Re: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???

[suckthis.com]

Listen, ASSHOLE, I'm as ****ed off at this Marine as any normal person would
be, but for you to start generalizing and say to just go around killing ANY
American abroad is ****ed up..........

REMEMBER...........If it weren't for the USA, you people would be speaking
German......

[Victor Britian]

(suckthis.com) wrote in message >...
> Listen, ASSHOLE, I'm as ****ed off at this Marine as any normal person would
> be, but for you to start generalizing and say to just go around killing ANY
> American abroad is ****ed up..........
>
> REMEMBER...........If it weren't for the USA, you people would be speaking
> German......


A much richer language than american.

[Jim]

> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "William Black" > wrote:
> >
> > :If the boneheaded idiots kill a UK citizen after one of thses kangaroo
> > :courts on Cuba it'll poison US/UK relations for a generation.

> I don't need to. They are British citizens, and are entitled to the
> protections accorded to British citizens. As the US government now seems
to
> have realised.
>
> If they put British citizens on trial for their lives and don't allow them
> the rights they're entitled to (choice of lawyers, confidentiality,
right
> of cross examination, testing of evidence and etc) then any British
> government is going to have real problems doing anything alongside the
> people who did that.

Let me get this The British have there knickers in serious a knot
because a couple british subjects are being held and maybe tried...

But the US is supposed to be fully ok with the ANTI-American ICC?



Jim

[Jim]

> wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Fred J. McCall
> > > writes
> > >Who's being executed without a fair trial? You should take something
> > >for those hallucinations.
> >
> > Which US citizens are subject to the Gitmo rules?
> >
> > None?
> >
> > Point proved. Why does the US have to exempt its own citizens from the
> > claimed routine?

Because being a citizen they are gurenteeded the constitutions protection,
it isn't an issue of terrotioial jusrtiction.
being a citizens gives the constitution jusrisdiction.


> > >:In my mind it makes Bush little better than Bib Laden, and Bush
> > >:supporters little better than Al Qaeda terrorists.
> > >
> > >See what I mean? Lord knows what unreality you're going to vomit
> > >forth next.
> >
> > How many US citizens are detained in Guantanamo?
> >
> > None?

Well in case you didn't figure it out, an american wouldn't fall under the
GC accords protection from the american goverment,
when apprehended by the americian army once there citizen ship is know they
are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Duh


Jim

[Jim]

"Tim Mellor" > wrote in message
om...
> Fred J. McCall > wrote in message
>...
> > David Evans > wrote:


> These men will not be allowed to choose their defence council. They
> and their council will not hear the prosecution case and thus be
> unable to defend against it.
Excuse me, everything I have read indicate they are being treated
reasonabl;y well.
All that is required is food, water, hygene, medical attention, and
exercise.


> disgracefully and almost certainly tortured to produce such
> "evidence".

Showing you ignorance. The most effective moderan methiod for extracting
information employes psychology,
not bamboo shoots under the nails. Physical touture is actually consided
counter-productive.


Jim

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim > writes
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Point proved. Why does the US have to exempt its own citizens from the
>> > claimed routine?
>
>Because being a citizen they are gurenteeded the constitutions protection,
>it isn't an issue of terrotioial jusrtiction.
>being a citizens gives the constitution jusrisdiction.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Where's the "but only as long as they are citizens of the United States"
exemption?

>> > How many US citizens are detained in Guantanamo?
>> >
>> > None?
>
>Well in case you didn't figure it out, an american wouldn't fall under the
>GC accords protection from the american goverment,

_None_ of the detainees are protected by the GCs, Jim. The US Government
has decided that "because we say so" is sufficient to deny GC
protection.

It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
any other detainee is his nationality.

"Duh" yourself.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Jim]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Jim > writes
> >> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Point proved. Why does the US have to exempt its own citizens from
the
> >> > claimed routine?
> >
> >Because being a citizen they are gurenteeded the constitutions
protection,
> >it isn't an issue of terrotioial jusrtiction.
> >being a citizens gives the constitution jusrisdiction.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
>
> Where's the "but only as long as they are citizens of the United States"
> exemption?
>
> >> > How many US citizens are detained in Guantanamo?
> >> >
> >> > None?
> >
> >Well in case you didn't figure it out, an american wouldn't fall under
the
> >GC accords protection from the american goverment,
>
> _None_ of the detainees are protected by the GCs, Jim. The US Government
> has decided that "because we say so" is sufficient to deny GC
> protection.
>
> It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
> uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
> Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
> any other detainee is his nationality.
>
> "Duh" yourself.
>

Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge. He did so as i understand it
under the threat that they might charge him
with treason. Treason is one of the few crimes that carry the death
penalty.


Jim
is in federial jail

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
>> uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
>> Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
>> any other detainee is his nationality.
>>
>> "Duh" yourself.
>
>Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge.

He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?

As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.

>He did so as i understand it
>under the threat that they might charge him
> with treason. Treason is one of the few crimes that carry the death
>penalty.

Under US law, which explicitly doesn't apply to the Gitmo detainees. Why
wasn't Lindh left there to be punished along with his allies? Why does
US law apply to him and _only_ him?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[William Black]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...

> In America an American Citizen has the constitutions protection due to
being
> a citizen.
> He was treated differently because he was a American citizen. I will
note
> that this isn't exactly

Actually the constitutional rules on trials apply to everyone on US soil.

A US judge decided that the US base isn't part of the USA, although where
it is and who's laws run there wasn't stated, except it certainly isn't
Cuba's...

This whole thing stinks, and everybody knows it.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Jim]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In America an American Citizen has the constitutions protection due to
> being
> > a citizen.
> > He was treated differently because he was a American citizen. I will
> note
> > that this isn't exactly
>
> Actually the constitutional rules on trials apply to everyone on US soil.
>
> A US judge decided that the US base isn't part of the USA, although where
> it is and who's laws run there wasn't stated, except it certainly isn't
> Cuba's...
>
> This whole thing stinks, and everybody knows it.
>
> --
> William Black

Nope,

Court has rules some rights aren't convieghed to Non-citizens.


Jim

[Jeffrey Smidt]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Jim > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> It's just that it seems the US decided that being captured out of
> >> uniform, armed, and fighting against the US _wasn't_ enough to make
> >> Lindh an "unlawful combatant"... and the only difference between him and
> >> any other detainee is his nationality.
> >>
> >> "Duh" yourself.
> >
> >Actually he plead guilty to a lesser charge.
>
> He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
> detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?
>
> As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.
>


There's a few Irish blokes detained in N Ireland who may disagree (or
actually agree) with you. I support the british treatment of their
terrorists. I support our treatment of ours.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jeffrey
Smidt > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> He got charged? His charges were made public? More than any of the other
>> detainees ever got. What _are_ they accused of?
>>
>> As a hint, "being bad men" isn't a recognised offence in most quarters.
>
>There's a few Irish blokes detained in N Ireland who may disagree (or
>actually agree) with you.

Name three, Jeffrey.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[tom c]

>
> ............if you grandfather warren't poor peasant you could be one of
> us ...and if
> you forgot there was only one wote difference in favor of English vs
German
> when
> official language was announced in USA...........one of us I mean
Europeans
> !!!!


Actually is wasn't the whole US just Pennsylvania. There are still parts of
PA where there are native Pennsylvania German speakers.

Tom C