America is at war
 

Thats easy, They are captured terrorist. As we all know the terrorist
have no country to call home. International laws do not apply and the
rules of the geneva convention do not apply either.

Joe

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:25:37 +1000, OzOne said:

Don't you think that it would be a good idea if the guys that you
_suspect_ of having shot at your guys had some evidence presented to
show that they had actually done that...any time in the 3 years that
some have been held would be nice....or is it 4 years since
Afghanistan?

No, Oz, I don't think it would be a good idea to hold a trial for every
captured POW over whether he was in fact fighting. How many of those trials
were there in WWI? WWII? The Korean conflict? The Vietnam war? Any other war
you can name

.............. except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's. Now, where does that leave your argument, Dave?

PDW

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:59:03 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

............. except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's. Now, where does that leave your argument, Dave?

If you accept the argument that POWs may be detained until after hostilities
have ended, it strengthens the argument. As irregular combatants refusing to
observe the laws of war, these people, when captured, are certainly entitled
to no greater rights to be freed than a regular enemy soldier would be, and
probably lesser rights.

Your Govt has denied that they're POW's, Dave. Fact. Stop squirming
about. All you've written above is off point.

If they *were* POW's, the behaviour of your Govt violates the Geneva
Convention on treatment of captured soldiers. Which is why the US has
been so vehement that they're not holding POW's.

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them. Why don't you just admit
that fact?

"lesser rights". It was people like you who helped remove fundamental
protections from those who needed them most in the past. You would have
been looking for ways to lock up the Nisei and confiscate their
possessions in WW2.

Years ago, in one of Bob Brownell's books on gunsmithing, there's a
quote that has always stuck in my mind. It was to the effect that you
don't act like a gentleman because the other guy is (or isn't), you act
that way because you *are* one. Transfer that concept to human rights
and the rights under law and your Govt's behaviour is damn shabby, your
rhetoric hollow, and your commitment to equal treatment under the law
shown for the farce most people suspected.

I personally am disappointed.

PDW

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:18:23 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them.

Here we have a major philosophical difference. You seem to be operating on
the "Captain may I" principle. That is, all is forbidden which is not
explicitly authorized. You can do nothing which is not approved by "the
authorities." A quite European notion foreign to most of us in this country.
How else does one explain the "category for you to legally hold them"
language?

In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden. Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.

OK, then why do you hold Hicks? Your govt is forbidding him from
leaving Guantanamo Bay. You're saying that his departure is forbidden.
By your own logic, the burden is on you to show authority. You've just
demonstrated my point. Thanks.

I believe that Govt is forbidden to do anything not specifically
authorised. You think that the Govt can do anything not specifically
forbidden. You invert this in saying that I believe that *I* (and by
extension, all individuals) can do nothing without permission. That's
*your* argument WRT private citizens.

I assert that absent a law stopping him, Hicks has the right go as and
where he pleases. You assert that absent a law forbidding the Govt
holding him, it is free to do so. Then you attempt to invert this by
swapping the roles of citizen and Govt. Poor, Dave. Very poor.

Typical lawyer. Your approach leads to endless search for loopholes and
exploiting anomolies.

Your argument boils down to a statement that unless there's a law
forbidding your Govt from taking some action, it's ok to do it. Fine.

BTW, by no stretch of the imagination could I or my fellows be
considered European.

PDW

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:
In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden.

Wrong, the Constitution specifically says that all powers not granted
expressly are reserved for the states, or for the people.... ie
everything that's not expressly permitted in writing is forbidden.


1- point out the section of the U.S. COnstitution which says "Persons
suspected of being involved in terrorism, or other unanmed & unknown
threats against the U.S., may be imprisoned & sequestered indefinitely
with no charges, no trial, at the whim of the current President."

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?





...Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.


Kinda like 'guilty until proven innocent' eh? I'm glad as hell you're
not *my* lawyer.

For the record- I am not against the idea of imprisoning & even
sequestering people taken captive in anti-terrorist operations. But
there must be a due process of law, and there must be accountability.
Both are sadly lacking at Gitmo.

DSK

America is at war
 

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Dave wrote:
Wrong argument on several scores, Doug.

That must be why you cannot answer the question I asked.

... But perhaps I can help you focus
your thinking more clearly.


I doubt it, since you cannot answer two simple questions on the subject.

As you know, the courts have held that those held in Gitmo are entitled to a
hearing in some form.

True, and actually a bit surprising. I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

The next obvious question (not that I expect you to answer, since you've
scrupulously avoided answering my questions so far) is 'How long can the
U.S. hold prisoners without even granting them any hearing?' The answer
is obviously in excess of three years.

