Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003

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


TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

[C J Campbell]

Criminal prosecution? Under what section of the US Code?

[Dave]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Criminal prosecution? Under what section of the US Code?

Yeh, there no law against stupidity!

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Dave"
> wrote:

> > Criminal prosecution? Under what section of the US Code?
>
> Yeh, there no law against stupidity!

a truth for which many many should be thankful.

--
Bob Noel

[BTIZ]

well.. until the Fed's cough up a printed "readable" chart ..

and the local Fed "information center".. primarily the Flight Service
Stations.. can read and understand the TFR and when it is active..

then.. I don't see how any prosecution could hold water..

I understand one thing for the "permanent" ADIZ / TFR (P-40)

but the pop up TFRs when the President travels.. is even harder to know..
especially when the time period is 0800-1600, but the speech goes long.. the
dinner goes long.. and the Prez does not leave until 1800, thus extending
the TFR.. but no way for the pilot that departed at 1500 from far off, into
the TFR area.. to know.

BT

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
> The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
> who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
> recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
> are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
> mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
> account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
> Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
> remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
> mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
> told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
> half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

[Icebound]

BTIZ wrote:
> well.. until the Fed's cough up a printed "readable" chart ..
>
> and the local Fed "information center".. primarily the Flight Service
> Stations.. can read and understand the TFR and when it is active..
>
> then.. I don't see how any prosecution could hold water..
>
>

How much water does it really have to hold, under the Patriot Act?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
> The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
> who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
> recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
> are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
> mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
> account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
> Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
> remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
> mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
> told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
> half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
the SS.

[Doug]

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
> The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
> who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
> recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
> are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
> mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
> account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
> Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
> remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
> mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
> told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
> half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
> the SS.

I'm afraid it's too late. The power is no longer with the people in this
country.

[Doug]

Do a google search on "9/11 Detainees", "Guantanamo Bay Detainees",
and "FISA Secret Court"
also:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/17/detainees/

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
> The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
> who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
> recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
> are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
> mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
> account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
> Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
> remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
> mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
> told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
> half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

[Samantha]

Doug wrote:

> Do a google search on "9/11 Detainees", "Guantanamo Bay Detainees",
> and "FISA Secret Court"

Because, if it's on the Internet, it MUST BE True. Don't provide specific citations from respected
sources, of course.

[Peter Gottlieb]

The Justice Department and Ashcroft admit everything alleged. What about
this don't you believe?


"Samantha" > wrote in message
...
> Doug wrote:
>
> > Do a google search on "9/11 Detainees", "Guantanamo Bay Detainees",
> > and "FISA Secret Court"
>
> Because, if it's on the Internet, it MUST BE True. Don't provide
specific citations from respected
> sources, of course.
>

[Mark Mallory]

Doug wrote:

> All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
> it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and

Hey Doug: aren't you the moron who was trying to solve a rigging problem with
his AUTOPILOT engaged?

(A HUSKY, right?)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:24:58 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

>Criminal prosecution? Under what section of the US Code?
>

Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act.
read them and you know your "rights".

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php

[Martin Hotze]

On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, Doug wrote:

>600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
>ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?))

there was a TV documentation on a German TV station about Guantanamo Bay.
They interviewed 2 (or more) released people in Afghanistan. Both have been
imprisoned while there was collected headmoney for them paid by US folks
(CIA, military, ??)

in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0,1518,260710,00.html

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:04:06 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
[...]

>> the Secret Service initially wanted
>> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots.
>
>Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
>the SS.

I like the way you think. With what would we charge them?

[Larry Dighera]

On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
>it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
>never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
>ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
>safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
>Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
>Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
officials who violate constitutional guarantees?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:55:11 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
>> the SS.
>
>I'm afraid it's too late. The power is no longer with the people in this
>country.
>

To which "power" are you referring? If it's the judicial power of
government, there's little doubt that, given the gutting of
Constitutional assurances by the Patriot Act, you are correct.

If the power to which you refer is the peoples' "might to do right,"
the numbers look like they could be 260 million to perhaps well under
one million. I'd say odds of 260:1 are significantly in the favor of
the people to see that justice returns to its government.

It's but a matter of public education and will. When the
extra-constitutional powers granted government by the Patriot Act
begin to be used against the people of the nation, and the lives of
its people are directly impacted, there will be potential for the
people to reverse the travesties contained in the Patriot Act, and
submit its agencies to redress.

I believe we'll have to give the government a little more time to hone
its hobnail boots and iron fists to allow the pendulum of tyranny to
swing yet farther to the right before it can be clearly discerned and
addressed by the man-in-the-street.

If the government continues on its course of citizen oppression, it
will soon learn that such a policy will be its undoing.

[Larry Dighera]

On 15 Nov 2003 21:16:27 -0800, (Doug)
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>Do a google search on "9/11 Detainees", "Guantanamo Bay Detainees",
>and "FISA Secret Court"
>also:
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/17/detainees/

It's absolutely astonishing how the Executive branch of our (US)
government has done the bidding of the 9/11 terrorists in hastening
the fall of our young idealistic nation in such a brief period of
time. I wouldn't have thought it possible. But, tyranny seems to lie
just beneath the surface of those in power:

http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_806.shtml
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ451.106

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:27:46 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote in Message-Id: <qgBtb.3217$Ue4.2860@fed1read01>:

>well.. until the Fed's cough up a printed "readable" chart ..
>
>and the local Fed "information center".. primarily the Flight Service
>Stations.. can read and understand the TFR and when it is active..
>
>then.. I don't see how any prosecution could hold water..

With what legal statute would airmen who enter TFRs contrary to NOTAM
be charged?

>I understand one thing for the "permanent" ADIZ / TFR (P-40)
>
>but the pop up TFRs when the President travels.. is even harder to know..
>especially when the time period is 0800-1600, but the speech goes long.. the
>dinner goes long.. and the Prez does not leave until 1800, thus extending
>the TFR.. but no way for the pilot that departed at 1500 from far off, into
>the TFR area.. to know.

