More on Bush in the Air Guard

[WalterM140]

More on Bush in the Air Guard

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

SUMMARY

An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory
Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures
of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a
deserter by the United States Air Force.


After Bush quit TXANG, he still had nine months of his six-year military
commitment left to serve. As a result, Bush became a member of the Air Force
Reserves and was transferred to the authority of the Air Reserve Personnel
Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colorado. Because this was supposed to be a
temporary assignment, ARPC had to review Bush’s records to determine where he
should ultimately be assigned. That examination would have led to three
conclusions: That Bush had “failed to satisfactorily participate� as
defined by United States law and Air Force policy, that TXANG could not account
for Bush’s actions for an entire year, and that Bush’s medical records were
not up to date. Regardless of what actions ARPC contemplated when reviewing
Bush’s records, all options required that Bush be certified as physically fit
to serve, or as unfit to serve. ARPC thus had to order Bush to get a physical
examination, for which Bush did not show up. ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL
and a “non-locatee� (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily
participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his
local draft board. Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation,
strings were pulled; and documents were generated which directly contradict Air
Force policy, and which were inconsistent with the rest of the records released
by the White House.

[more on link]

Walt

[Brooks Gregory]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>


Let me tell you why I believe this it total bull**** that some very
enterprising con men dreamed up in order to sell lies for personal
enrichment. I can sum it up in one rhetorical question. But first, a little
preamble. If a person is a deserter, there is no statute of limitations on
that crime.

So, the question is, if Bush was a deserter, why has he not been charged,
arrested and tried? Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
his location.

In reality, you guys are a joke. But, at least you have each other.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:14:54 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>
> More on Bush in the Air Guard
>
> http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
>
> SUMMARY
>
> An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory
> Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures
> of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a
> deserter by the United States Air Force.

[snip]

Then post the USAF document ( all of it ) that spells this out.
There ought to be one if what you claim is true.
There ought to be a document somewhere that specifically
addresses the particulars of the case in question and states
your conclusion in black and white.
What?
You can't?
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> More on Bush in the Air Guard
>
> http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
>
> SUMMARY
>
>... ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL
> and a “non-locatee� (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily
> participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his
> local draft board. ...

Only the 'summary' on that site indicates that ARPC did this. No
evidence to support that conclusion is cited.

Crimony, there is no reason to make stuff up to criticize Baby Bush.
just stick to the facts. That's enough.

--

FF

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:18 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> wrote:

>Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
>you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
>his location.

Funnily enough, the FAA doesn't seem to! (His file shows that his
address is unknown.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[WalterM140]

>>Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
>>you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
>>his location.

Because the phrase "equal justice under law" has been a joke in Texas for a
long time --at least as far as the Bushes go -- and increasingly, for all of
us.

If there were no other reason to get rid of Bush there is one overwhelmingly
compelling reason.

He has detained an American citizen, arrested in the United States, for over
two years in direct defiance of the civil liberty provisions of the Bill of
Rights.

If this person were most the vile terrorist ever (and the government seems to
have no case -- that's why they don't bring charges), give the guy a trial and
sentence him to death. The Bush administration hasn't done that.

I saw suggested on another forum that this recent proposal to postpone or
cancel the 11/2/04 election was a trial balloon to see how people and the media
handled it. Now the Bushies are backing off this proposal because the
response was pretty strong.

I think the arrest and detention of Jose Padilla was a trial balloon too. It
really (the lengthy detention) serves no other purpose. But most people are
going, at least by their actions, "la-dee-da, who cares about the Bill of
Rights." In this they are complacently ignorant. A real disgrace in this
country is that Bush could even have competetive poll numbers. It's like the
blood and suffering of the Revolution means nothing, that the struggle to move
human rights forward -- it's like none of that happened.

Read your Declaration of Independence:

"He has combined....for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by
Jury:"

If there is only ONE case of deprivation of a jury trial where the courts can
operate, that is way too many.

Bush has done that.

His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

You Republican party kool-aid drinkers need to wake up and realize that Bush is
the worst president ever. The United States of America is under attack -- by
the Bush Administration.

This thing about Bush's guard service, the economy, even the general conduct of
the war, overrun as it is by dereliction of duty (both General Anthony Zinni
and David Hackworth have used that word) by the Bush people really are not as
important as the trial balloon of suspension of the Bill of Rights that people
don't give a flip about.

As an aside, even as the occupaton of Iraq has been a disastrous failure,
causing the death of many more US service people than it should have, note that
after almost 3 years, the Bush Justice Department has secured not ONE
conviction in the War on Terror -- even against Mousaoui (sp) who was caught
taking simulator lessons for jumbo jets.

Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into the
sand.


Walt

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into
>the
>sand.
>
>
>Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file, including
me after I hit send..

[Brooks Gregory]

"Steve Mellenthin" > wrote in message
...
> >Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
> >the
> >sand.
> >
> >
> >Walt
>
> Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
> nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
> doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
> supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
> for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
> election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
> audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
> increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
> me after I hit send..

BINGO!


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Jarg]

"Steve Mellenthin" > wrote in message
...
> >Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
> >the
> >sand.
> >
> >
> >Walt
>
> Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
> nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
> doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
> supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
> for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
> election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
> audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
> increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
> me after I hit send..

Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
the left. Keep them coming I say so more the swing voters out there can see
just what these people are all about!

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
>poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
>the left.

General Zinni is not on the left:

"In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,� says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.�

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.�

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."

General Hoar is not on the left:

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the
Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a
battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was
interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: You were one of the people who had been critical before the
outbreak of fighting, over whether or not the situation warranted going
to war. I believe you also had some rather accurate warnings about what
might happen, as the war unfolded, especially after the hot phase.
What's your thinking on these issues now, in hindsight, as we're over a
year past the formal fighting phase?

