PDA

View Full Version : Re: YANK CHILD ABUSERS


TMOliver
July 20th 03, 02:39 PM
Bob McKellar > iterated.....


>
> Bob McKellar, who voted for Bob Kerrey for President long
> ago
>
>
>
>
.....and having erred grievously will now have to live with
hearing "More waffles than IHOP" dance about the political
griddle, sucking up to every special interest group which can
rent or borrow a hall.

TMO

Bob McKellar
July 20th 03, 03:18 PM
TMOliver wrote:

> Bob McKellar > iterated.....
>
>
> >
> > Bob McKellar, who voted for Bob Kerrey for President long
> > ago
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ....and having erred grievously will now have to live with
> hearing "More waffles than IHOP" dance about the political
> griddle, sucking up to every special interest group which can
> rent or borrow a hall.
>
> TMO

That was Bob Kerrey, not John Kerry.

Special Bonus: John Dean is not Howard Dean

Bob McKellar, Who actually heard Bob Kerrey at a press
conference, after a long leading question, give the simple answer
"No."

Jim
July 21st 03, 06:53 PM
> Well, you disagree, no doubt. That is why your President and all others
down
> the chain of command should have a chance to make their case before the
ICC.
>
> Cheers,
> dba


I would love to make our case to the ICC.
I would think 100MT would express (Sod Off) our position sufficently, don't
you?

Jim

Brian Allardice
July 21st 03, 08:09 PM
In article >, says...

>I would love to make our case to the ICC.
>I would think 100MT would express (Sod Off) our position sufficently, don't
>you?

I swear these guys are AQ Agents-provocateurs..... :-)

Cheers,
dba

Jim
July 21st 03, 08:28 PM
> Well, no, you haven't. You seem to have left out all the detail
> requiring "a distinctive uniform or insignia", a recognized chain of
> responsibility for the actions of the combatant in the field, etc.
>
> Now, a lot of those restrictions were removed in one of the more
> recent addenda to the Conventions; an addition that neither the United
> States nor Afghanistan signed or accepted.



Does a pok-a-dot Towel on the head and a beard count as a uniform? No I
guess not and
well chain of command was pretty loose...

Oh well


:)

William Black
July 21st 03, 10:34 PM
"Jim" > wrote in message
...

> Does a pok-a-dot Towel on the head and a beard count as a uniform? No I
> guess not and
> well chain of command was pretty loose...
>
> Oh well

Actually an armband or any distinguishing mark counts as uniform.

The rules were changed to stop people like the Nazis shooting resistance
fighters out of hand.

Now if the polkadot head dress was a distinctive one...

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

Fred J. McCall
July 22nd 03, 04:40 AM
"Jim" > wrote:

:>
:> :And, really, do you think the US Constitution does *not*
:> :apply on an American base?
:>
:> That's right. It does not.
:>
:> :Good luck to you now should you ever be posted
:> :there.
:>
:> Been there. Done that. It was irrelevant in any case, since the US
:> Constitution also does not apply to military personnel, wherever they
:> might be.
:>
:> :Has that question reached the Supreme Court?
:>
:> Years ago. It was already decided.
:
:Not to split hairs,
:but the Military courts finial appeal is with the U.S. Supreme court,

True, and that is the very body which has held that the rights
guaranteed to US citizens in the Constitution do not apply to military
personnel.

:and
:while some
:tennents of the Constitution are somewhat curtailed, I think it is a very
:Big Strech to say the U.S. Constitiuation
:does not apply to US service members.

The Constitution is not a 'you get part of it' deal. Either it
applies or it does not. There was a decision (sometime in the early
1970's, I think - don't have a cite handy for that one) which
essentially held that the United States military, due to the
exigencies of military service, was a separate society and that the
rights of its members were only those guaranteed in the UCMJ and those
from the Constitution did not apply.

--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

Jim
July 22nd 03, 06:19 PM
> You mean the Supreme Court that turned the 14th amendment on its
> head (their reasoning was that my neighbor's vote shouldn't
> be counted because it "dilutes" my vote -- well, yes, as it should
> in a democracy) in order to select George Bush as president?


No I am talking about the Supream court that stoped the Fla Supream court
from changing the rules after the election when there boy lost.

I will also note severial liberial news agencies (NY times,CNN etc)
counted the chads and it was a non-issue as even counting the chads Gore
still lost Fla.