Such ignorant attempts at "security" reveal it's futility. Only the
just are thwarted.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> If the government continues on its course of citizen oppression, it
> will soon learn that such a policy will be its undoing.

A true optimist. Hope you're right.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Doug]

Probably because she was never taught about these things in school.
Neither was I. Probaby because she was taught that the police had to
follow the rules in the constitution. No one ever taught any of us
about these things. Therefore they don't exist. Also she probably
voted for Bush, how could he do such a thing, if she voted for him?

It all really exists, secret FISA courts, 1000 arrested without
charges after 9/11, and Guantanamo Bay.

The CIA really exists, it's not just a figmant of your imagination.

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> The Justice Department and Ashcroft admit everything alleged. What about
> this don't you believe?
>
>
> "Samantha" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Do a google search on "9/11 Detainees", "Guantanamo Bay Detainees",
> > > and "FISA Secret Court"
> >
> > Because, if it's on the Internet, it MUST BE True. Don't provide
> specific citations from respected
> > sources, of course.
> >

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:08:41 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> If the government continues on its course of citizen oppression, it
>> will soon learn that such a policy will be its undoing.
>
>A true optimist.

That's far better than some of the other things I've been called. :-)

>Hope you're right.

Time will tell.

The founding fathers had faith in the will of the people; I hope we
haven't changed too much since 1776.

[Andrew Gideon]

TSA strategy: If you're lousy at your job of catching criminals, make it
easier by creating more "criminals".

I'm sure there's a column on a spreadsheet somewhere titled "successful
intercepts" or some such.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> The founding fathers had faith in the will of the people; I hope we
> haven't changed too much since 1776.

In 1776 opinions weren't swayed by the candidate with the most money for TV
time.

- Andrew

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:24:58 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
|
| >Criminal prosecution? Under what section of the US Code?
| >
|
| Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act.
| read them and you know your "rights".

Neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act authorize prosecution
for violating a TFR or, for that matter, any other FAA regulation.

[Robert Perkins]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:46:20 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0,1518,260710,00.html

Interesting. For free, the usual unsupported dreck. For a couple of
bucks (for me, that would be the charge for the articles plus the bank
charges to process dollars into euros) you can have the full context.

I'll offer a translation, best I can, in all cases the word
translation choices are mine:

(begin translation)

660 prisonsers now subsist in the high-security prison called "Camp
Delta" at the Guantanamo Bay Marine base. Among them is a Turk, Murat
Kurnaz, who was born and raised in Bremen (Germany). Without the
chance for a trial, he waits for his release, or at least some
official charge.

AP

Prisoners in an apparantly disenfranchised place: Camp Delta Inmates

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

(end translation)

Go ahead, Spiegel, tell us how you *really* feel!

I note that for a holding prison which (I'm told, and those pictures
seem to show) feeds and clothes the inmates, and gives them
opportunity to exercise their religion (note that those flourescent
prison outfits come with *head cover*), within the constraints of the
prison.

Perhaps SPIEGEL TV would serve us all better by examining something
like the French prison system, or that of, say, Saudi Arabia. In
Saudia Arabia, I'm told, the prisoners give law enforcement a hand
from time to time. Literally.

And in any case, the term is "enemy combatant," and is a *correct*
term for a combatant who operates against an army outside the
strictures of the Geneva Convention.

None of that page, of course, makes the claim that Martin made, namely
that there were bounty hunters involved in collecting the enemy
combatants. Presumably the allegations are made in the TV program? If
so, by whom? And what would be wrong with that in a war zone?

Es geht schon, Martin. Ein paar hier koennen auch Deutsch, auch wenn
unsere Tastaturen es nicht koennen!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Kevin Darling]

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> The founding fathers had faith in the will of the people; I hope we
> haven't changed too much since 1776.

I'm not a political scientist, but actually I believe the founding
fathers didn't have much faith in the will of the general public...
and that's why we have a representative republic instead of a raw
democracy.

The founding fathers worried about the "tyranny of the majority",
which for pilots would indeed be much worse, as the majority of folks
would probably vote to shut down general aviation out of sheer
ignorance.

With a republic, minority views count, since (for one thing) we can
put pressure on our representatives, or even shout out our own views.

Just a sidenote. Thanks. Kev

[Dave]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:55:11 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >
> >"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>

....
> >>
> >> Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
> >> the SS.
> >
> >I'm afraid it's too late. The power is no longer with the people in this
> >country.
> >
>
> To which "power" are you referring? If it's the judicial power of
> government, there's little doubt that, given the gutting of
> Constitutional assurances by the Patriot Act, you are correct.
>
> If the power to which you refer is the peoples' "might to do right,"
> the numbers look like they could be 260 million to perhaps well under
> one million. I'd say odds of 260:1 are significantly in the favor of
> the people to see that justice returns to its government.
>
> It's but a matter of public education and will. When the
> extra-constitutional powers granted government by the Patriot Act
> begin to be used against the people of the nation, and the lives of
> its people are directly impacted, there will be potential for the
> people to reverse the travesties contained in the Patriot Act, and
> submit its agencies to redress.
>
> I believe we'll have to give the government a little more time to hone
> its hobnail boots and iron fists to allow the pendulum of tyranny to
> swing yet farther to the right before it can be clearly discerned and
> addressed by the man-in-the-street.
>
> If the government continues on its course of citizen oppression, it
> will soon learn that such a policy will be its undoing.
>

I suppose you mean just like the Germans public rose up against the Nazi
tyranny in the 1930s.

[Dave]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message >
> It's absolutely astonishing how the Executive branch of our (US)
> government has done the bidding of the 9/11 terrorists in hastening
> the fall of our young idealistic nation in such a brief period of
> time. I wouldn't have thought it possible. But, tyranny seems to lie
> just beneath the surface of those in power:
>
Just woken up have we. Politicians love terrorists. Terrorists give the
politicians the excuse to take even more power. And once power is taken then
it is never given up easily.