DSK

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:
That's pretty funny, Doug, since you carefully edited out the very simple
factual question I asked, and didn't respond to it.


I asked you first.

DSK

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?

Absolutely not. But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured, not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
...... I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

No telling what either will do once a lifetime appointment that assures
their place in history frees them from political servitude. As a politician
and governor of California, Earl Warren was practically a fascist - anti
freedom, anti-union, pro big government and business. Yet his court upheld
out right to privacy which underpins Roe vs Wade, legalized birth control,
and a host of other "liberal" causes. What if Roberts was abused as an
alter boy ..... (c:

America is at war
 

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Vito wrote:
Absolutely not.

Good, we're agreed.

Oddly enough, Dave has avoided answering this question.

... But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured

That's contrary to what I have heard.

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."



... not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.


If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

DSK

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote
"Vito" said:

But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured, not necessarily IAW
US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty.

Sorry, Vito, you're not even close on the facts here.

Then please share "the facts".

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."

Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.
... not necessarily IAW US law ....

If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

Because our "allies" are notoriously inefficient at extracting *reliable*
info out of prisoners. The kinds of torture they use gets them the answers
they want to hear quickly but not necessarily the truth. Our experts use
psychological "torture" (if one can call it that) to get much better
results.

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture" used.

America is at war
 

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."


Vito wrote:
Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.


I wonder where you heard this. It's never even been hinted at in any
material I've seen or heard.


Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?


Because our "allies" are notoriously inefficient at extracting *reliable*
info out of prisoners.

True, but we do it anyway.


... Our experts use
psychological "torture" (if one can call it that) to get much better
results.


Uh huh.

Would you call letting a large maddened dog chomp at the face of a
prisoner "torture"? How about holding his head underwater repeatedly?
Putting a black hood on him and connecting various body parts to
electric wires? All these, and more, are documented to have been done by
U.S. troops.

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.




I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.


That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture" used.


No it isn't. And I think that any 'cooperation' produced under such
duress is likely to be extremely unreliable.

But this probably doesn't occur to people who brag about blowing up an
entire block of downtown Baghdad, and killing everybody there, in a
failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Or people who are in favor
of blowing up houses & cars with drone-launched missiles because
suspected terrorist leaders are suspected to be in there.

However, the guy at the top of this chain of command is a scrupulously
moral chap, he has never once gotten a blow job in his office.

Regards
Doug King

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."


Vito wrote:
Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where
ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort
of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to
Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.


I wonder where you heard this. It's never even been hinted at in any
material I've seen or heard.

It's implicite in their being there. Nobody arbitrarily kidnaps a civilian
off the street and carries them half way around the world to imprison them
at great cost without some sort of hearing into the value of doing so. As
you say, most are either battlefield captives or were captured in
anti-terrorist raids, with a few turned over by other agencies. Somebody had
to look at each one and decide who got shot, who went to local prison, who
went free and finally who went to Gitmo. That constitutes a trial in much of
the world - especially the Muslim world.


Would you call letting a large maddened dog chomp at the face of a
prisoner "torture"? How about holding his head underwater repeatedly?
Putting a black hood on him and connecting various body parts to
electric wires? All these, and more, are documented to have been done by
U.S. troops.

Yes, and these have been generally punished when disovered.

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.

These are useful and acceptable methods of changing a person's outlook. Take
a typical terrorist. He's not stupid but he is worse than ignorant. He's
spent years in school studying not science, history, et al, but poring over
the Koran, rocking back and forth while memorizing every verse. This
disinformation has led him to believe that there is only one God - Allah -
and that Mohammad is his prophet. Worse Mohammad demands that everybody
accept this weird notion and if they do not it is his duty to kill them (ie
us).

Now I see nothing wrong with disabusing him of these notions. I would point
out that Mohammad went to Mecca to drown his sorrow over the loss of his
wife in drugs, passed out on a rock and woke days later back home having
dreamed he gone to heavan. I'd show his religion the respect it deserves -
which is zip! I wouldn't let him bow and pray toward Mecca or keep a Koran.
I'd instead have instruction in real history and the benefit of secular
democracy on the TV 24/7. So, his 'torturers' are treating him better than I
would.

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.


That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture"
used.


No it isn't. And I think that any 'cooperation' produced under such
duress is likely to be extremely unreliable.