Jim

William Black
July 22nd 03, 08:30 PM
"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, "William Black" wrote:

> > The rules were changed to stop people like the Nazis shooting resistance
> > fighters out of hand.
> >
> > Now if the polkadot head dress was a distinctive one...
>
> Hmmm, would one have to treat S.P.E.C.T.R.E under the rules and laws of
war?
> They *were* uniformed, but in an otherwise stateless "army." Al Qaeda
> basically being the same. In a way, "land" pirates.

Same way you treat pirates or any other criminal conspiracy that wear a
uniform (Hell Angles seem to fit as well)

The operative word here is CRIMINAL...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

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

Peter Skelton
July 22nd 03, 08:43 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, "William Black" wrote:
>
>> > The rules were changed to stop people like the Nazis shooting resistance
>> > fighters out of hand.
>> >
>> > Now if the polkadot head dress was a distinctive one...
>>
>> Hmmm, would one have to treat S.P.E.C.T.R.E under the rules and laws of
>war?
>> They *were* uniformed, but in an otherwise stateless "army." Al Qaeda
>> basically being the same. In a way, "land" pirates.
>
>Same way you treat pirates or any other criminal conspiracy that wear a
>uniform (Hell Angles seem to fit as well)
>
>The operative word here is CRIMINAL...
>
>You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
>trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

I wonder whether the difference between a criminal conspiracy
that gets the law and one that gets war isn't mostly size. Which
rules they get after capture seems to be something of a political
decision.

(Certainly the navy was needed to deal with pirate bases at times
in the past.)
____

Peter Skelton

William Black
July 22nd 03, 09:25 PM
"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> > wrote:

> >The operative word here is CRIMINAL...
> >
> >You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
> >trial, and if found guilty you punish them...
>
> I wonder whether the difference between a criminal conspiracy
> that gets the law and one that gets war isn't mostly size. Which
> rules they get after capture seems to be something of a political
> decision.
>
> (Certainly the navy was needed to deal with pirate bases at times
> in the past.)

And the militia was called out at Peter's Fields in Manchester, and the US
Army was used against the Bonus Marchers and the modern RN seems to operate
against drug smugglers with some success..

The military is often called out to aid the civil power.

Pirates were hanged at execution dock, but they were tried before a
civilian court.

However arresting them was often a bloody business, it doesn't stop them
being criminals, and, probably more to the point, it didn't stop ship's
captains holding 'Letters of Marque' being treated as prisoners of war.

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

Jim
July 22nd 03, 10:40 PM
"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, "William Black" wrote:
>
> > > The rules were changed to stop people like the Nazis shooting
resistance
> > > fighters out of hand.
> > >
> > > Now if the polkadot head dress was a distinctive one...
> >
> > Hmmm, would one have to treat S.P.E.C.T.R.E under the rules and laws of
> war?
> > They *were* uniformed, but in an otherwise stateless "army." Al Qaeda
> > basically being the same. In a way, "land" pirates.
>
> Same way you treat pirates or any other criminal conspiracy that wear a
> uniform (Hell Angles seem to fit as well)
>
> The operative word here is CRIMINAL...
>
> You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
> trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was normally
hanging from the highest Yard-arm.

Jim

Peter Skelton
July 22nd 03, 10:46 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >The operative word here is CRIMINAL...
>> >
>> >You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
>> >trial, and if found guilty you punish them...
>>
>> I wonder whether the difference between a criminal conspiracy
>> that gets the law and one that gets war isn't mostly size. Which
>> rules they get after capture seems to be something of a political
>> decision.
>>
>> (Certainly the navy was needed to deal with pirate bases at times
>> in the past.)
>
>And the militia was called out at Peter's Fields in Manchester, and the US
>Army was used against the Bonus Marchers and the modern RN seems to operate
>against drug smugglers with some success..

In other words, big problems get the military, we're together so
far.

>The military is often called out to aid the civil power.
>
>Pirates were hanged at execution dock, but they were tried before a
>civilian court.

Or an Admiralty court, depending IRRC.

>However arresting them was often a bloody business, it doesn't stop them
>being criminals, and, probably more to the point, it didn't stop ship's
>captains holding 'Letters of Marque' being treated as prisoners of war.

Or as pirates, also depending on the political situation.

It's a little hard to think of Hitler and his gang of merry
assasins, murderers, theives, & rapists as anything but a
criminal conspiracy though and they got war.

Then there are revolutionaries. The founding fathers might have
been thought of as a criminal conspiracy, except that they won.
Many failed revolutionaries have been, but the American
Confederacy was not.

Other lovely people like our fiends AQ who aren't really a
country, although they control terrotory and have political
agendas.