I am sorry to say that 9/11 was just what Bush needed to save his Presidency
and the political careers of a whole load of White House staff who know they
were going down the tubes if things were to continue as they had been.

Bush must say prayers of thanks to the Lord for creating Bin Ladan.

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
Robert Perkins > wrote:

> This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
> therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
> charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
> equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
> future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
> wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
> that could mean the death penalty.
>
> 68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
> Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
> Guantanamo from the inside.

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.

(Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
-- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
home to their farms and families.)

What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
sides)

The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've never understood the problem here.
>
> Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
> surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
> sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
> their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.
>


So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."

[David Reinhart]

Guantanamo Bay is *not* Cuban jurisdiction. We claim and exercise full
extra-territorality there. If a serviceman there commits a crime he is
charged, tried, and punished under U.S. law.

Dave Reinhart


Robert Perkins wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:46:20 GMT, Martin Hotze >
> wrote:
>
> >in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0,1518,260710,00.html
>
> Interesting. For free, the usual unsupported dreck. For a couple of
> bucks (for me, that would be the charge for the articles plus the bank
> charges to process dollars into euros) you can have the full context.
>
> I'll offer a translation, best I can, in all cases the word
> translation choices are mine:
>
> (begin translation)
>
> 660 prisonsers now subsist in the high-security prison called "Camp
> Delta" at the Guantanamo Bay Marine base. Among them is a Turk, Murat
> Kurnaz, who was born and raised in Bremen (Germany). Without the
> chance for a trial, he waits for his release, or at least some
> official charge.
>
> AP
>
> Prisoners in an apparantly disenfranchised place: Camp Delta Inmates
>
> This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
> therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
> charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
> equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
> future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
> wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
> that could mean the death penalty.
>
> 68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
> Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
> Guantanamo from the inside.
>
> (end translation)
>
> Go ahead, Spiegel, tell us how you *really* feel!
>
> I note that for a holding prison which (I'm told, and those pictures
> seem to show) feeds and clothes the inmates, and gives them
> opportunity to exercise their religion (note that those flourescent
> prison outfits come with *head cover*), within the constraints of the
> prison.
>
> Perhaps SPIEGEL TV would serve us all better by examining something
> like the French prison system, or that of, say, Saudi Arabia. In
> Saudia Arabia, I'm told, the prisoners give law enforcement a hand
> from time to time. Literally.
>
> And in any case, the term is "enemy combatant," and is a *correct*
> term for a combatant who operates against an army outside the
> strictures of the Geneva Convention.
>
> None of that page, of course, makes the claim that Martin made, namely
> that there were bounty hunters involved in collecting the enemy
> combatants. Presumably the allegations are made in the TV program? If
> so, by whom? And what would be wrong with that in a war zone?
>
> Es geht schon, Martin. Ein paar hier koennen auch Deutsch, auch wenn
> unsere Tastaturen es nicht koennen!
>
> Rob
>
> --
> [You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
> ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
> educate themselves.
>
> -- Orson Scott Card

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:04:06 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> >> the Secret Service initially wanted
> >> criminal charges laid against wayward pilots.
> >
> >Maybe it's time to get criminal prosecutions against some officials in
> >the SS.
>
> I like the way you think. With what would we charge them?
>
>

How about treason, for starters? That should get their attention.

Then, we could reduce the charges to "abuse of the colors of authority."

What we really need is names, so we can start a movement to get them
reassigend (to Antarctica, to assure that the penguins aren't plotting
terrorist threats). Those bureaucrats are like cockroaches -- they try
to do their business in the dark and cannot stand anyone shining a light
on them.

[Dave Stadt]

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Robert Perkins > wrote:
>
> > This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
> > therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
> > charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
> > equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
> > future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
> > wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
> > that could mean the death penalty.
> >
> > 68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
> > Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
> > Guantanamo from the inside.
>
> I've never understood the problem here.
>
> Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
> surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
> sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
> their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.
>
> (Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
> -- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
> word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
> home to their farms and families.)
>
> What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
> the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
> neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
> sides)

Sorry dude, they are not POWs. Our government has said that numerous times.

> The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
> a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
> miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
> increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and now
expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that approach is
going to work.

[Jake Brodsky]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:44:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/146-full.html#186022

Busting a *regulation* is supposed to be a civil matter. See Chapter
5 of the United States Code. Of course, this chapter has been
violated before: Remember the regulation allowing invalidation and
confiscation of a pilot's certificate without notice, due process, or
even the opportunity to contest the action?

That said, I'd almost be willing to accept this sort of penalty if
only the FAA would publish the ADIZ and FRZ on a chart suitable for
navigation; add notes to the AFD for each airport and navigation aid
inside the ADIZ; and try the pilot in front of a federal jury
consisting of peers with aviation-related certification.

But we all know how likely that will be...


Jake Brodsky,
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> In fact, according to EAA's account of the meeting, the Secret Service
> initially wanted criminal charges laid against wayward pilots.

Well, if they did that, at least the pilots would get trials in something better
than the FAA's kangaroo court system.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:

> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I've never understood the problem here.
> >
> > Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
> > surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
> > sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
> > their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.
> >
>
>
> So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?
>
> This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
> side."


That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.

[John T]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message

>
> Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
> now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
> approach is going to work.

Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Kevin McCue]

Unless they decided you were a "threat" to national security and
secreted you off to a tribunal.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Dave Stadt]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
> > now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
> > approach is going to work.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
> __________
>

I suggested nothing. Nice try anyway.

[John T]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om
>
> I suggested nothing.

You most certainly did suggest something. You said:

<quote>
Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and now
expect them to fight by our rules.
</quote>

To which part of that does your "absurdity" claim apply (the one you
suggested we factor in)?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Tom Hyslip]

I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
violated?

