
towns, complete with school bus, baseball field and McDonald's.

See also:
http://www.cousteausociety.org/tcs_e...ions_cuba.html
http://www.cousteau.org/en/
http://www.cousteau.org/en/heritage/...ions/scuba.php
http://www.cousteau.org/en/heritage/calypso/history.php

"Gitmo" as it is often called, is the oldest U.S. base outside of the
continental United States. The U.S. Navy has maintained a presence at
Guantánamo since 1903, when the area was acquired as a coaling and
naval station. The original lease agreement signed between U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt and Cuban President Estrada Palma gave
the United States "the right to exercise complete jurisdiction and
control within and over the area. In turn, the United States
recognized the ultimate sovereignty of Cuba over the leased areas."
This original agreement was reaffirmed by a treaty signed in 1934 by
President Franklin Roosevelt.

The first American casualties of the Spanish-Cuban-American war were
two marines killed at Guantánamo on June 11, 1898. A U.S. Marine
battalion camped there the day before, marking the first U.S. presence
on the bay.

Just about five years later, on February 23, 1903, U.S. President
Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with Cuba leasing the bay for
2,000 gold coins per year. The agreement was forced on the puppet
Cuban government (with an American-citizen for President) through the
Platt Amendment, which gave U.S. authorities the right to interfere in
Cuban affairs.
On July 2 1906, (just before the 2nd U.S. military intervention, a new
lease is signed in Havana for Guantánamo Bay and Bahía Honda, for
which the U.S. will pay a meager $2,000 per year.

After Cubans annulled the Platt Amendment in 1934, a new lease was
negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and a U.S.-friendly
government that included Fulgencio Batista (who would later become the
worst dictator the country has ever known) as one of three
signatories. Batista emerged as the strong man on the island over the
next twenty-five years.
When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, the U.S. banned its soldiers
stationed at the bay from entering Cuban territory. Legally speaking,
Guantánamo should have been returned to Cuba at this time. (As a
principle of universal law, perpetual contracts can be cancelled at
any time)

In an interview with Soviet journalists in October 1985, U.S.
President Ronald Reagan said that the purpose of the base was
political: to impose the U.S. presence, even if the Cubans didn't want
it. Every year the U.S. sends a check for the lease amount, but the
Cuban government has never cashed them.

What is wrong with you
> people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
> couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
> guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
> when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
> the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
> know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike
>

Actually, to be completely technical, YES Dubya can, could and did
begin this without the approval of the "majority". He is the
commander in chief of the military and can, at his whim, dispatch
troops as he sees fit. Only Congress can declare war, but the
president controls the troops. It's a check and balance written into
the constitution. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorized the use of
force in Vietnam. Congress similarly authorized the use of force in
Iraq in 1991. In Kosovo, however, there was no specific resolution
authorizing the use of force, but Congress did pass a bill to fund the
action. Congress has, however, stopped short of declaring "war" in
each case.

Just to clarify.

If you want to call anyone weak, speak of those who allowed themselves
to be manipulated by passionate, empty speeches about hunting down the
people responsible for Sept 11. What Dubya has done is take a
national tragedy and turn it into justification for attacking Iraq.
Afghanastan, yeah, that was justified, even though it turned my
stomach to do it. Iraq has never TO THIS DAY been proven to have a
link to al Queda. (And don't say that they harbored terrorists -- so
did Saudi Arabia and we're not attacking them) Iraq has never been
proven to have had a single weapon of mass destruction. It was smoke
and mirrors. The majority never supported this. They were cowered by
talk of anti Americanism. If they were weak, it was in not standing
up and calling what was wrong, wrong.

"Nik" > wrote in message >...
> "Charles Gray" > wrote in message
> ...

SNIP
>
> And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
> rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.
>
>
> Nik.

I understand that every year a rent cheque is presented to the Cuban
Government, and every year it is contemptuously burnt!

"david" > wrote in message
om...
> "Nik" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Charles Gray" > wrote in message
> > ...

> >
> > And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
> > rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.