Hoar: There's small comfort in realizing that perhaps you were closer to
reality than the elected and appointed figures in the civilian
government. Those of us that have had some experience in the region over
the years, and don't necessarily have ulterior motivations, particularly
people that know very much about Iraq?and I don't necessarily put myself
in that category; specifically, I know a fair amount about the
political-military situation in the region, but know enough about Iraq
to know that any military operation and any subsequent reconstruction
efforts, to include the interjection of democracy, were going to be
extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

But, my major concern, Jeff, really was, that while I was in favor of
regime change, I was not in favor of it a year and a half or two years
ago, and certainly not these means. And the reason, of course, was the
much higher priorities: the protection of the United States through the
development of the Homeland Securities activities; the completion,
successfully, of the Afghanistan campaign; and the destruction of
al-Qaeda; all seem to me to be much higher priorities than going after
Iraq. And you know the arguments as well as I do: the weapons of mass
destruction, the threat to the United States, the connection between
al-Qaeda, and then finally, the reason was indicated that this was a
rogue regime, that punished its citizens, and its human rights record
was abysmal and so forth. We all know that story. The fact remains, that
this would have been a very difficult undertaking under the best of
circumstances, and unfortunately, with the exception of the Phase I
military operation, which terminated essentially with the end of
organized resistance over a year ago, the rest of it has been a
disaster.

EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."

Bush is a miserable failure.

Walt

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate
the
> >poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers
of
> >the left.
>
>

>EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
>Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
>was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
>and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
>the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
>occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
>this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."


So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy and you think this is particularly
meaningful? I doubt anyone thought the al Qaida operatives in Iraq would
greet anyone as liberators. Clearly most Iraqis are glad to have a chance
at a real government. Relative to many past military actions this was a
cakewalk, and if you don't know that you need to start reading your history.
Saddam needed to go, and thanks in large part to President Bush's leadership
he is gone.


> Bush is a miserable failure.


You don't seem to be in any postition to be calling names given your angry
crazed repetitive ramblings.


>
> Walt
>
>
>

Typical desperate left wing stuff - criticism without offering alternatives
other than to elect Kerry, a person with the most liberal (read out of
touch) voting record in the Senate, a person who also hasn't presented any
reasonable alternatives to any of these issues, a person who has repeatedly
demonstrated tendancy to flip flop on any given subject, who thinks the
solution for improving the economy is raising taxes., etc. How very sad
that this is all you can come up with.

Jarg

[B2431]

What part of rec.aviation.military do you not understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
>with aspects of the Iraq strategy

Not "guys".

Two former commanders of Central Command.

Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

Walt

[D. Strang]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
> reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
> 'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years. I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq
war, and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark. I spent my last years on
active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq from Kuwait, and two years of
wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years we fought that country,
and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.

It is worth it. War isn't pretty, and we wish everyone had perfect tactical vision,
but Iraq had no chance of continuing as a country, and I'm glad we invaded.
Iraq is in the hands of real Iraqis now, and we should do everything in our power
to support them in ridding the last elements of the dictators regime.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.
>
> But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.
>
> No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
> reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
> 'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA
>

Informed, intelligent people understand the reasons for the war on terror.
It is unlikely you ever served in the military.

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't
agree
> >with aspects of the Iraq strategy
>
> Not "guys".
>


Oh sorry, are they female?


> Two former commanders of Central Command.
>


And your point is? They were trained to carry out military strategy based
on United State government policy. They had no particular compelling
insight into Iraq as far as I can see, and were not involved in the decision
making process. Zinnini was an envoy dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict at the time (a failed assignement I might add so apparently his
profound knowlege of the region were not very useful there!) Hoar, who was
a Dean advisor by the way, made some pretty dire predictions about the
initial military campaign saying "The result would be high casualties on
both sides, as well as in the civilian community." Of course that was
quickly demonstrated to be incorrect, with Hoars credibility in such matters
diminishing in the process. In any case, Zinnini and Hoar are entitled to
their opinions but there are plenty of ex-officials, inluding numerous high
level military commanders who agree with the decision to dipose Saddam. In
fact Zinnini's and Hoars opinions were most noteworthy in that they were
among the exceptions.


> Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.
>


There you go again with the sloppiness. Nowhere did I say your sources were
"left", although they may well be. Perhaps you should try diagramming the
threads so you can keep up.

Also, I wonder if you have any idea how ironic your "propagandist rant"
accusation is given your angry crazed repetitive ramblings.?!


> Bush is a miserable failure.


I bet his list of accomplishments surpasses yours many times over, so you
must be a complete miserable failure, and therefore poorly qualified to pass
judgement on anything of significance!


>We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.


Probably just your paranoia showing. On 9/11 large numbers of American
civilians were murdered. How many have been murdered by the terrorists
since? As for me, I feel better knowing the enemy has largely been denied
his refuges and sponsorers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that many of the
worst of them have died at the hands of our military with even more destined
for the same fate.


> But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.
>
> No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
> reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
> 'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA
>


All this statement tells me is that you fail to understand of how
significantly the United States, Iraq and the world has benefited from
Saddams removal, not to mention how you lack the imagination to glimpse the
potential long term benefits of the creation of an Arab democracy. I
believe the loss of American lives was a large but worthwhile price to pay,
and my impression is that for the most part the US soldiers who are putting
their lives on the line would agree.

Jarg

[George Z. Bush]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:HtuJc.1563$Zr.663@okepread01...
> "WalterM140" > wrote

> I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
> the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years.

> I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq war,.....

You spent it doing what, and on which side....Iran or Iraq? AFAIK, our only
involvement in that war was that we taught Saddam Hussein's army how to use
chemical weapons, and we shared intelligence data with them that we'd gathered
about our joint enemy, Iran. So what were you doing during those eight years,
teaching them how to use mustard gas?

> .....and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark.

How did you happen to witness that attack? Surely, not from your vantage point
in your infantry foxhole, so it must have been from your airplane. How about
filling us in on how you happened to see it?

> .....I spent my last years on active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq
from Kuwait,

I think the half million or so ground troops we committed to kicking the Iraqis
out of Kuwait would take exception to your conclusion that the air war had
accomplished that all by itself. I expect that Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf
might also have had a few things to say on the subject by way of argument.

> .....and two years of wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years
we
> fought that country, and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.

24 years? How about the time we were helping Iraq deal with their Iranian
neighbors during their 8 year old war, which was right in the middle of the 24
years you're talking about?