Everyone seems to complain about the the patriot act, and the enemy
combatents in Cuba, but they really have no evidence that the patriotic act
has ever violated their rights, or anyone they know.

They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If you
release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first chance.
So we keep them until the war is over.

You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies, USS
Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take the
fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need to
protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
> >it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
> >never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
> >ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
> >safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
> >Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
> >Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!
>
> And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
> regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
> officials who violate constitutional guarantees?
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
>> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>>
>> >All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
>> >it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
>> >never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
>> >ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
>> >safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
>> >Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
>> >Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!
>>
>> And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
>> regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
>> officials who violate constitutional guarantees?
>>
>>
>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:06:34 GMT, "Tom Hyslip" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
>violated?

So your point is, that if I haven't PERSONALLY experienced a lack of
due process, it hasn't happened?

Talk to Craig Prouse (a regular contributor to this newsgroup).
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=6f8ff9cd.0206261818.5b96dc3b%40posting.goo gle.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dhabeas%2520corpus%26safe%3Dimage s%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.piloting%26lr%3D%26hl %3Den

From: "Craig Prouse" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:09:25 -0700
Message-ID: >

A friend from college has been beside himself for the last few
days. His 65-year-old father, a naturalized American citizen of
Pakistani origin, and holder of a private pilot certificate, has
been secretly detained.




http://reason.com/sullum/061402.shtml
But by locking him up indefinitely without bringing charges, the
government is setting a precedent for preventive detention of any
U.S. citizen whom the president decides to put on the country's
enemy list.

This maneuver makes due process disappear through misdirection and
circular reasoning: If you're a terrorist, you're an "enemy
combatant." Therefore, the government does not have to prove
you're a terrorist.




http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/2900485p-2670334c.html
The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
most troubling:

• The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
information and medical records without having "probable cause."
Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.

• Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
the government to go into someone's home or business without the
target knowing it.

• In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
the government links to terrorism..

The secrecy extends beyond the Patriot Act, particularly when it
comes to air travel. Some people trying to board airplanes have
been detained without explanation, many apparently because their
names are similar to those on secret government watch lists.

Yet details of how someone ends up on such a list -- or how many
people are on it -- remain secret.

How much freedom to give up?

Some are asking whether they're being forced to give up too many
personal freedoms.

"Does this sound like the United States, or does this sound like
1950s Russia?" asked Tim Armstrong, a 56-year-old Vietnam War
veteran and ad salesman for a radio station in Juneau, Alaska,
where citizens are banding together against the federal
government's new efforts.

It's a question being asked by liberals and conservatives.

"This whole thing scares me," said Robert Corbin, a former
president of the National Rifle Association. "I believe very
strongly in the Bill of Rights, and I don't want anybody to screw
around with it."

Corbin noted his group, widely viewed as conservative, has found
common ground with the ACLU over the Patriot Act.

"I'm just afraid that the Patriot Act is like the war on drugs,
where people are willing to give up their freedoms for security,"
he said. "And I'm not."

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows
the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the
blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is
what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

[Tom Hyslip]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
> >> wrote in Message-Id: >:
> >>
> >> >All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
> >> >it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
> >> >never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
> >> >ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
> >> >safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
> >> >Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
> >> >Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!
> >>
> >> And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
> >> regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
> >> officials who violate constitutional guarantees?
> >>
> >>
> >
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:06:34 GMT, "Tom Hyslip" >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
> >violated?
>
> So your point is, that if I haven't PERSONALLY experienced a lack of
> due process, it hasn't happened?
>
> Talk to Craig Prouse (a regular contributor to this newsgroup).
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=6f8ff9cd.0206261818.5b96dc3b%40posting.goo gle.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dhabeas%2520corpus%26safe%3Dimage s%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.piloting%26lr%3D%26hl %3Den
>
> From: "Craig Prouse" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:09:25 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> A friend from college has been beside himself for the last few
> days. His 65-year-old father, a naturalized American citizen of
> Pakistani origin, and holder of a private pilot certificate, has
> been secretly detained.
>
> ONCE AGAIN, A FRIEND OR RELATIVE OF A FRIEND.
>
>
> http://reason.com/sullum/061402.shtml
> But by locking him up indefinitely without bringing charges, the
> government is setting a precedent for preventive detention of any
> U.S. citizen whom the president decides to put on the country's
> enemy list.
>
> This maneuver makes due process disappear through misdirection and
> circular reasoning: If you're a terrorist, you're an "enemy
> combatant." Therefore, the government does not have to prove
> you're a terrorist.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/2900485p-2670334c.html
> The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
> Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
> most troubling:
>
> . The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
> reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
> information and medical records without having "probable cause."
> Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
> body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
> deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.
>

CALLED JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO DIFFERENCE THEN GOING TO ANY OTHER COURT
AND HAVING THE RECORD SEALED
WHICH IS DONE I ALMOST EVERY CASE


> . Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
> the government to go into someone's home or business without the
> target knowing it.
>

SEE ABOVE

> . In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
> the government links to terrorism..
>
AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY. NO DIFFERENCE THEN PROVIDING MONEY TO
HITLER IN WW2

> The secrecy extends beyond the Patriot Act, particularly when it
> comes to air travel. Some people trying to board airplanes have
> been detained without explanation, many apparently because their
> names are similar to those on secret government watch lists.
>

NOT DETAINED WITHOUT EXPLANATION, STOPPED BECAUSE THEIR NAME WAS ON
A WATCH LISTED. INTERVIEWED TO
ENSURE THIS PERSON IS NOT THE TERRORIST ON THE LIST AND THEN LET GO.
SMALL DELAY TO PROTECT THE USA

> Yet details of how someone ends up on such a list -- or how many
> people are on it -- remain secret.
>
> How much freedom to give up?
>
> Some are asking whether they're being forced to give up too many
> personal freedoms.
>
> "Does this sound like the United States, or does this sound like
> 1950s Russia?" asked Tim Armstrong, a 56-year-old Vietnam War
> veteran and ad salesman for a radio station in Juneau, Alaska,
> where citizens are banding together against the federal
> government's new efforts.
>
> It's a question being asked by liberals and conservatives.
>
> "This whole thing scares me," said Robert Corbin, a former
> president of the National Rifle Association. "I believe very
> strongly in the Bill of Rights, and I don't want anybody to screw
> around with it."
>
> Corbin noted his group, widely viewed as conservative, has found
> common ground with the ACLU over the Patriot Act.
>
> "I'm just afraid that the Patriot Act is like the war on drugs,
> where people are willing to give up their freedoms for security,"
> he said. "And I'm not."
>
> "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
> citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
> double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows
> the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the
> blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no
> need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
> infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of
> their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is
> what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar
>

AMUSSING, BUT NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's my point.
>
> If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
> phrasing), that's *their* problem.