>
> I understand that every year a rent cheque is presented to the Cuban
> Government, and every year it is contemptuously burnt!

Nope, a couple of years ago I saw a French documentary film, where
JJ-Cousteau was received into Castro's office. And Fidel let it be known to
the world that he kept all the checks, only worth a couple of thousand
dollars, IN THE TOP DRAWER OF HIS DESK !!! He actually showed them to the
camera, and for sure he hadn't cashed them in, and he never would!! Followed
a three and a half hour speech on why the cuban political system is - though
less pluralistic - more democratic, than its American counterpart, which he
claimed was completely corrupted by corporate money and why the U.S. should
have gotten out of Guantanamo a long time ago (as far as I remember, at the
time his arguments actually sounded quite logical to me). Anyway, a piece
of sensational filmmaking that was indeed... and so: there has been no
burning of any money or cheques.

But what about Fidel, isn't it time that Cuba did something about the Gitmo
situation? With all their talk about the revolution. At least the Cuban
Supreme Court could have made a
ruling/statement/conclusion/arrest/verdict/whatever...

sure... Like Billy was? get real
"Corse" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
> chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating
on
> these issues day in and day out in the press.
>
> Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached.
>
>
> Corse
>
>
>

Ken Davey wrote:

> Mike Dobony wrote:
>
>> This so-called citizen
>>gave up those rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining
>>teh foreign military he ceased to be a US citizen just as one does
>>when one desires citizenship in another country.
>
>
> Wrong and wrong.
> Check current law on this subject.
> Ken.
>
>

In the 1700s John Paul Jones would just make traitors "walk the plank."

MV

Mike Dobony wrote:
>
> This so-called citizen
> gave up those rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining
> teh foreign military he ceased to be a US citizen just as one does
> when one desires citizenship in another country.

Wrong and wrong.
Check current law on this subject.
Ken.

"david" > wrote in message
om...

> I understand that every year a rent cheque is presented to the Cuban
> Government, and every year it is contemptuously burnt!

Cuba has every right to tell the U.S. to pack their shit and get out, but
they don't. Rumor has it they rather LIKE having a U.S. Military base
there, who the hell is going to mess with Cuba with Gitmo sitting there?

Sure saves Fidel a helluva lot on military expenses.

Ken Davey wrote:
>> This so-called citizen gave up those rights by serving in a foreign
>> military. By joining teh foreign military he ceased to be a US
>> citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in another
>> country.
>
> Wrong and wrong. Check current law on this subject.

I agree. Either way, it is the Supreme Court's job to decide
jurisdiction, not the President's. And last I checked these cases are
making their slow way up.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

well boo-****ing-hoo. you are right, they shouldn't be detaining them.
they should have killed them immediately and then all the bleeding hearts
wouldn't be whining about the government detaining fanatical muslims that
want to kill all of us because we are not fanatical muslims too.


"Polybus" > wrote in message
m...
> Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)
>
> Guantánamo
>
> NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
> recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
> people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
> for the better part of two years.
> .
> Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
> repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
> review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
> later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
> to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
> more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
> .
> These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
> broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
> after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
> the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
> Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
> lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
> Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
> to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
> administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
> been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
> checking executive power.
> .
> In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
> established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
> federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
> States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
> the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
> subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
> their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
> decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
> .
> In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
> their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
> observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
> detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
> the courts something less than independent judicial review.
> .
> This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
> justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
> while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
> released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
> prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
> held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
> that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
> administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
> must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
> military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
> prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
> offense.
> .
> What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
> would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
> "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
> granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
> with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
> Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
> "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
> case.
> .
> In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
> nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
> more than that - for example, international law protections for the
> treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
> be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
> heard by an independent court.
> .
> As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
> support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
> military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
> World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
> rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
> special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
> cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
> strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
> court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
> claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
> executive's subsequent conduct.
> .
> In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
> cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
> resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
> the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
> the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
> calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
> wisdom of the executive's conduct.
> .
> In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
> the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
> Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
> descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
> during World War II.
> .
> Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
> appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
> Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
> should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
> court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
> that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
> .
> The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
> Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
> Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
> Sept. 11 attacks.
>

"lexrex39" > wrote:

>well boo-****ing-hoo. you are right, they shouldn't be detaining them.
>they should have killed them immediately and then all the bleeding hearts
>wouldn't be whining about the government detaining fanatical muslims that
>want to kill all of us because we are not fanatical muslims too.
>
>
I gotta agree with this...