A man wants to kill you because God says he should. He belongs to a large
group who think likewise. They believe this so strongly that they will
gladly kill themselves to kill you. There are only two ways to combat
that - kill all of them first or re-educate them to give up thi idea. Given
their level of madness the latter will enjoy limited success.

But this probably doesn't occur to people who brag about blowing up an
entire block of downtown Baghdad, and killing everybody there, in a
failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Or people who are in favor
of blowing up houses & cars with drone-launched missiles because
suspected terrorist leaders are suspected to be in there.

However, the guy at the top of this chain of command is a scrupulously
moral chap, he has never once gotten a blow job in his office.

Or his life! The war on Muslim extremism is understandable. I doubt that
GWB had any idea it existed before 9/11 and it definately interfered with
his plan for Iraq. Nobody has yet to offer a viable reason for invading Iraq
but there is good reason to contend Muslim extremism. Toppling the Talban
and putting al Qaeda on the defensive were primarily intellegence
operations, supported by military. Gitmo is part of that. Iraq is not. It
is IMHO a rather stupid side show that does far more harm than good,
especially among those who cannot distinguish between the two seperate
"wars". If Roosevelt had been as bone stupid as Bush, he would have
attacked England in response to Pearl Harbor!

America is at war
 

Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
It's implicite in their being there. Nobody arbitrarily kidnaps a
civilian
off the street and carries them half way around the world to imprison them
at great cost without some sort of hearing into the value of doing so. As
you say, most are either battlefield captives or were captured in
anti-terrorist raids, with a few turned over by other agencies. Somebody
had
to look at each one and decide who got shot, who went to local prison, who
went free and finally who went to Gitmo. That constitutes a trial in much
of
the world - especially the Muslim world.

America is at war
 

In article , Vito
wrote:

"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."


Vito wrote:
Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where
ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort
of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to
Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.


I wonder where you heard this. It's never even been hinted at in any
material I've seen or heard.

It's implicite in their being there.

IOW, you made it up. Right.

Nobody arbitrarily kidnaps a civilian
off the street and carries them half way around the world to imprison them
at great cost without some sort of hearing into the value of doing so.

Hmmm. Those accounts I've read of you guys shipping people to Egypt to
be tortured are all false, then? If not, where's the record of the
hearing? Or do you mean that it's all being done on the whim of some
faceless person, unaccountable to anyone?

Tell me, why did you guys bring in habeas corpus in the first place? Do
you think it only applies to citizens of the USA? Obviously not, now I
think of it, because you've been desperate to keep people off of US
territory so as to keep them away from the normal protections of the
courts.

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.

These are useful and acceptable methods of changing a person's outlook.

Ah. So you agree that the Chinese were correct, during the Korean War,
in doing just this sort of thing to US troops, and that in any future
conflict, you'll make no complaint about such methods being used on US
troops.

Right?

Take
a typical terrorist. He's not stupid but he is worse than ignorant. He's
spent years in school studying not science, history, et al, but poring over
the Koran, rocking back and forth while memorizing every verse. This
disinformation has led him to believe that there is only one God - Allah -
and that Mohammad is his prophet. Worse Mohammad demands that everybody
accept this weird notion and if they do not it is his duty to kill them (ie
us).

Simplistic. Wrong, and simplistic. This is the sort of dangerous
nonsense that got you *into* Iraq. You refuse to see that a person can
be extremely well educated, while being dedicated to a cause in
complete opposition to your own. By being so ignorant yourself, you
underestimate your enemy to your own disadvantage.

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The then South African government
thought so, and locked him away for 27 years.

A man wants to kill you because God says he should. He belongs to a large
group who think likewise. They believe this so strongly that they will
gladly kill themselves to kill you. There are only two ways to combat
that - kill all of them first or re-educate them to give up thi idea. Given
their level of madness the latter will enjoy limited success.

So - when are you going to neutron bomb the entire land area of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, big parts of Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia..........?

Hmmmmm?

It's the logical thing to do, from your POV.

I quite agree with you as to the desirability of killing people who are
determined to kill you, BTW. I just think you're dangerously
simplistic. A better way would be to chop off their finances and let
them all rot.... but you won't do that because you're addicted to the
tit of cheap oil. Most of these problems are of your own making,
looking at history. If you know any history at all, if you've read any
of the accounts of the early explorers in that part of the world, you'd
know that the Wahabi sect have *always* been insular, suspicious and
totally intolerant of anyone outside their own strain of Islam. Read
the accounts of Louis Burkhardt who was the first European on record to
see Petra, to travel to Mecca, and a lot of other places, back in the
early 1800's.