You know, a lot of us have problems remember details of things we've done and
said in the past, and it isn't a crime to have to admit it. But if you expect
to have any credibility in this forum, you're going to need to do a little more
homework and get your facts right before you start mouthing off with a lot of
erroneous BS. I probably wouldn't have had any questions to ask you at all if
you hadn't tossed such obvious bloopers out there for us rubes to swallow hook,
line, and sinker.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.
> >
> > But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.
> >
> > No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
> the
> > reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
> > 'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA
> >
>
> Informed, intelligent people understand the reasons for the war on terror.
> It is unlikely you ever served in the military.

We were discussing the war with Iraq. Let's not change that subject, eh?

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> We were discussing the war with Iraq. Let's not change that subject, eh?
>

I didn't.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...

>
> His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
> Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
> where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

IMHO, that was incorrect inasmuch as he had been moved form New York
to South Carolina and is held there by the same sovreign, and is being
held one presumes, for the same reasons and on the same evidence,
though absent a hearing one doesn't know what justification, if
any, the Feds have for holding him. While I do not believe he was
moved to do an end-run around a habeas petition this ruling opens
the door on that tactic.

By ruling on the jurisdictional issue the USSC avoided ruling one way or
the other on the substantive one.

HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.

So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.

The USSC handed America a great victory that day.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
>
> Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
> increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file, including
> me after I hit send..

Do you seriously expect us to beleive that people are emailing YOU to
tell you what they think of Walt?

--

FF

[D. Strang]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> "D. Strang" > wrote
>
> > I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
> > the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years.
>
> > I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq war,.....
>
> You spent it doing what, and on which side....Iran or Iraq? AFAIK, our only
> involvement in that war was that we taught Saddam Hussein's army how to use
> chemical weapons, and we shared intelligence data with them that we'd gathered
> about our joint enemy, Iran. So what were you doing during those eight years,
> teaching them how to use mustard gas?

The USAF flew 24 hour orbits for 8 years using RC-135, E-3, and Naval assets
in the Gulf. The mission was to protect the Saudi oil fields. Later we also had the
Earnest Will operation, which was the Kuwait reflagging, and war with Iran.

> > .....and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark.
>
> How did you happen to witness that attack? Surely, not from your vantage point
> in your infantry foxhole, so it must have been from your airplane. How about
> filling us in on how you happened to see it?

I transferred to the USAF in 1978 after I got my Masters degree. We tracked the
Iraqi pilot as he entered the Gulf, until he returned to Iraq. We also tracked his
Exocet to the Stark using radar.

> > .....I spent my last years on active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq
> from Kuwait,
>
> I think the half million or so ground troops we committed to kicking the Iraqis
> out of Kuwait would take exception to your conclusion that the air war had
> accomplished that all by itself. I expect that Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf
> might also have had a few things to say on the subject by way of argument.

I'm talking about my little world, not the whole military force. Of course we didn't
personally eject anyone.

> > .....and two years of wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years
> we
> > fought that country, and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.
>
> 24 years? How about the time we were helping Iraq deal with their Iranian
> neighbors during their 8 year old war, which was right in the middle of the 24
> years you're talking about?

During those 8 years, my only mission was to protect the oil fields. I don't have
any personal knowledge, other then tactics against airborne threats out of Iran,
Iraq, or the Soviet Union.

> You know, a lot of us have problems remember details of things we've done and
> said in the past, and it isn't a crime to have to admit it. But if you expect
> to have any credibility in this forum, you're going to need to do a little more
> homework and get your facts right before you start mouthing off with a lot of
> erroneous BS. I probably wouldn't have had any questions to ask you at all if
> you hadn't tossed such obvious bloopers out there for us rubes to swallow hook,
> line, and sinker.

Take a pill.

[George Z. Bush]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:L1EJc.2303$Zr.120@okepread01...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > "D. Strang" > wrote
> >
> > You know, a lot of us have problems remember details of things we've done
and
> > said in the past, and it isn't a crime to have to admit it. But if you
expect
> > to have any credibility in this forum, you're going to need to do a little
more
> > homework and get your facts right before you start mouthing off with a lot
of
> > erroneous BS. I probably wouldn't have had any questions to ask you at all
if
> > you hadn't tossed such obvious bloopers out there for us rubes to swallow
hook,
> > line, and sinker.
>
> Take a pill.

What for? You threw those bloopers out there.....I didn't say that we swallowed
them. Besides, I'm not the one looking for credibility....you're the one with
that problem, so you take the pill.

George Z.
>
>

[Regnirps]

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

>Do you seriously expect us to beleive that people are emailing YOU to
>tell you what they think of Walt?

Uhm, this is a mail list. Are you reading it off the web page?

-- Charlie Springer

[WalterM140]

>HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
>substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
>thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.
>
>So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.
>
>The USSC handed America a great victory that day.
>
>--

Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.

Padilla is the benchmark case because he is an American citizen arrested in
America at a time when the courts could operate freely.

Hamdi (the other case) was arrested in Afghanistan.

This issue alone is enough to toss Bush and his sorry crew.


Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Two former commanders of Central Command.
>>
>
>
>And your point is?

The don't lean to the left.

>They were trained to carry out military strategy based
>on United State government policy.

Which under the Bush administration has been riven with dereliction of duity,
per General Zinni. David Hackworth has also used the word dereliction.

People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.

Walt

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Regnirps wrote:
>
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Do you seriously expect us to beleive that people are emailing YOU to
> >tell you what they think of Walt?
>
> Uhm, this is a mail list. Are you reading it off the web page?

Are you saying that some cretin is republishing these
rec.aviation.military usenet articles in an email list?

He can be sued for that, in some places.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Regnirps) wrote in message >...
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Do you seriously expect us to believe that people are emailing YOU to
> >tell you what they think of Walt?
>
> Uhm, this is a mail list. Are you reading it off the web page?
>

This is a UseNet newsgroup, rec.aviation.military. Are you reading
this off a mailing list?

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>
<snip>
>
>People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
>
>Walt

You keep saying that yet you provide no data or studies proving your case which
means you simply don't care about the truth.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Regnirps]

>Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

>Regnirps wrote:
>
>> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
>> >Do you seriously expect us to beleive that people are emailing YOU to
>> >tell you what they think of Walt?
>
>> Uhm, this is a mail list. Are you reading it off the web page?