With some It's not possible to win. Damned if you do, damned if
you don't.

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

They have been taking pot shots at US aircraft for the better part of last
ten years, they tried to assassinate an American president, they supported
terror again the US and our allies.

So much for your argument.

Jarg



"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Nik" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
> > currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
> > watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
> > fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
> > sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
> > forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you
>
> Hmmm, first of all: the US was NEVER attacked by Iraq, NEVER EVER
> EVER. Moreover, Iraq was a secular, socialist 'One Nation' state
> (Baathism, remember?) where even some moderate religious factions
> where being oppressed.
>
> > people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
> > couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
> > guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
>
> If Guantanamo is any indication of how American government works;... I
> believe I'd probably rather be living on the other side of the fence
> in Cuba - where people, although not free, have at least free
> education, social security, the beach, the sex and the rumba....
>
> > when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
> > the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
> > know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike
>
> Hmmm, you're right the we attacked !!! Under false pretences (What
> happened to the WMD?), to serve the interests of W. Bush and his
> military junta (www.pnac.org); and we now find ourselves in a dirty
> mess. Besides, in my view it remains very doubtful if the majority
> really supported the invasion. The invasion of Iraq has only been
> possible, thanks to a high degree of media manipulation, intelligence
> failures, intellectual dishonesty and presidential lies, political
> corruption and corporate influence. An absolute folly, for which we'll
> be paying for generations to come !!! Don't mention the hundreds of
> soldiers that are dying in this foreign country.
>
> Meanwhile innocent people (most of them unlucky bystanders, who've
> never been off their lands or out of their village) are rotting away
> in their cages at Guantanamo - being isolated incommunicado (without
> ever having seen/ever seeing ANYONE!) for years at a time, not to
> mention the absence of legal counseling or the
> communication/information of their due legal process. All we know is
> that W. Bush (the centrepoint of the executive branch, who disposes
> over almost dictatorial executive power) has already branded them to
> be 'very, very bad people'. At least a President who's received a
> bachelor's degree in HISTORY from Yale University in 1968, should know
> that this is in clear breach with the international conventions on
> human rights and POW.
>
> Finally, can someone explain me why one has to be a "LIBERAL", a
> "PEACENIK" or an "ATHEIST" to be against what's going at Guantanamo
> ??? Where is the humanity in that "black and white", "you are with us
> or against us" kind of argument? What the hell happened to
> Compassionate Conservatism and to the new Ethics at the White House??

They can ask but they can't do anything about it because the United States
is there legally under the terms of the lease. And your rumour is just
that, a rumour. I'm sure the presence of US forces in Cuba irritates Castro
(and his left wing buddies like you) to no end.

Jarg

"None" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "david" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > I understand that every year a rent cheque is presented to the Cuban
> > Government, and every year it is contemptuously burnt!
>
> Cuba has every right to tell the U.S. to pack their shit and get out, but
> they don't. Rumor has it they rather LIKE having a U.S. Military base
> there, who the hell is going to mess with Cuba with Gitmo sitting there?
>
> Sure saves Fidel a helluva lot on military expenses.
>
>

Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

Jarg

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
challengers
> > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > >
> > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
> >
> > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
one...I
> > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
> things
> > would be so much easier if he were one?
>
> Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
>
> In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
> the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
lot
> easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
>
> He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
> the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
>
> For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
> OFF.
>
>

"Jarg" > wrote in message . com...
> They have been taking pot shots at US aircraft for the better part of last
> ten years, they tried to assassinate an American president, they supported
> terror again the US and our allies.