It was you guys who empowered them with money from oil to cause such
trouble. Now you're stuck. You can't let go of the oil tar baby and you
can't set up a neocolonial regime in the face of ongoing resistance.
Iraq is shaping up to be a fiasco. I personally am disappointed about
that because I had hopes for success, for the formation of a secular
democratic state, and applauded the downfall of Hussein. I think I'm
going to see the foreign troops - including ours - scuttle home as soon
as it's face-saving to do so, followed by a 3 way civil war aided &
abetted by Syria and Iran, with possibly Turkey as well, to prevent
*their* Kurds from getting any ideas.

As I've said before, I'd be looking at ways to move to a hydrogen
economy powered by fission in the short term and whatever seems less
dangerous/better engineered/more efficient in the longer term. Leave
these nutcases rot. Stop trying to glue together people who want to be
apart - Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in Iraq, for example. It's likely not
going to work and you're only making it worse.


But this probably doesn't occur to people who brag about blowing up an
entire block of downtown Baghdad, and killing everybody there, in a
failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Or people who are in favor
of blowing up houses & cars with drone-launched missiles because
suspected terrorist leaders are suspected to be in there.

However, the guy at the top of this chain of command is a scrupulously
moral chap, he has never once gotten a blow job in his office.

Or his life! The war on Muslim extremism is understandable. I doubt that
GWB had any idea it existed before 9/11 and it definately interfered with
his plan for Iraq. Nobody has yet to offer a viable reason for invading Iraq
but there is good reason to contend Muslim extremism.

Agreed. Chop off their money supply. Refuse to let them travel in
Western countries. Air drop cheap radios, TV sets etc and set up
satellites broadcasting the virtues of Western society 24/7. Broadcast
educational TV as well as propaganda. The only source of education for
the poor is the religious schools; give them a free alternative and
different points of view and the issue of indoctrination declines
somewhat. These societies are dying and the fanatics know it. As people
get wealthier and better educated, the power of the hard core nutcases
decreases and they get more desperate. I have no love of, or tolerance
for, any society or religion that has as policy the oppression of
better than 50% of the population, believe me. I'm smart enough to not
try to create enemies out of allies, or **** off the bystanders in the
process. Unfortunately, your political leadership is plain stupid.

Toppling the Talban
and putting al Qaeda on the defensive were primarily intellegence
operations, supported by military. Gitmo is part of that. Iraq is not. It
is IMHO a rather stupid side show that does far more harm than good,
especially among those who cannot distinguish between the two seperate
"wars". If Roosevelt had been as bone stupid as Bush, he would have
attacked England in response to Pearl Harbor!

Yeah. It wasn't a bright move. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was
plain stupid. Might have come off if the post-shooting management had
been half as good as the battle management but as we've seen, too
little resources, too thinly spread, too late, and too poor a quality.
Abu Ghraib has cost you guys more credibility than I think you realise.
You've demonstrated that under certain circumstances, you're no better
than the bad guys. The point you're missing about holding captives
without trial and without access to external reviewing authorities (Red
Cross et al), and engaging in psy war techniques, is that you
demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between you and
them, only power. Without moral authority, power is pretty short lived
and sustainable only by increasing force. There goes your republic.

PDW

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:28:39 -0400, "Vito" said:

Somebody had
to look at each one and decide who got shot, who went to local prison,
who
went free and finally who went to Gitmo. That constitutes a trial in much
of
the world - especially the Muslim world.

Pretty weak, Vito. Fact is you were blowing smoke with your claim that
there
had been hearings for each of those held at Gitmo. Better to admit that
you
had nothing to back up the claim, and were wrong on that score, and move
on
to some valid arguments for holding them.

Gee, you're right Dave. It's crazy to assume that any local authority looked
at each person before turning them over to Americans or that some American
authority did the same before flying each one to Gitmo then feeding,
clothing and sheltering them, some for years. It's much more logical to
assume that each is a poor innocent who, like Mohammad, magically ended up
somewhere else (Gitmo) because Allah willed it.

A friend stationed in Saudi told of an execution he witnessed. There was a
hullabloo and a crowd formed. Somebody had seen a Saudi officer go into
another's quarters and summoned the mullah. Moments later the officer was
dragged out, thrown on the ground and beheaded. Then the other officer's
wife was thrown into the crowd where the women stoned her to death! He had
pictures. Both had been "tried", found guilty and condemned to death by the
mullah in moments - without hearings, votes or any other procedure we
expect. Such is justice over there. Why is it so hard to believe that each
detainee got the same "justice"?