So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

I'm all for having a safe and secure country, but not if it means stuff like
that, because giving a government infinite power like that will lead to some
very bad things.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
m...
> They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.

> As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If you
> release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first chance.

You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?

> So we keep them until the war is over.

This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?

> You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies, USS
> Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take the
> fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need to
> protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.

There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to protect
this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the whole
mess being discovered as a sham?

If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then convene a
bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on. (Oh,
that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save it's
life. But others in government can.)

Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse of
power.

[Tom Hyslip]

You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to them,
there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush, and
this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on our
soil.

And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am a
Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I have
seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do it
again.

The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on terror
makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
knowledge of.

But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our civilians in
the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military killing
them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
> m...
> > They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.
>
> Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.
>
> > As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If you
> > release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.
>
> You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?
>
> > So we keep them until the war is over.
>
> This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?
>
> > You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies, USS
> > Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take the
> > fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need to
> > protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.
>
> There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to protect
> this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the whole
> mess being discovered as a sham?
>
> If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then convene
a
> bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on. (Oh,
> that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save it's
> life. But others in government can.)
>
> Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse of
> power.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
> evidence?

Well, the purpose of a trial is to estabish the guilt or innocence of persons
accused of committing crimes. None of the people at Guantanamo have been accused
of committing crimes. They were found fighting against the US forces. That makes
them hostile combatants, and there is no question of or need for a trial, since
they are not criminals. Evidence of commision of a crime is also completely
unnecessary, since that is not the issue here.

There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of the
combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of hostitilies, and this is in
complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to any
particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
trial.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
m...
> You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
> another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
> there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush, and
> this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
> there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on our
> soil.
>
> And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am a
> Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I
have
> seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do it
> again.

You, sir, are dangerous. You have been given power and you now believe your
opinion is more important than oversight and due process. As an officer,
what did your training and education in history teach you about the logical
extension of such viewpoints?

Power has been set up in this country with checks and balances. As a Law
Enforcement Officer, you are subject to one very strong check and balance -
the court system. You may fully believe you are correct, but you may be
proven fully wrong. Just because you have seen what criminals can do does
not give you the right to permanently lock up suspects on your whim.

Do you really want to start dismantling this system of checks and balances?
Where do you think that will lead?

> The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror
> makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
> ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
> knowledge of.

So, is the only valid viewpoint whatever the administration says it is? As
a citizen, I have a right to demand oversight of any administration,
especially in important matters such as these. And I get suspicious, in a
grand way, when the administration blocks all efforts at oversight. I do
not know if what they are doing is right or wrong, or how much, but the
foresight and planning shown so far by this administration do not give me a
lot of confidence in their abilities and I would rather have more heads
working on this and I would like to see this done in an organized,
non-partisan manner.

> But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our civilians
in
> the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
> them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

I do believe you rather missed my point. I would rather this country fight
effectively, honestly, and honorably. You are in no better position than
anybody else to know how effective the current policies will be in the long
term. To really answer your question, what I want is to effectively
neutralize the threat, not just now but going forward, and I don't want to
have to have the military fighting battles all over the planet forever to
achieve this goal.

Enough of this. Say your response and I will leave it at that. You are
free to have the "last word" here.



> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.
> >
> > Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.
> >
> > > As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If
you
> > > release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
> chance.
> >
> > You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?
> >
> > > So we keep them until the war is over.
> >
> > This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?
> >
> > > You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies,
USS
> > > Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take
the
> > > fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need to
> > > protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.
> >
> > There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to
protect
> > this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the whole
> > mess being discovered as a sham?
> >
> > If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then
convene
> a
> > bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on. (Oh,
> > that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save
it's
> > life. But others in government can.)
> >
> > Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse of
> > power.
> >
> >
>
>

[Montblack]

("G.R. Patterson III" wrote)
> There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of
the
> combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of
hostitilies, and this is in
> complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
> treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to
any
> particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
> basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
> trial.


The "explanation" by the administration had me howling - not agreeing or
disagreeing, just howling.

The detainees would not be accorded the standard US system of due process,
etc
because they weren't being held on US soil. *Top* people were spouting that
line for weeks.

My thought was, well ok, what does Cuba's system say about this? Oh wait,
now it is US soil ...sort of.

--
Montblack

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> You have been given power and you now believe your
> opinion is more important than oversight and due process.

"Due process" is short for "due process of LAW". Tell us. What LAW applies to
non-military people found fighting in a foreign country against organized
military personel?

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > You have been given power and you now believe your
> > opinion is more important than oversight and due process.
>
> "Due process" is short for "due process of LAW". Tell us. What LAW applies to
> non-military people found fighting in a foreign country against organized
> military personel?




According to the Geneva Conventions, they may be executed as spies, as
they have no legal status.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> I am confused.

*shack*

--
Bob Noel

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> US forces were found fighting hostile combatants, and there is no
> question or need for a trial, since they are not criminals.

Go read the Geneva Convention before you appear even more ignorant.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:43:20 GMT, "Tom Hyslip" >
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

[...]