Give us a break. The West (U.S. and Britian specifically) have been
raping the Middle East of their one and only major natural resource
for the better part of a century now. In addition to dictating what
kinds of governments these countries are allowed to have, forcefully
overthrowing those we don't like (in a few cases, democratically
elected governments), and otherwise doing everything we can to
treat Arab countries like dog shit and make as many enemies in the
region as possible. Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
this fight.

Rick

"Rick" > wrote:

>"Jarg" > wrote in message . com...
>> They have been taking pot shots at US aircraft for the better part of last
>> ten years, they tried to assassinate an American president, they supported
>> terror again the US and our allies.
>
>Give us a break. ...

You might as well ask the wind not to blow. There are some people with
whom it is a waste of time to argue.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Unbelievable how people can some up with such nonsense. My understanding is
that the nations in the Middle East SELL to the west. But now thanks to you
we know they were raped. I don't recall any western nation installing the
dictatorships in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. And for the
most part they have been left alone as long as they are not proving a threat
to other nations. Perhaps you forgot about the Iraqi invasions of Iran and
Kuwait and it's sponsorship of terrorism, most notably against Israel? You
are completely deluded.

Jarg


"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> > They have been taking pot shots at US aircraft for the better part of
last
> > ten years, they tried to assassinate an American president, they
supported
> > terror again the US and our allies.
>
> Give us a break. The West (U.S. and Britian specifically) have been
> raping the Middle East of their one and only major natural resource
> for the better part of a century now. In addition to dictating what
> kinds of governments these countries are allowed to have, forcefully
> overthrowing those we don't like (in a few cases, democratically
> elected governments), and otherwise doing everything we can to
> treat Arab countries like dog shit and make as many enemies in the
> region as possible. Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
> this fight.
>
> Rick
>
>

Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.

Thanks,

Jack Schidt



"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
yourself?
>
> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
debate,
> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
> than most of these people.
>
> Jarg
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
> challengers
> > > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
term.
> > >
> > > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
> one...I
> > > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
> > things
> > > would be so much easier if he were one?
> >
> > Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
> >
> > In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
for
> > the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
> lot
> > easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
> >
> > He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
moving
> > the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
> >
> > For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
****ED
> > OFF.
> >
> >
>
>

Sorry, I was just replying, didn't specify the groups. I will try to note
such in the future.

Jarg

"Jack Schidt®" > wrote in message
m...
> Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
> groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack Schidt
>
>
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> yourself?
> >
> > Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
> debate,
> > and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
brighter
> > than most of these people.
> >
> > Jarg
> >
> > "None" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going
to
> > > > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
> > challengers
> > > > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
> term.
> > > >
> > > > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
> > one...I
> > > > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say
that
> > > things
> > > > would be so much easier if he were one?
> > >
> > > Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
> > >
> > > In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
> for
> > > the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of
a
> > lot
> > > easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
> > >
> > > He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
> moving
> > > the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
> > >
> > > For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
> ****ED
> > > OFF.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Jarg" > wrote in message . com...
> Unbelievable how people can some up with such nonsense. My understanding is
> that the nations in the Middle East SELL to the west. But now thanks to you
> we know they were raped. I don't recall any western nation installing the
> dictatorships in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.

You don't recall? Just to toss out one example, search the web
for "Operation Ajax" and start educating yourself. The modern
history of the Middle East is replete with British colonialism and
American meddling.

And as for the Middle East selling to the West, it comes as a
complete surprise to most Americans that the reason Hussein
invaded Kuwait in 1990 was over a $3 difference in the price
of a barrel of crude oil. That's completely irrespective of Iraq's
claim on Kuwait which dates back to at least 1939 (when
Kuwait was, you guessed it, a British colony).

> And for the
> most part they have been left alone as long as they are not proving a threat
> to other nations. Perhaps you forgot about the Iraqi invasions of Iran and
> Kuwait and it's sponsorship of terrorism, most notably against Israel? You
> are completely deluded.

You like most other Americans are abysmally ignorant of the
history in that region.

Rick