America is at war
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

America is at war
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Vito wrote:

But most .. were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after
some sort
of hearing .... It's implicite in their being there.

IOW, you made it up. Right.

Sure. Just like I made up my claim that the sun rose this AM. It's
axiomatic - obvious to the most casual observer. NOTHING happens without a
decision. Did Allah magically transport them there?

Hmmm. Those accounts I've read of you guys shipping people to Egypt to
be tortured are all false, then? If not, where's the record of the
hearing? Or do you mean that it's all being done on the whim of some
faceless person, unaccountable to anyone?

a) Probably. The only reason to send one off to torture would be to
intimidate others and the rumor would work as well as actually doing so.

b) Knowing military bureaucracy I'm sure we have some record of each/every
decision to send anybody to Gitmo - so sure I don't need to see them. If you
do ask under the freedom of information act.

c) Absolutely! That's how the "legal" system works over there! They got the
same "trial" as the women the Taliban shot for being literate. Don't like
it, don't go there.

Tell me, why did you guys bring in habeas corpus in the first place? Do
you think it only applies to citizens of the USA? Obviously not, now I
think of it, because you've been desperate to keep people off of US
territory so as to keep them away from the normal protections of the
courts.

Now you understand!! If Blimy convicts a criminal under English law, then
'loans' him to us, and he never touches US soil then he has no rights under
US law. Similarly, if an Afghan "court" convicts a Sudanese of trying to
overthrow their government then loans him to us .... Would England want us
re

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable
methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.

These are useful and acceptable methods of changing a person's outlook.

Ah. So you agree that the Chinese were correct, during the Korean War,
in doing just this sort of thing to US troops, and that in any future
conflict, you'll make no complaint about such methods being used on US
troops. Right?

US spies, sabateurs and insergents captured in civilian cloths - sure. US
(or other) uniformed troops - no.

Take
a typical terrorist. He's not stupid but he is worse than ignorant. He's
spent years in school studying not science, history, et al, but poring
over
the Koran, rocking back and forth while memorizing every verse. This
disinformation has led him to believe that there is only one God -
Allah -
and that Mohammad is his prophet. Worse Mohammad demands that everybody
accept this weird notion and if they do not it is his duty to kill them
(ie
us).

Simplistic. Wrong, and simplistic. This is the sort of dangerous
nonsense that got you *into* Iraq. You refuse to see that a person can
be extremely well educated, while being dedicated to a cause in
complete opposition to your own. By being so ignorant yourself, you
underestimate your enemy to your own disadvantage.

You are confused. First, there is no connection between the Iraq invasion
and the war on terror, nor is our understanding of radical Islam the reason
we invaded Iraq. Nobody knows why we invaded Iraq. As I said, had Roosevelt
been as stupid as Bush, he would have attacked England in response to Pearl
Harbor.

That said, I can well understand educated opposition, but that is NOT what
the western world is facing in the war on Muslim extremism nor are the folks
detained at Gitmo rational, educated foes. They are dedicated to converting
the world to their idiotic religion and killing any who fail to comply. It
is gentle folks like you who underestimate that enemy through ignorance of
their madness.

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The then South African government
thought so, and locked him away for 27 years.

Yes! How many fellow Africans did he murder by "necklessing" them, burning
them alive? Is So Africa better off now? Rhodesia?? Hardly.

A man wants to kill you because God says he should. He belongs to a
large
group who think likewise. They believe this so strongly that they will
gladly kill themselves to kill you. There are only two ways to combat
that - kill all of them first or re-educate them to give up thi idea.
Given
their level of madness the latter will enjoy limited success.

So - when are you going to neutron bomb the entire land area of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, big parts of Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia..........?

Why? Most Muslims are far less radical and have no desire to kill anyone
over religion. I believe in re-education. The foundations of Islam, like
Christianity and Judism, are easily refuted by fact and logic.

It was you guys who empowered them with money from oil .....

Us? Look in a mirror. How much oil does Europe produce vs consume? How much
mid-east oil goes to the USA vs Europe and Asia? How much US oil goes to
Asia? We're all guilty.


...... Stop trying to glue together people who want to be
apart - Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in Iraq, for example. It's likely not
going to work and you're only making it worse.

IIRC Britian established the current borders - which were working fine til
Bush attacked Saddam. Saddam knew how to deal with these "conflicts".

..... Unfortunately, your political leadership is plain stupid.

And dogmatic to boot. Sadly they reflect much of our voting population.