>Are you saying that some cretin is republishing these
>rec.aviation.military usenet articles in an email list?

Oops. I tend to read my mail lists and newsgroups at the same time. The way
they read and the way I respond works the same.

Never mind.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140) wrote:

>People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.

Roosevelt trippled the size of government and vastly expanded federal police
powers. Worst -- president -- ever. Well, maybe the way Wilson handled (or
failed to handle) the US being left out of the Armistice and the subsequent
rise of the NAZI's would put him high on the list. Bush 1 should have learned
from that one. Always go for unconditional surrender and clean house.

-- Charlie Springer

[WalterM140]

>You keep saying that yet you provide no data or studies proving your case
>which
>means you simply don't care about the truth.

I don't need studies. I can make my own determinations based on simple facts.

Jose Padilla has been locked up for over two years with no access to lawyers,
no charges and no trial.

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

You know, Amendment Six:

"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial..."

Padilla has been given access to lawyers lately, but for a long time he was
just held -- denied the due process in the Bill of Rights.

Bush needs to be voted out for that reason alone.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
>
>Roosevelt trippled the size of government and vastly expanded federal police
>powers.

He did? Can you cite the legislation where he did that? Oh, the president
doesn't pass legislation.


Worst -- president -- ever. Well, maybe the way Wilson handled (or
>failed to handle) the US being left out of the Armistice

You mean the Senate. They ratify treaties, not the president.

and the subsequent
>rise of the NAZI's would put him high on the list. Bush 1 should have learned
>from that one. Always go for unconditional surrender and clean house.
>

Bush 41 certainly get an unconditional surrender in Gulf War I.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't need studies. I can make my own determinations based on simple
facts.
>

But you tend to ignore facts.

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

>
>>You keep saying that yet you provide no data or studies proving your case
>>which
>>means you simply don't care about the truth.
>
>I don't need studies. I can make my own determinations based on simple
>facts.
>
>Jose Padilla has been locked up for over two years with no access to lawyers,
>no charges and no trial.
>
>Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?
>
>You know, Amendment Six:
>
>"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
>and
>public trial..."
>
>Padilla has been given access to lawyers lately, but for a long time he was
>just held -- denied the due process in the Bill of Rights.
>
>Bush needs to be voted out for that reason alone.
>
>Walt

So your claim that "Bush is the worst president ever" is based on one case?
Lincoln alone was worse on habeas corpus etc.

Basically your claim that "Bush is the worst president ever" is based on you
know this to be true and have absolutely no data to prove it. You obviously
haven't done so much as a cursory examinations of the facts. It seems you
really don't mind being thought an uneducated fool. Come on, kid, you are
smarter than that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>
<snip>

>Bush 41 certainly get an unconditional surrender in Gulf War I.
>
>Walt

I suggest you look up what "Unconditional surrender" really means. If Bush 41
really had got that the UN wouldn't have needed all those resolutions and Bush
43's invasion would have been uneeded. The north and south no fly zones would
have mett in the middle. There would have been no need for oil-for-food since
Iraq would have been occupied. And so on and so forth.

More neo left blindness to reality?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Regnirps) wrote in message >...
> >Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
> >Regnirps wrote:
> >
> >> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> >> >Do you seriously expect us to beleive that people are emailing YOU to
> >> >tell you what they think of Walt?
>
> >> Uhm, this is a mail list. Are you reading it off the web page?
>
> >Are you saying that some cretin is republishing these
> >rec.aviation.military usenet articles in an email list?
>

Not necessarily a cretin.

> Oops. I tend to read my mail lists and newsgroups at the same time. The way
> they read and the way I respond works the same.
>

No worries. There have been NNTP to SMTP interfaces that did pass
UseNet newsgroup articles to email lists and vice-versa. I dunno
if any are currently in use. Probably they have been obsoleted by
HTTP (www) interfaces.

--

FF

[WalterM140]

>More neo left blindness to reality?

I'm not neo left, I'm original left.

Bad storms outside. Gotta go.

Walt

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140) wrote:

>Bush 41 certainly get an unconditional surrender in Gulf War I.

Who are you anyway? And what rock have you been living under?

Unconditional like Japan. Land, money, legal, and government reform. Bases for
US and veto power on military development and mutual protection agreements.

Or Germany the second time. The armistice just festered. The foundations of
NAZI'ism were already 40 years old by 1920. It would have been squashed by
reforms following a surrender. Senate or not, Wilson didn't have the spine to
elbow his way into Versaille and the US was basically shut out of the
negotiations, the results of which were disastrous.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140)

>>Roosevelt trippled the size of government and vastly expanded federal police
>>powers.

>He did? Can you cite the legislation where he did that? Oh, the president
>doesn't pass legislation.

So, he didn't do anything then? Neither did Bush?

How many terms did FDR get to consolidate his power?

There is too much to cite and it is too easy to find. However, you may not know
that the FBI (or previously named BOI) was not allowed to carry guns till June
of 1934.

-- Charlie Springer

[WalterM140]

>>>You keep saying that yet you provide no data or studies proving your case
>>>which
>>>means you simply don't care about the truth.
>>
>>I don't need studies. I can make my own determinations based on simple
>>facts.
>>
>>Jose Padilla has been locked up for over two years with no access to
>lawyers,
>>no charges and no trial.
>>
>>Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?
>>
>>You know, Amendment Six:
>>
>>"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
>>and
>>public trial..."
>>
>>Padilla has been given access to lawyers lately, but for a long time he was
>>just held -- denied the due process in the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>Bush needs to be voted out for that reason alone.
>>
>>Walt
>
>So your claim that "Bush is the worst president ever" is based on one case?

It's sorta like convicting someone of only one murder.

If he can arbitrarily lock up Padilla --tossing the Bill of Rights --, he can
arbitrarily lock you up too.

And you seem unfazed by the fact that the president swears an oath to ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed. I think an actual and plain provision of
the Bill of Rights would qualify. But see below.

>Lincoln alone was worse on habeas corpus etc.

I was careful to state (at least once) that the courts were able to operate
now.

