"Vito" wrote in message

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

Not if that person looks to be of Arab descent...

CM

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote
It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

Never claimed otherwise.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open
your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.

Then why was one of my subordinates detained for 6 hours?

I don't know. He should have simply been refused admission.


If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at
yourself.

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

That is absolute rubbish!!! The 9/11 hijackers could easily have satisfied
your criteria.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote
Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

That is absolute rubbish!!! The 9/11 hijackers could easily have
satisfied
your criteria.

The 9/11 hijackers had US DoD ID badges and courier cards? I don't think so.
But, in any event, airport security didn't stop them then nor would it stop
them now. The problem was in the air. A hijacking had always meant a
little time spent in Cuba or other unintended destination but loss of life
had been very seldom. Hence air crews were trained to accomodate hjackers
willingly. And that's what happened in all but the last plane. That policy
has changed. I doubt 5 (?) hijackers could seize control of a plane
carrying 100+ people with box cutters today.

"DSK" wrote
....., I doubt it will do any good.

Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

prisoners of war, in international law, persons captured by a belligerent
while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the
treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants.
This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they
are war criminals; see war crimes) and forces that do not observe
conventional requirements for combatants (see war, laws of).

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war (see war,
laws of). Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international
tribunals.

Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

Interesting but not applicable to the war criminals held at Gitmo. Moreover,
it simply forbids torture. They are not being tortured.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

Rehash of the above .....

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

"The State Department's annual human rights report released yesterday
criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as
torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in
contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them
with dogs -- methods *similar* to those approved at times by the Bush
administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved in December 2002 a number of
severe measures, including the stripping of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.

"Vito" wrote
I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things......


One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.


But little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher
prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a
gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put
money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go
home with some guy and make love with him for money."


The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask
him, "Is that really true about your father?"


"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and
helped re-elect George Bush, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front
of the other kids."

....., I doubt it will do any good.


Vito wrote:
Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

Hardly


Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.


Yeah, right.


Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs


And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.




Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?




Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

"Dave" wrote
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:04:53 -0500, "Vito" said:

Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established
international
tribunals.

Vito, continued repetition of this falsehood will not make it so.

Problem is you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the pomp and
circumstance. It doesn't happen that way in most of the world including most
"Western Democracies" where the accused may not even be invited to his
trial. But it is a legal trial none the less. Correct me if I am wrong but
in Muslim countries a Mullah hears the evidence and passes judgement. In
Afghanistan, that might be a local tribal leader. Either way, that "court"
has the local legal authority to find you guilty and put a death sentance on
you - right? That's what happens if you go to Afghnistan and make trouble.
If you're lucky you might survive in Gitmo.

"DSK" wrote
And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

Yes.

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.

Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works, including many
"western democracies" using Napolionic law. There, a judge hears the
evidence, determines guilt and passes sentance. The accused may or may not
be invited. Happened to a dude I knew - got drunk and wrecked his car in
Mexico and did a year. In Afghanistan the judge is likely some local tribal
elder but he has the same authority. Bottom line is if you want US/UK
justice don't get drunk and wreck in Mexico and don't go making trouble in
Afghanistan.

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?

Sure, I simply dispute whether the things he OK'd are torture.



Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices"
he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these
governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?


Vito wrote:
Yes.


Where?


I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.


Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works

Yeah, I' sure... blah blah blah.

There is no evidence that even a rudimentary tribunal has been held for
even a small minority of these prisoners. The U.S. gov't and the
military has not made any such claim.

You're pushing hot air, buddy. You have no facts and you can't admit the
truth, same as our discussion on Viet Nam.

Bye. I hope you and your voices have a good time together.

DSK

OzOne wrote
International News
Finally 5....only 495 to go!

Five more Guantanamo detainees charged .....

Jeeze. We decide to give 5 (out of 495?) convicted war criminals a US
Military trial, even though international law allows us to return all 500 to
Afghanitan for execution, and y'all complain?? Oh well - proves no good
deed goes unpunished I guess.

IIRC most detainees are from Muslim states other than Afghanistan. Can we
agree that the US should return them to Afghanistan or to their home
countries (at our descretion) for some real torture and execution rather
than holding them any longer??