You've demonstrated that under certain circumstances, you're no better
than the bad guys. The point you're missing about holding captives
without trial and without access to external reviewing authorities (Red
Cross et al), and engaging in psy war techniques, is that you
demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between you and
them, only power. .....

Trouble is there IS no difference when looking at leaders. Osama, et al,
strike the "great Satan" because God tells them to. Bush and Co invaded Iraq
for no better reason. If intelligent Americans were in charge Saddam would
still be running Iraq, Osama and company would be quietly enjoying Cuban
weather and the world would never have heard of Gitmo.

America is at war
 

You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

America is at war
 

Nope. I don't say it didn't happen just that I don't recall it.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off
the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

America is at war
 

"Capt. JG" wrote
You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off
the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

Vito wrote:
Nope. I don't say it didn't happen just that I don't recall it.




I think Jon G may be talking about the lawyer suspected of being
involved in the Madrid bombing. It was another Richard Jewell like case
(the guy who did not do the Olympic bombing in Atlanta, but was hounded
& harasses and intermittently jailed for over a year), clearly the
police & Feds *way* overstepped their bounds. Heads should roll over
cases like this.

DSK

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:41:58 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gee, you're right Dave. It's crazy to assume that any local authority
looked
at each person before turning them over to Americans or that some
American
authority did the same before flying each one to Gitmo then feeding,
clothing and sheltering them, some for years.

No, Vito, that's not the problem. It's nonsense to characterize that kind
of
"looking at" as a hearing. And it insults your readers' intelligence to
expect them to be fooled by such transparent sophistry.

One cannot impose the Anglo-American court system on other cultures. A man I
knew got drunk and wrecked his car in Mexico. The was tried under Mexican
law and sent to prison without being asked to testify or even see the inside
of the courtroom. The Judge felt he had all the info needed to convict
without it. When his relatives complained the US Government told them tough
****. If you don't like Mexican law then don't do crimes in Mexico. I
understand that France, Italy, Spain and other democracies are the same.

Friends who work(ed) in Muslim countries say it's even stricter there. Their
employer advised them to get out of the country at the first sign of trouble
rather than face local justice. One of them narrowly escaped when the taxi
he hired had a wreck. He was spirited out before a mullah could decide it
was his fault and have him killed! You or I may not like it but that's why I
don't go to these places.

Now what is going to happen to (say) a Sudanese who went to Afghanistan to
enjoy the Taliban paradise, murdering women for literacy, who gets caught
leading a band of ununiformed foreigners and Afghans shooting and killing
other Afghans? Are they going to convene a court and let him pick a jury as
we do here? Hell no! The local tribal chief and mullah are going to agree on
his guilt and cut his head off out of hand. Should the US intervene in local
law and custom to save him? I think not.

But US Intel looks at him and decides he may have info that could help
prevent another 9/11 or English or Spanish terror attack, so we ask the
Afghans to loan him to us. Now, what do we owe this guy? A fair trial under
US law?

One might argue that we shouldn't have intervened at all - that we should
have let the Afghans kill him - and in light of current events I'd have to
agree. Perhaps we should simply put the lot of them to death, but imagine
the howls from the bleeding-heart do gooders then. Do you think we should
let them go?

America is at war
 

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:41:58 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gee, you're right Dave. It's crazy to assume that any local authority
looked
at each person before turning them over to Americans or that some
American
authority did the same before flying each one to Gitmo then feeding,
clothing and sheltering them, some for years.

No, Vito, that's not the problem. It's nonsense to characterize that kind
of
"looking at" as a hearing. And it insults your readers' intelligence to
expect them to be fooled by such transparent sophistry.

One cannot impose the Anglo-American court system on other cultures. A man I
knew got drunk and wrecked his car in Mexico. The was tried under Mexican
law and sent to prison without being asked to testify or even see the inside
of the courtroom. The Judge felt he had all the info needed to convict
without it. When his relatives complained the US Government told them tough
****. If you don't like Mexican law then don't do crimes in Mexico. I
understand that France, Italy, Spain and other democracies are the same.

Dunno, but Indonesia does. If you're involved in a traffic accident and
are a Westerner driving, it's automatically your fault, as if you
hadn't been in the country, the accident couldn't have hapened.

Fortunately local drivers are dirt cheap and then you don't need to
find a parking space in places like Jakarta.

One might argue that we shouldn't have intervened at all - that we should
have let the Afghans kill him - and in light of current events I'd have to
agree. Perhaps we should simply put the lot of them to death, but imagine
the howls from the bleeding-heart do gooders then.