Lincoln did two big suspensions of the Writ. One was in the aftermath of the
roiting in Baltimore in April 1861 that killed several militia troops from
Pennsylvania as they changed trains. There was a big riot; several pro-rebel
civilians were killed also. In the same time frame, bridges were burned,
telegraph wires were cut, Lincoln was threatened with more violence if more
troops were routed through Baltimore. Some actually went through Annapolis.

It looked as if Washington itself might be captured. Lincoln understood
that 7,000 rebel troops were just across the river in Virginia. The troops
available to him numbered in the hundreds. Lincoln had to act. I don't think
the mayor of Baltimore is now engaged in bridge burning. In 1861, he was.

Lincoln's second suspension of the Writ came later after the draft was
instituted. Men who were being drafted were having writs of Habeas Corpus
taken out, to get them away from the recruiters.

In both cases, the life of the nation was actually in the balance. I don't
think that situation applies now. At least not with Jose Padilla.

And why -not- charge Padilla? Does the government have a case, or not? One
reason to hold the guy would be because they can't prove anything. I've seen
suggested that the government has no case against Padilla. Apparently he had
some vague idea of helping Al Qaeda. Surely the government can prove that?

Of course the Attorney General has been as miserable a failure at Justice as
Rumsfeld has been at Defense. The United States has secured -not-one-
conviction of any Al Qaeda or terrorist operative since 9/11. Some brain will
chime in that they haven't found any (or many). Well, what does that tell
you? They do have Mousaoui. He was arrested 8/17/01. They also have Khalid
Sheik Mohammed, arrested in Pakistan in March 2003. Although I saw a link once
that said they DIDN'T have him. KSM was the operational guy behind 9/11,
number 3 in Al Qaeda. Maybe the government does have him. Surely they do.
But he's not been charged with anything either.

But I digress.

>
>Basically your claim that "Bush is the worst president ever" is based on you
>know this to be true and have absolutely no data to prove it.

Padilla does seem to be in the brig.

Other reasons to consider Bush as the worst president ever.

Allowing the war on terror to lose momentum by invading Iraq.

Doing a maladroit job in invading Iraq by committing numerous errors including:

Not involving the UN in the war. Basically, as events have shown, without UN
involvement (i.e. more troops), we can't subdue the country.

Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi complicity/duplicity
in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.

Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
Ba'athists be brought back.

Ignoring the estimate of the Army Chief of Staff in Feb, 2003. Gen.
Shinseki said "several hundred thousand" US troops would be needed. The
Bushies just ignored that -- it didn't fit the plan.

Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan. Afghan countryside is now
run by the warlords.

Turning Iraq into a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.

Almost 3 years after 9/11, the intelligence apparatus is a shambles.

More:

Errors on Terror

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 25, 2004

"Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Homeland
Security and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single
location. Our government must have the very best information possible." Thus
spoke President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union address. A White House fact
sheet called the center "the next phase in the dramatic enhancement of the
government's counterterrorism effort."

Among other things, the center took over the job of preparing the government's
annual report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism." The latest report, released in
April, claimed to document a sharp fall in terrorism. "You will find in these
pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight," Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage declared. But this week the government admitted making
major errors.

In fact, in 2003 the number of significant terrorist attacks reached a 20-year
peak.

How could they get it so wrong? The answer tells you a lot about the state of
the "war on terror."...

The erroneous good news on terrorism also came at a very convenient moment. The
White House was still reeling from the revelations of the former
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, who finally gave public voice to the
view of many intelligence insiders that the Bush administration is doing a
terrible job of fighting Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush was on a "Winning the
War on Terror" campaign bus tour in the Midwest.

Mr. Krueger, a forgiving soul, believes that the report was botched through
simple incompetence. Maybe — though we can be sure that if the statistics had
told the administration something it didn't want to hear, they would have been
carefully checked. By the way, while the report's tables and charts have been
fixed, the revised summary still gives little hint of how bad the data really
are.

In any case, the incompetence explanation is hardly comforting. In a press
conference announcing the release of the revised report, the counterterrorism
coordinator Cofer Black attributed the errors to "inattention, personnel
shortages and [a] database that is awkward and antiquated." Remember: we're
talking about the government's central clearinghouse for terrorism information,
whose creation was touted as part of a "dramatic enhancement" of
counterterrorism efforts more than a year before this report was produced. And
it still can't input data into its own computers? (It should be no surprise, in
this age of Halliburton, that the job of data input was given to — and
botched by — private contractors.)

Think of it as just one more indication that Mr. Bush isn't really serious
about this terrorism thing. He talks about terror a lot, and invokes it to
justify unrelated wars he feels like fighting. But when it comes to devoting
resources to the unglamorous work of protecting the nation from attack —
well, never mind.

6/25/04

Keep in mind also that the SOTU speech was early in 2003. In June, 2004 one of
the 9/11 commissioners, John Lehman, who was Reagan's SecNav, said the
intelligence community couldn't tell the difference between a bike wreck and a
train wreck.

Do we have time to waste? Bush's administration of the government has been
disastrously incompetent.

Bush has screwed up on -every- important decision point. He's in charge and
he's responsible and if the "American People" are worthy of that name, his
sorry ass is done.


You obviously
>haven't done so much as a cursory examinations of the facts.

I see by the papers that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested on
American soil at a time when the courts can freely operate, and I can't help
but notice that after over two years, he has not been chraged with a crime or
brought to trial.

That's a pretty big fact.


Walt

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
> >substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
> >thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.
> >
> >So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.
> >
> >The USSC handed America a great victory that day.
> >
> >--
>
> Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.

You leave it indeterminate as to which of my sentences your 'Not'
refers.

No matter though, you are wrong regardless.

>
> Padilla is the benchmark case because he is an American citizen arrested in
> America at a time when the courts could operate freely.

And he lost only on the procedural/jurisdictional issue. The USSC
did not rule (and therfor as you seem to keep missing did NOT RULE
AGAINST) his habeas petition.


>
> Hamdi (the other case) was arrested in Afghanistan.

And the ruling upholding habeas for Hamidi as well as his right
to access to the Federal Courts applies as well to Padilla, thus
mooting the substantive issue in Padilla. Bynot ruling on the
habeas issue per se in Padilla the USSC simply avoided repeating
itself.