>> http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/2900485p-2670334c.html
>> The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
>> Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
>> most troubling:
>>
>> . The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
>> reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
>> information and medical records without having "probable cause."
>> Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
>> body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
>> deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.
>>
>
> CALLED JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO DIFFERENCE THEN GOING TO ANY OTHER COURT
>AND HAVING THE RECORD SEALED
> WHICH IS DONE I [sic] ALMOST EVERY CASE
>

This is so startlingly Orwellian as to elevate the sagacious author to
absolute prescience:

"The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
[...] financial information and medical records without having
"probable cause."

If, indeed, the above quote is correct, I am profoundly insulted and
forever disillusioned by the audacious hubris of the small minds that
people the labyrinth that is US bureaucracy.

It makes me feel fortunate to have lived in more noble times past that
predate the marketing saturated, over populated, television steeped,
patently corrupt, sorry quagmire that today so rapidly engulfs our
once respected and capable nation. I am so revulsed by such vulgar
trampling of the ideals of freedom and equality espoused in the
documents of this nation's birth as to feel relief, that my journey
into the future is now considerably shorter then the 25% of this
nation's existence that I have thus far experienced.

Denying due process of law to US citizens is not only criminal, it is
unjust and wrong.

>> . Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
>> the government to go into someone's home or business without the
>> target knowing it.
>>
>
> SEE ABOVE

Secret and warrantless search is how you define "JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT"?
Your credibility is blown, brother.

>> . In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
>> the government links to terrorism..
>>
> AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY. NO DIFFERENCE THEN PROVIDING MONEY TO
>HITLER IN WW2

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> whatever is written there.

Just as I thought. Just another attempt at a drive-by.

> You as an American bring up sentiments
> about fighting terrorism and how to fight terrorism. This is your
> good right. Don't you think that the people in those countries you
> "liberate" (namely Afghanistan and Iraq) also have feelings and
> sentiments? They might feel just the same way you think, only in the
> other direction.

Again, read the Geneva Convention, then come back and discuss how countries
are allowed to treat various types of combatants. This isn't about the
morality of defending one's home/country. It's about the treatment of
non-uniformed combatants.

BTW, when was the last time you folks had to deal with armed conflict?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> you might want to prove their status as a spy first. Or will you
> prove it after the hanging?

Again, read the Convention before you sound even more ignorant.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> _last_ time? seems that this happens on a weekly or monthly basis in
> your neck of the woods, eh? :-))

That's the way to dodge a question...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> maybe you can point me to the correct paragraph

No, I'm not doing your homework for you, but kudos for finding the full text
and not somebody's interpretation of it.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Tom Hyslip]

Once again you show your ignorance to the law prior to the patriot act.
The same Judicial oversight was there before the act, as after. There is a
three judge panel in WDC that has to approve any search warrant where the
owners of the property will not be notified. It has always been there, and
has always been used. No difference with the patriot act. You are just to
ignorant to know it existed before the patriot act.

Still have to have probable cause to get the warrant by the court. That my
ignorant friend is called JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:43:20 GMT, "Tom Hyslip" >
> wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> [...]
>
> >> http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/2900485p-2670334c.html
> >> The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
> >> Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
> >> most troubling:
> >>
> >> . The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
> >> reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
> >> information and medical records without having "probable cause."
> >> Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
> >> body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
> >> deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.
> >>
> >
> > CALLED JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO DIFFERENCE THEN GOING TO ANY OTHER
COURT
> >AND HAVING THE RECORD SEALED
> > WHICH IS DONE I [sic] ALMOST EVERY CASE
> >
>
> This is so startlingly Orwellian as to elevate the sagacious author to
> absolute prescience:
>
> "The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
> [...] financial information and medical records without having
> "probable cause."
>
> If, indeed, the above quote is correct, I am profoundly insulted and
> forever disillusioned by the audacious hubris of the small minds that
> people the labyrinth that is US bureaucracy.
>
> It makes me feel fortunate to have lived in more noble times past that
> predate the marketing saturated, over populated, television steeped,
> patently corrupt, sorry quagmire that today so rapidly engulfs our
> once respected and capable nation. I am so revulsed by such vulgar
> trampling of the ideals of freedom and equality espoused in the
> documents of this nation's birth as to feel relief, that my journey
> into the future is now considerably shorter then the 25% of this
> nation's existence that I have thus far experienced.
>
> Denying due process of law to US citizens is not only criminal, it is
> unjust and wrong.
>
> >> . Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
> >> the government to go into someone's home or business without the
> >> target knowing it.
> >>
> >
> > SEE ABOVE
>
> Secret and warrantless search is how you define "JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT"?
> Your credibility is blown, brother.
>
> >> . In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
> >> the government links to terrorism..
> >>
> > AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY. NO DIFFERENCE THEN PROVIDING MONEY
TO
> >HITLER IN WW2
>
>
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
> "Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951" - Federal Documents
> By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
> from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message |

| How about treason, for starters? That should get their attention.
|
| Then, we could reduce the charges to "abuse of the colors of authority."
|

Treason would be an excellent start, and I would not reduce the charges.
However, I would also add 'dereliction of duty.'

[Tom Hyslip]

I think you have missed my point entirely. I agree completely with your
last statement, but it might not be possible to nuetralize this threat
wihtout the military fighting all over the plant for a long time.

As far as the detainees in Cuba, they are treated well, and have to stay
there until the war is over. No different than any other war, except that
these detainees are not part of a uniformed military from a country. They
are terrorist who only want to end the USA.

The issue of the partiot act is another issue all together. I find the
majority of people who speak out against the act have not read, and do not
know what laws existed prior to the act. Very little changed with the
creation of the act, except making the process faster by having one court's
ruling apply in another jurisdiction. Plus allowing court orders on phone
systems and cellular phones to stay effective when a suspect crosses
jurisdictional boundaries. The one big change, the power to collect info
from libaries, etc, really in my opinion is not that big of a deal. I just
wish people would understand that all warrants, still have the proper
judicial oversight, just as before the act.