Probably, but not from people like me. Australia currently has one
citizen facing execution for drug smuggling in Singapore, and likely
another 9 facing the same penalty in Indonesia. Tough ****, everyone
knows the penalties and some of them were caught in Customs &
Immigration on the way out of the country with the drugs strapped to
them, captured on full video. Stupidity like that should be a capital
offense.

Do you think we should
let them go?

Let *who* go? The guys in Gitmo? Sure. Either that or charge them.
Look, I could easily construct a scenario for people like David Hicks
where he would have a defensible case for being where he was and doing
whatever he was supposed to have done. I don't know the why's and
wherefores.

The *point* is - you guys won't allow him to challenge his detention in
an open court. That's wrong.

PDW

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote in
"Vito" said:

Do you think we should
let them go?

Had you been following my posts on the topic that question would be
ridiculous. I suggest you go back and read them.

No offense - I reply to others besides yourself.

Meanwhile, however, I take it you're now prepared to admit that your
so-called "hearings" in other countries bear no resemblance to what we
would
call a "hearing" in the US.

Sure, always did. However, few foreign trials do - even those in what we
consider "western democraies". I just feel that a criminal, duly convicted
under his own legal system, has no additional rights under our system just
because we happen to be questioning him.

America is at war
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Let *who* go? The guys in Gitmo? Sure. Either that or charge them.

We are chasing our own tails. AFAIK everybody in Gitmo has been charged,
convicted and sentenced in the country where captured before being sent to
Gitmo. You mention convicts being held for execution in Oz. If one of them
could help US law enforcement break a big international drug ring, would you
let us question him, perhaps even outside Oz if assured all Australian laws
would be upheld? Probably. Now if instead of returning him we gave him a new
US trial and let him go you'd be understandably ****ed. Substitute
Afghanistan for Oz and that's the case here AFAIK.

Look, I could easily construct a scenario for people like David Hicks.....

No need, he admits he went to Afghanistan, joined al Qaeda, and participated
in unlawful activities that could (should?) have got him executed there.
Instead, after determining his guilt per their own local custom, he was
given over to the US for questioning. Right so far?

The *point* is - you guys won't allow him to challenge his detention in
an open court. That's wrong.

Hey, he'd have gotten the same or worse had he committed similar crimes in
Spain, France, et cetera. If he wanted Anglo-American justice he should
have stayed where it is practiced. Instead, he left Oz and fought to impose
a very different draconian system on other peoples - a system where women
were systematically killed for being literate! He has been tried under that
same Islamic system he wanted to impose on others and, were he not in Gitmo,
he'd have been killed. Perhaps he should be returned to Afghanistan for
summary execution, but an Anglo-US type trial? You gotta be kidding!

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message

I just feel that a criminal, duly convicted
under his own legal system, has no additional rights under our system just
because we happen to be questioning him.

What are your views on the USA apprehending a lawful Canadian Citizen,
enroute to a destination outside your country, based on ethnic profiling,
refusing to allow him to return to Canada, and sending him to Syria for
interrogation and torture without due process, charges, cause, court
appearance.... nor notification of his country of origin?? Just asking
because your nation does it all the time. This person was held and tortured
for over a year ... by request of the US government... because they couldn't
do it legally on their territory. This is done routinely by your government
now. . ???

Don't talk to me about how the USA is upholding international law... please!
It reeks of gross ignorance of your own government on your part. Just tell
the people complaining about the US actions to go screw themselves... that
attitude they'll understand as a typical American response.

CM

America is at war
 

based on ethnic profiling,


Dave wrote:
That part sounds like a damned good idea.

Especially if you're a bigot.

...If you know what most of the bad
guys look like, it makes sense to look at people who look like the bad guys
do and not at 90 year old grandmothers. Damned few Finns fighting in
Afghanistan.


The problem is that a lot of people who "look Arab" or "look Muslim" are
in fact loyal tax-paying Americans. The success rate of finding
criminals (or terrorists) based on racial profiling is *proven* to be
lower than that of random chance.

There are several indicators that can improve the odds above random
chance, but dumb-ass prejudice against people whose skin is a different
color ain't one of them.

DSK

America is at war
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
What are your views on the USA apprehending a lawful Canadian Citizen,
enroute to a destination outside your country,....

Well, since he was Canadian, he was surely up to no good so arresting him
must have been justified, eh?

Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case. If
he was apprehended in Afghanistan in local civilian garb shooting at
Americans, like that guy from Oz, then I'd say his detention was justified.
And, if he had been arrested and convicted in Syria then loaned to us for
questioning I'd say it was right to return him. Otherwise ???