So you are dead wrong.

The USSC handed America a great victory that day.

>
> This issue alone is enough to toss Bush and his sorry crew.
>

The arguement on the part of the Bush administration all along has
essentially been that they are above the law. To say that their
case lacked merit would be an understatement.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bill of Rights in the Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/18/2004 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(WalterM140) wrote in message
>...
>> >HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
>> >substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
>> >thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.
>> >
>> >So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.
>> >
>> >The USSC handed America a great victory that day.
>> >
>> >--
>>
>> Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.
>
>You leave it indeterminate as to which of my sentences your 'Not'
>refers.
>
>No matter though, you are wrong regardless.
>
>>
>> Padilla is the benchmark case because he is an American citizen arrested in
>> America at a time when the courts could operate freely.
>
>And he lost only on the procedural/jurisdictional issue. The USSC
>did not rule (and therfor as you seem to keep missing did NOT RULE
>AGAINST) his habeas petition.
>
>
>>
>> Hamdi (the other case) was arrested in Afghanistan.
>
>And the ruling upholding habeas for Hamidi as well as his right
>to access to the Federal Courts applies as well to Padilla, thus
>mooting the substantive issue in Padilla. Bynot ruling on the
>habeas issue per se in Padilla the USSC simply avoided repeating
>itself.
>
>So you are dead wrong.
>
>The USSC handed America a great victory that day.
>
>>
>> This issue alone is enough to toss Bush and his sorry crew.
>>


See Milligan VS U.S. SCOTUS 1865

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Billy Preston]

> Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.

Due process in war, is a blade in the gut, and a slicing movement
to cut the artery. **** him.


Kill them all, let God sort them out. Nobody lives forever.

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> See Milligan VS U.S. SCOTUS 1865

Sure thing Professor...

[WalterM140]

>And the ruling upholding habeas for Hamidi as well as his right
>to access to the Federal Courts applies as well to Padilla, thus
>mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.

Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.

Bynot ruling on the
>habeas issue per se in Padilla the USSC simply avoided repeating
>itself.
>
>So you are dead wrong.

But Padilla is still incarcerated.


>
>The USSC handed America a great victory that day.
>
>>
>> This issue alone is enough to toss Bush and his sorry crew.
>>
>
>The arguement on the part of the Bush administration all along has
>essentially been that they are above the law. To say that their
>case lacked merit would be an understatement.
>

So I think we are basically in agreement.

Thanks for your input.

Walt

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.

Should have hung him by now.

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:10:34 -0500, Billy Preston wrote:

> "WalterM140" > wrote
>>
>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>
> Should have hung him by now.

No that would be cruel and un-Islamic.
Behead him.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ian maclure
> writes
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:10:34 -0500, Billy Preston wrote:
>
>> "WalterM140" > wrote
>>>
>>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>>
>> Should have hung him by now.
>
> No that would be cruel and un-Islamic.
> Behead him.

"No, no, no! Sentence first, verdict later!"



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >And the ruling upholding habeas for Hamidi as well as his right
> >to access to the Federal Courts applies as well to Padilla, thus
> >mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.
>
> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.

And based on Justice Conner's comments in the opinions that were delivered
recently, the State will still be holding Padilla after a habeas hearing.

[WalterM140]

>
>"WalterM140" > wrote
>>
>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>
>Should have hung him by now.

If he were guilty, that wouldn't bother me a bit. He may be guilty, probably is
guilty of something.

Why not charge him with a crime and give him a trial?

Holding him indefinitely is a violation of any reasonable interpretaion of law
and precedent.


Walt

[Billy Preston]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
> In message >, ian maclure
> > writes
> >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:10:34 -0500, Billy Preston wrote:
> >
> >> "WalterM140" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
> >>
> >> Should have hung him by now.
> >
> > No that would be cruel and un-Islamic.
> > Behead him.
>
> "No, no, no! Sentence first, verdict later!"

Right, he gets the same trial that the people in New York and DC did
before they died.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> Holding him indefinitely is a violation of any reasonable interpretaion of law
> and precedent.

Thank you Professor...

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bill of Rights in the Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/19/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>"WalterM140" > wrote
>>>
>>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>>
>>Should have hung him by now.
>
>If he were guilty, that wouldn't bother me a bit. He may be guilty, probably
>is
>guilty of something.
>
>Why not charge him with a crime and give him a trial?
>
>Holding him indefinitely is a violation of any reasonable interpretaion of
>law
>and precedent.
>
>
>Walt


The failure to give him a speedy trial casts suspicion on whether the
administation has any case against him at all. If they had a case, they would
have a trial. Or does this fall under the WMD claims?

..

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message news:<SxDKc.6363$Zr.654@okepread01>...
> > Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.
>
> Due process in war, is a blade in the gut, and a slicing movement
> to cut the artery. **** him.
>
>
> Kill them all, let God sort them out. Nobody lives forever.

Montforte.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
>
> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>

But he is not incarcerated without access to due process.

That was what the cases befor the USSC were all about, not
whether or not the defendants should be held or not, just
whether or not the courts have a say in the matter. The
USSC ruled that they do.


>
> But Padilla is still incarcerated.

What I wrote above is still true.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...

>
> People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
>

I have to think about that.

I remember LBJ.

--

FF

[WalterM140]

>> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
>>
>
>But he is not incarcerated without access to due process.

How is that true?

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> (WalterM140) wrote in message
>...
>
> >
> > People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
> >
>
> I have to think about that.
>
> I remember LBJ.

****, if you can't remember Warren Harding you're just a baby!
(^-^)))

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (WalterM140) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > >
> > > People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
> > >
> >
> > I have to think about that.
> >
> > I remember LBJ.
>
> ****, if you can't remember Warren Harding you're just a baby!
> (^-^)))
>

Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (WalterM140) wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > People need to wake up. Bush is the worst president ever.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have to think about that.
> > >
> > > I remember LBJ.
> >
> > ****, if you can't remember Warren Harding you're just a baby!
> > (^-^)))
> >
>
> Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.

You got me there! The Teapot Dome was amateur night compared to the shenanigans
that go on these days.....Halliburton, for instance.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

> Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date:

>Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.