"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
> m...
> > You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
> > another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
> them,
> > there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush,
and
> > this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
> > there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on
our
> > soil.
> >
> > And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am
a
> > Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I
> have
> > seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do
it
> > again.
>
> You, sir, are dangerous. You have been given power and you now believe
your
> opinion is more important than oversight and due process. As an officer,
> what did your training and education in history teach you about the
logical
> extension of such viewpoints?
>
> Power has been set up in this country with checks and balances. As a Law
> Enforcement Officer, you are subject to one very strong check and
balance -
> the court system. You may fully believe you are correct, but you may be
> proven fully wrong. Just because you have seen what criminals can do does
> not give you the right to permanently lock up suspects on your whim.
>
> Do you really want to start dismantling this system of checks and
balances?
> Where do you think that will lead?
>
> > The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
> terror
> > makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
> > ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
> > knowledge of.
>
> So, is the only valid viewpoint whatever the administration says it is?
As
> a citizen, I have a right to demand oversight of any administration,
> especially in important matters such as these. And I get suspicious, in a
> grand way, when the administration blocks all efforts at oversight. I do
> not know if what they are doing is right or wrong, or how much, but the
> foresight and planning shown so far by this administration do not give me
a
> lot of confidence in their abilities and I would rather have more heads
> working on this and I would like to see this done in an organized,
> non-partisan manner.
>
> > But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our
civilians
> in
> > the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
> killing
> > them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.
>
> I do believe you rather missed my point. I would rather this country
fight
> effectively, honestly, and honorably. You are in no better position than
> anybody else to know how effective the current policies will be in the
long
> term. To really answer your question, what I want is to effectively
> neutralize the threat, not just now but going forward, and I don't want to
> have to have the military fighting battles all over the planet forever to
> achieve this goal.
>
> Enough of this. Say your response and I will leave it at that. You are
> free to have the "last word" here.
>
>
>
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >
> > > "Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.
> > >
> > > Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.
> > >
> > > > As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If
> you
> > > > release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
> > chance.
> > >
> > > You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?
> > >
> > > > So we keep them until the war is over.
> > >
> > > This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?
> > >
> > > > You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies,
> USS
> > > > Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take
> the
> > > > fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need
to
> > > > protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do
it.
> > >
> > > There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to
> protect
> > > this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the
whole
> > > mess being discovered as a sham?
> > >
> > > If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then
> convene
> > a
> > > bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on.
(Oh,
> > > that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save
> it's
> > > life. But others in government can.)
> > >
> > > Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse
of
> > > power.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Hyslip]

Correct Iraq was because of Saddam. But now AlQueda is going into to Iraq to
fight Americans.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Hyslip" > wrote:
>
> > You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
> > another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
> > there wasn't.
>
>
> Oh yeah. No pink elephants. You sure kept them all away. :-)
>
> > A I have
> > seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do
it
> > again.
>
> "All Germans during the 30s where Nazis" - right?
>
>
> > The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror
>
>
> For my understanding: has the word "war" a double meaning in the english
> language? "war" translates in many languages to only one understanding:
military
> conflict between 2 or more countries. With all the 'rules' (declaration of
war,
> POW, peace, treaties, ...).
>
> > But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our
civilians in
> > the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
> > them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.
>
> Hm, isn't the Iraq hoppala because of Saddam? Now you say it is because of
Al
> Quaida. I am confused. So Afghanistan was because of what?
>
> #m
> --
>
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Mini-Nukes&btnG=Search+News>

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message news:bpcso0|
| For my understanding: has the word "war" a double meaning in the english
| language? "war" translates in many languages to only one understanding:
military
| conflict between 2 or more countries. With all the 'rules' (declaration of
war,
| POW, peace, treaties, ...).
|

Nonsense. If that were the definition then there has never been a war in all
of history.

[Tom Hyslip]

So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember the
Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
permission.

I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the U.S.
Consititution.

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya, and
we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought against
Japan either.

People like you will always be on the wrong side of history. If this
country followed your lead we would still be in the Cold War, except it
would be against Germany and the rest of the former conitnent known as
Europe, now called the 3rd Reich.



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Hyslip" > wrote:
>
> > As far as the enemy in Cuba,
>
> it is not _prooved_ that they are all enemies. No curt no nothing.
> But first hang 'em .. then ask questions.
>
> > some of you will just never get it. If you
> > release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.
> > So we keep them until the war is over.
>
>
> Yes, you sure are speaking of the 3 13 year old boys (still there) or the
80 or
> so year old grandfather (released and back in Afghanistan).
> You're my hero :-)
>
> > You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies, USS
> > Cole, 9/11, that is the war.
>
> this is not war. *bahh*
> this is terrorism. Wrong wording.
>
> > We need to
> > protect this country,
>
> very true
>
> > and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.
>
>
> as long as you interfere with international law .... or as long as you
mess
> around in other countries than your own ... IBTD.
>
> #m
> --
>
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Mini-Nukes&btnG=Search+News>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom Hyslip" > writes:

> So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember the
> Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
> permission.
>
> I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the U.S.
> Consititution.
>
> Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
> Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya, and
> we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought against
> Japan either.

Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.

And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
international law of the time on the topic.

Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
our shame) to Iraq.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Tom Hyslip]

You may have forogotten the gulf war of 1991, that was authorized by the UN.
At the end of the fighting, Iraq agreed to follow certain guidelines.
However, the war never ended, it was still on going till this day, if you
read the agreement between Iraq and the Coalition. When they failed to
comply, the war is back on. That is why we are there. So, eventhough it
was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.


"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Hyslip" > writes:
>
> > So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember
the
> > Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
> > permission.
> >
> > I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the
U.S.
> > Consititution.
> >
> > Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
> > Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya,
and
> > we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought
against
> > Japan either.
>
> Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
> time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.
>
> And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
> formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
> international law of the time on the topic.
>
> Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
> our shame) to Iraq.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots:
<www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Hyslip wrote:
>
> Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
> Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.

Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
war on the U.S.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Paul Sengupta]

Al Qaeda are moving in now in Iraq because Sadam's
tyrranical regime isn't there to oppress them any more?

Hmm.

Paul

"Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
. com...
> Correct Iraq was because of Saddam. But now AlQueda is going into to Iraq
to
> fight Americans.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom Hyslip" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote

> > Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
> > time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.
> >
> > And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
> > formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
> > international law of the time on the topic.
> >
> > Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
> > our shame) to Iraq.

> You may have forogotten the gulf war of 1991, that was authorized by the UN.
> At the end of the fighting, Iraq agreed to follow certain guidelines.
> However, the war never ended, it was still on going till this day, if you
> read the agreement between Iraq and the Coalition. When they failed to
> comply, the war is back on. That is why we are there. So, eventhough it
> was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.

The experts in international law don't seem to agree with you on that
interpretation.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> Tom Hyslip wrote:
> >
> > Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
> > Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.
>
> Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
> would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
> war on the U.S.

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
viewed it as unavoidable.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Robert Perkins]

On 19 Nov 2003 09:19:26 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

>So, eventhough it
>> was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.
>
>The experts in international law don't seem to agree with you on that
>interpretation.

The only experts in international law getting attention in the news
outlets of record in Europe and the U.S. loyal-opposition press [1]
are the ones who disagree with the Administration.

Rob
[1] To borrow a term from merrye olde Englande :)

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>
> His treaty with Japan required him to.
>

Only if Japan was attacked.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> His treaty with Japan required him to.

Well, that's the first time I heard that one. Most of the books I read postulate
that Hitler hoped Japan would reciprocate by attacking Russia.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

[Tom Hyslip]

I love how these conversations jump from topic to topic. It started with
the USSS and the TFRs, then went to Iraq & AlQueda, and now we have
progressed to WWII.

Nothing stimulates the mind like a good debate on differring view points.
Accepted maybe flying. ;)

Atleast we all agree that we love to fly, and would stand together to
further the interests of G.A.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> > His treaty with Japan required him to.
>
> Well, that's the first time I heard that one. Most of the books I read
postulate
> that Hitler hoped Japan would reciprocate by attacking Russia.
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
> be learned no other way.

[John Galban]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote in message >...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > writes:
>
> > Tom Hyslip wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
> > > Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.
> >
> > Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
> > would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
> > war on the U.S.
>
> His treaty with Japan required him to.
>
> Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
> would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
> viewed it as unavoidable.

I vote for stupid. Given his past performance (i.e. non-aggression
pact with Stalin), I don't think he took treaties all that seriously.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Tom Hyslip]

I also vote stupid. Look at how many times he wouldn't listen to his
generals, and force them to do bad tactics. If he listened to his generals
who knows how much longer the war could have lasted.


"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote in message
>...
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > writes:
> >
> > > Tom Hyslip wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight
against
> > > > Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.
> > >
> > > Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that
the U.S.
> > > would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to
declare
> > > war on the U.S.
> >
> > His treaty with Japan required him to.
> >
> > Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
> > would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
> > viewed it as unavoidable.
>
> I vote for stupid. Given his past performance (i.e. non-aggression
> pact with Stalin), I don't think he took treaties all that seriously.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[C J Campbell]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Tom Hyslip wrote:
| >
| > Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
| > Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.
|
| Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the
U.S.
| would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to
declare
| war on the U.S.

Such an assertion completely ignores the fact that the US and Germany had
been inflicting casualties on one another for months, if not years, before
Pearl Harbor. Though war had not been 'declared' (whatever that means), it
certainly was waged.

Most Americans who opposed war with Germany changed their tune when Germany
invaded the Soviet Union. As long as Hitler and Stalin were allied, the
anti-war left in the US was content to stay out of the war.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Hyslip" > wrote in message
.. .
| I also vote stupid. Look at how many times he wouldn't listen to his
| generals, and force them to do bad tactics. If he listened to his
generals
| who knows how much longer the war could have lasted.
|

If Hitler had listened to his generals the war would not have started in the
first place. Most of them violently argued against the invasions of Austria,
then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then France and the low countries, then
Greece and Serbia, then the Soviet Union, saying each time that the
operation had absolutely no chance of success. OTOH he could have ended the
war much sooner by listening to his Air Marshal and invading Great Britain,
ensuring the complete destruction of the German war machine and a German
surrender, probably preceded by a coup.

Sir B. H. Liddell Hart pointed out in "The Other Side of the Hill" that
every captured Nazi general claimed that he had a plan that would have won
the war for Germany. What Hitler actually had was a bunch of prima donnas
that could not get along with each other; in fact, on the eve of the battle
of Kursk Hitler's two top generals in the theatre held such animosity that
Guderian actually challenged another general to a duel. Such an atmosphere
is not conducive to coordinating large military formations -- and the
performance of the German army reflected that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Such an assertion completely ignores the fact that the US and Germany had
> been inflicting casualties on one another for months, if not years, before
> Pearl Harbor. Though war had not been 'declared' (whatever that means), it
> certainly was waged.
>

I think you'll find it was more like six weeks.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:42:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> His treaty with Japan required him to.
>>
>
>Only if Japan was attacked.
>
>
Steven is correct. Hitler did not declare war on the U.S. because of
treaty obligations. The treaty stipulated that Germany would declare
war on the U.S. only if the U.S. attacked Japan.

Hitler declared war on the U.S. apparently on a whim. Besides, when
did Hitler ever pay any attention to a treaty, unless it benefitted
him only? He used treaties like monopoly money.

Corky Scott

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Hyslip wrote:

> Correct Iraq was because of Saddam. But now AlQueda is going into to Iraq
> to fight Americans.

And you know better than the US commander in Iraq?

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-21-121558.asp?reg=MIDEAST

Note that he did leave himself some "fudge room" for uncertainty (which was
pretty smart, considering how much is unknown).

- Andrew