The situations don't really fit the laws exactly. In many cases,
laws, in the broad sense of the word, are written to deal with
the situations.
____

Peter Skelton

Trewth Seeker
July 23rd 03, 07:23 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> > You're just another right wing hypocrite asshole.
>
>
> As opposed to a Left wing nut.

Yes. (Dumber than a doorknob, too.)

>
>
> Jim

Trewth Seeker
July 23rd 03, 07:41 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> > You mean the Supreme Court that turned the 14th amendment on its
> > head (their reasoning was that my neighbor's vote shouldn't
> > be counted because it "dilutes" my vote -- well, yes, as it should
> > in a democracy) in order to select George Bush as president?
>
>
> No I am talking about the Supream court that stoped the Fla Supream court
> from changing the rules after the election when there boy lost.

I'll let the internal evidence speak for itself as to which of us
is more likely to have this right.

> I will also note severial liberial news agencies (NY times,CNN etc)
> counted the chads and it was a non-issue as even counting the chads Gore
> still lost Fla.

Not true; see, for instance

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~kimai/research/ballots.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2058603

It's curious that people continue to call the New York Times
"liberal" when it did everything it could to get Bush elected,
and then misrepresented the facts to claim that he won
legitimately when he didn't.

Trewth Seeker
July 23rd 03, 08:52 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> > You're just another right wing hypocrite asshole.
>
>
> As opposed to a Left wing nut.

Yes. (Dumber than a doorknob, too.)

>
>
> Jim

William Black
July 23rd 03, 07:48 PM
"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...

> > You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
> > trial, and if found guilty you punish them...
>
> Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was
normally
> hanging from the highest Yard-arm.

I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.

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

Peter Skelton
July 23rd 03, 08:33 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:56:35 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> > wrote:
>
>> It's a little hard to think of Hitler and his gang of merry
>> assasins, murderers, theives, & rapists as anything but a
>> criminal conspiracy though and they got war.
>
>That's true, however they were also the legal government of Germany,
>repugnant as the idea is...
>
The world is not tidy.
>>
>> Then there are revolutionaries. The founding fathers might have
>> been thought of as a criminal conspiracy, except that they won.
>
>'Treason cannot prosper, for with prosperity it ceases to be treason'.

Precisely

>If the Taliban had thrashed the US out of sight they'd be taking their seat
>in the UN right now. Nobody seriously wants South Vietnam back either...
>
>With victory comes legitimacy

True, the PLO is well on its way.

>> Many failed revolutionaries have been, but the American
>> Confederacy was not.
>
>I'm not aware that the leaders of the Confederacy were ever put on trial,
>and I'll bet someone somewhere considered it.

Certainly, and a politican decision was made not to.

>However, civil wars are odd.
>
>> Other lovely people like our fiends AQ who aren't really a
>> country, although they control terrotory and have political
>> agendas.
>
>They don't control territory any more than any 'non-governmental
>organisation' does. The government doesn't have the right of entry onto
>your property either

The government may not have the right, but they do have the
ability. People hold property at the governments pleasure (they
govern at the people's, so that's fair...)

At one point AQ ceontrolled areas whatever the government wanted.
There have been large areas in other countries where other
organizations have had

>> The situations don't really fit the laws exactly. In many cases,
>> laws, in the broad sense of the word, are written to deal with
>> the situations.
>
>That's also true. However there's no doubt in my mind that the attack on
>the twin towers was a criminal, act and not an act of war.

Agreed. I hope I didn't iomply differently. In the long run,
controlling these extra-governmental organizations and badly
behaved governments may require extending the rule of law to
cover them.

>Treating these criminals as soldiers gives them a dignity they do not
>deserve and legitimises them to an extent that is frightening.

If you are talking about the perpetrators on 9-11, I agree.
There's a fairly lengthy liast of others too.
____

Peter Skelton

Jim
July 23rd 03, 10:43 PM
--
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing
ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It
is for hunting politicians like in Grozney and in 1776, when they take
your independence away".

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them
on
> > > trial, and if found guilty you punish them...
> >
> > Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was
> normally
> > hanging from the highest Yard-arm.
>
> I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.
>

Was there a trail when they were firing broadsides as well...
Was there a trail when the marines stormed Tripoli?
Jim

William Black
July 24th 03, 06:59 PM
"Jim" > wrote in message ...

> > I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.
> >
>
> Was there a trail when they were firing broadsides as well...
> Was there a trail when the marines stormed Tripoli?

Leroy! That boy's using your computer again...

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

Google