There never was a worse president than GWB.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 20 Jul 2004 20:04:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>> Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>>Date:
>
>>Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.
>
>There never was a worse president than GWB.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I think you've said that before.

Worse than Clinton? Worse than Nixon? Worse than Hoover? Worse than
Grant? Worse than W.H. Harrison? Worse than Andrew Johnson?

Yeah, Art says it (and does so repeatedly) therefore we must bow and
accept it. No question, no support, no debate, no qualifiers.

How grand to have such certitude.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <9FYKc.6488$Zr.1705@okepread01>, Billy Preston
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
>> "No, no, no! Sentence first, verdict later!"
>
>Right, he gets the same trial that the people in New York and DC did
>before they died.

You're bothering with a trial? Why? He's a suspect, kill him. The
Government says so and the Government is entirely honest and
trustworthy.

Just because some old farts wrote a "constitution" a few hundred years
ago, people like you think Padilla has any rights at all.

Next you'll start mouthing platitudes about "evidence" and mumble some
limp-wristed nonsense about "innocent until proven guilty" as an excuse
for why you don't have the guts to protect your country and go kill him
yourself.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

WalterM140 wrote:
>
> >> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
> >>
> >
> >But he is not incarcerated without access to due process.
>
> How is that true?

An illegal combatant must be provided the opportunity
to present evidence showing why he should be entitled
to Prisoner of War status (instead of "illegal combatant").
Padilla either has none to present, or his defense was
determined to be insufficient proof by a military
tribunal.

It seems the court took the stance that he can have
access to legal representation in this matter. (A gray
area under the GC, which doesn't address legal help
requirements for illegal combatants.)

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:09:17 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> "Billy Preston" > wrote in message news:<SxDKc.6363$Zr.654@okepread01>...
>> > Not when a citizen --any citizen-- is denied due process.
>>
>> Due process in war, is a blade in the gut, and a slicing movement
>> to cut the artery. **** him.
>>
>>
>> Kill them all, let God sort them out. Nobody lives forever.
>
> Montforte.

I thought it was some papal representative at Carcassonne
and the quote was:

"Kill them all, God will know his own"

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:18:27 -0500, Billy Preston wrote:

[snip]

>> > No that would be cruel and un-Islamic.
>> > Behead him.
>>
>> "No, no, no! Sentence first, verdict later!"
>
> Right, he gets the same trial that the people in New York and DC did
> before they died.

OK, I retract my previous post.
I say we dip him in hog lard, set him on fire,
throw him off a cliff then blast the cliff down
on top of him.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Billy Preston]

"ian maclure" > wrote
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:18:27 -0500, Billy Preston wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > No that would be cruel and un-Islamic.
> >> > Behead him.
> >>
> >> "No, no, no! Sentence first, verdict later!"
> >
> > Right, he gets the same trial that the people in New York and DC did
> > before they died.
>
> OK, I retract my previous post.
> I say we dip him in hog lard, set him on fire,
> throw him off a cliff then blast the cliff down
> on top of him.

Too Jewish...

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ian maclure
> writes
> I thought it was some papal representative at Carcassonne
> and the quote was:
>
> "Kill them all, God will know his own"

I've read it as Beziers, during the crusade against the Albigensian
heretics. The Papal nuncio was being asked how the crusaders should tell
the faithful from the heretic and settled for the simplicity of total
extermination.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ian MacLure]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, ian maclure
> > writes
>> I thought it was some papal representative at Carcassonne
>> and the quote was:
>>
>> "Kill them all, God will know his own"
>
> I've read it as Beziers, during the crusade against the Albigensian

Ah Beziers, famous for its twisted curvy streets :)

> heretics. The Papal nuncio was being asked how the crusaders should tell
> the faithful from the heretic and settled for the simplicity of total
> extermination.

You may well be correct about location.
I though the Cathars were the object of papal displeasure in this
case but you are closer to the source than I am :)

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Jul 2004 20:04:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >> Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
> >>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >>Date:
>
> >>Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.
> >
> >There never was a worse president than GWB.

Have you forgotten LBJ?

> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> I think you've said that before.
>
> Worse than Clinton?

Yes.

I liked it better when the economy was good and the interns sucked.

> Worse than Nixon?

Hell yes.

I don't remember Eisenhower, so disregarding him, Nixon may
have been the best president of my lifetime. But that was back
when Democrats were liberals and Republicans were moderates.

> Worse than Hoover? Worse than
> Grant? Worse than W.H. Harrison? Worse than Andrew Johnson?

I might have to defer to your judgement there. Those guys were
befor my time...

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bill of Rights in the Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>From: Ian MacLure
>Date: 7/21/2004 7:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>
>> In message >, ian maclure
>> > writes
>>> I thought it was some papal representative at Carcassonne
>>> and the quote was:
>>>
>>> "Kill them all, God will know his own"
>>
>> I've read it as Beziers, during the crusade against the Albigensian
>
> Ah Beziers, famous for its twisted curvy streets :)
>
>> heretics. The Papal nuncio was being asked how the crusaders should tell
>> the faithful from the heretic and settled for the simplicity of total
>> extermination.
>
> You may well be correct about location.

I think t was Simon De Montfort who made that statement. He led the slaughter
at Montsegur.


_____________________

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 22 Jul 2004 01:18:16 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 20 Jul 2004 20:04:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >> Toilet: was Bush in the Air Guard
>> >>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>> >>Date:
>>
>> >>Maybe so but WGH was a better president than GWB.
>> >
>> >There never was a worse president than GWB.
>
>Have you forgotten LBJ?

Damn, Fred. You're alright after all! You mean the LBJ that gave us
the Rules of Engagement and kept stopping and starting the air war so
that the enemy could resupply and bolster their defenses so that the
next time we resumed we could get the crap shot out of us?
>> >
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> I think you've said that before.
>>
>> Worse than Clinton?
>
>Yes.
>
>I liked it better when the economy was good and the interns sucked.

Catchy, but not original. And, arguably not even factual with the
economic indicators of the last 6-8 months showing significant upturns
in employment, production, GDP, etc. Still not totally recovered from
the after-effects of 9/11 but demonstrating a surprising robustness.
>
>> Worse than Nixon?
>
>Hell yes.
>
>I don't remember Eisenhower, so disregarding him, Nixon may
>have been the best president of my lifetime. But that was back
>when Democrats were liberals and Republicans were moderates.

I won't go so far as Nixon being best of my lifetime (I'll suggest
Reagan for his tax cuts and success in causing the collapse of the
Soviet Union), but will agree that Nixon is drastically under-rated
because of Watergate and the resignation. He also got us out of
Vietnam, got the POWs returned and with bold leadership established
relationship with China that has led to the conversion of that nation
to what is basically a market economy.
>
>> Worse than Hoover? Worse than
>> Grant? Worse than W.H. Harrison? Worse than Andrew Johnson?
>
>I might have to defer to your judgement there. Those guys were
>befor my time...

You illustrate why the blanket statement of "worst ever" is so
difficult to support. Hoover led us into the Great Depression, Grant
was accused of being regularly drunk on the job, poor ol' WHH died of
pnuemonia within a month of his inauguration and Johnson holds the
distinction with Clinton of being impeached.

But, they were before my time as well.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[WalterM140]

Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message >...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> >
> > >> Except that Padilla is still incarcerated.
> > >>
> > >
> > >But he is not incarcerated without access to due process.
> >
> > How is that true?
>
> An illegal combatant must be provided the opportunity
> to present evidence showing why he should be entitled
> to Prisoner of War status (instead of "illegal combatant").
> Padilla either has none to present, or his defense was
> determined to be insufficient proof by a military
> tribunal.
>
> It seems the court took the stance that he can have
> access to legal representation in this matter. (A gray
> area under the GC, which doesn't address legal help
> requirements for illegal combatants.)

**** on the Bill of Rights all you like.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-levy062402.asp

June 24, 2002, 8:45 a.m. Citizen Padilla Dangerous precedents. By
Robert A. Levy


Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir, supposedly plotted to build
and detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." He is a U.S. citizen. Yet
he's being detained by the military — indefinitely, without seeing an
attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Yaser
Esam Hamdi is also a U.S. citizen. He, too, is being detained by the
military — indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he
hasn't been charged with any crime. Meanwhile, Zacarias Moussaoui,
purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a U.S. citizen. Neither is
Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber. Both have attorneys. Both have
been charged before federal civilian courts.


What gives? Four men: two citizens and two non-citizens. Is it
possible that constitutional rights — like habeas corpus, which
requires the government to justify continued detentions, and the Sixth
Amendment, which assures a speedy and public jury trial with
assistance of counsel — can be denied to citizens yet extended to
non-citizens? That's what the Bush administration would have us
believe. Citizen Padilla's treatment is perfectly legitimate, insists
Attorney General John Ashcroft, because Padilla is an "enemy
combatant" and there is "clear Supreme Court precedent" to handle
those persons differently, even if they are citizens.
Ashcroft's so-called clear precedent is a 1942 Supreme Court case, Ex
Parte Quirin, which dealt with Nazi saboteurs, at least one of whom
was a U.S. citizen. "Enemy combatants," said the Court, are either
lawful — for example, the regular army of a belligerent country — or
unlawful — for example, terrorists. When lawful combatants are
captured, they are POWs. As POWs, they cannot be tried (except for war
crimes), they must be repatriated after hostilities are over, and they
only have to provide their name, rank, and serial number if
interrogated. Clearly, that's not what the Justice Department has in
mind for Padilla.

Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are
captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal. That's what
happened to the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin. But Padilla has not been
charged much less tried. Indeed, the president's executive order of
November 2001 excludes U.S. citizens from the purview of military
tribunals. If the president were to modify his order, the Quirin
decision might provide legal authority for the military to try
Padilla. But the decision provides no legal authority for detaining a
citizen without an attorney solely for purposes of aggressive
interrogation.
Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the
protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and
unlawful-combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution
distinguish between the crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments and the terrorist acts Padilla is suspected of planning.
Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions — noting that
Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war
that expressly authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military
tribunal. Today, the situation is very different. We've had virtually
no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of
tribunals, and no suspension of habeas corpus.

Yet those functions are explicitly assigned to Congress by Article I
of the Constitution. It is Congress, not the executive branch, which
has the power "To declare War" and "To constitute Tribunals inferior
to the supreme Court." Only Congress can suspend the "Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus … when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it." Congress has not spoken — except by
enacting the USA Patriot Act. And there, we do find authorization for
detention of persons suspected of terrorism — but only non-citizens
and only for seven days, after which they must be released unless
criminal charges are filed or deportation proceedings commenced.
Without either constitutional or statutory authority, the
administration has decided that it will set the rules, prosecute
infractions, determine guilt or innocence, then review the results of
its own actions. That's too much unchecked power in the hands of the
executive branch — making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of
powers that has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for
two-and-a-quarter centuries. Even persons convinced that President
Bush cherishes civil liberties and understands that the Constitution
is not mere scrap paper, must be unsettled by the prospect that an
unknown and less honorable successor could exploit some of the
dangerous precedents that the Bush administration has put in place.

In a nutshell, we cannot permit the executive branch to declare
unilaterally that a U.S. citizen may be characterized as an enemy
combatant, whisked away, detained indefinitely without charges, denied
legal counsel, and prevented from arguing to a judge that he is wholly
innocent.

That does not mean the Justice Department must set people free to
unleash weapons of mass destruction. But it does mean, at a minimum,
that Congress must get involved, exercising its responsibility to
enact a new legal regimen for citizen-detainees in time of national
emergency. That regimen must respect citizens' rights under the
Constitution, including the right to judicial review of executive
branch decisions. Constitutional rights are not absolute. But they do
establish a strong presumption of liberty, which can be overridden
only if government demonstrates, first, that its restrictions are
essential and, second, that the goals it seeks to accomplish cannot be
accomplished in a less invasive manner. When the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches agree on the framework, the
potential for abuse is significantly diminished. When only the
executive has acted, the foundation of a free society can too easily
erode.
— Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the
Cato Institute

[end]

Bush is a disastrous failure as president and he has to go.

If he gets re-elected but the Democrats control Congress, he'll be
impeached and convicted.


Walt