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM

America is at war
 

Well, that's better than having Canadians do it for us. Then, all you'll get
is a drunken terrorist eyeing some innocent farm animal.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:sAp8f.53976$y_1.5197@edtnps89...

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM

America is at war
 

Oh, I apologize.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:sAp8f.53976$y_1.5197@edtnps89...

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM

America is at war
 

Ganzy??... Do you even bother to engage your brain prior to submitting
these indicators of your total idiocy?

No seriously?!! You have serious issues....

....and I think you're GAY!

CM

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, that's better than having Canadians do it for us. Then, all you'll
get is a drunken terrorist eyeing some innocent farm animal.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:sAp8f.53976$y_1.5197@edtnps89...

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM

America is at war
 

And I thought I was a lousy troll. I even apologized. Bwaahahahahaaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:%Pt8f.49666$yS6.26595@clgrps12...
Ganzy??... Do you even bother to engage your brain prior to submitting
these indicators of your total idiocy?

No seriously?!! You have serious issues....

...and I think you're GAY!

CM

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, that's better than having Canadians do it for us. Then, all you'll
get is a drunken terrorist eyeing some innocent farm animal.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:sAp8f.53976$y_1.5197@edtnps89...

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this
case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a
third World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

CM

America is at war
 

In article sAp8f.53976$y_1.5197@edtnps89, Capt.Mooron
wrote:

"Vito" wrote in message
Seriously, you provide too little info to form any opinion in this case.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html

Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

And people like Vito wonder why even their long term friends and allies
like us Aussies are starting to leave. Doing stuff like this via some
******** 2rd World country makes you the same as them. The phrase
'whited sepulchure' comes immediately to mind.

PDW

America is at war
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
Let me know what you think... it's been done to several Canadians,
Australians, British citizens by the USA already. you are having a third
World Nation do your torture and interrogation for you.

I am saddened and embarassed that such a thing would happen. However, I
doubt he was sent to Syria "so they could torture him for us" because our
torturers know the kind of torture those countries use is very ineffective.
What answers did they get? What they wanted to hear of course. They beat
on him til they got them. And they'd have gotten the same no matter what
the truth was. Our experts know this and use better psychological methods
that physical torture negates. So I cannot imagine what led to his being
sent to his country of birth, vs Canada, except bureaucratic idiocy.

Never mistake for malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity -
and I suspect that's the case here, combined with the obvious result of
giving a scared bully a badge and gun and some rules to enforce. We saw the
same thing at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In fact, I'll be driving to Florida in a
few weeks rather than fly and face these idiots. Want some fun? Try
explaining to some $5/hr security guard that he cannot open your briefcase
because he is not cleared to inspect its classified contents, nor is his
boss or a local cop, that they'll have to call in the FBI.

America is at war
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
And people like Vito wonder why even their long term friends and allies
like us Aussies are starting to leave. ....

Faced with a frozen nut on your boat's motor, that you knew would come loose
with a bit to WD-40 in a few hours or days, would you instead reach for a
cutting torch? No? Well the US would not send anyone to Syria so he could be
tortured by their brutal ineffective methods either. I'm sorry you think
otherwise. Not that we are too moral but, having tried those methods at the
Salem Witch Trials, we know they don't work.

The Auzzi held at Gitmo is not being physically tortured. He was captured in
Afganistan by Afghans whilst fighting for al Qaeda and the Taliban, having
left his family in Oz unsupported and gone there to support a gang who
killed women for being literate and no, I do not pity him. Why do you? He
gve up his rights as an Australian when HE eagerly adopted the radical
Muslim system. Now he has been tried under that system and given to us for
deprogramming in liu of execution. Would you rather he'd been beheaded?

The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. I can only speculate why he was sent to
Syria vs Canada except that was where he was born. I sincerely doubt he was
sent there so Syria could torture information out of him for us if only
because we know that such info is unreliable. If we thot he knew something
he be at Gitmo.

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message


Well the US would not send anyone to Syria so he could be
tortured by their brutal ineffective methods either. I'm sorry you think
otherwise. Not that we are too moral but, having tried those methods at
the
Salem Witch Trials, we know they don't work.

Well Vito..... that's entirely the reason why he was sent. It is common
policy for the USA to do that to avoid their own laws. If you read the
report they informed not only this individual but the other three that they
were being interogated for information by request of the USA.

Look Syria is no friend of the USA... but it knows what needs to be done to
avoid "action" against it. Most of the insurgents in Irag come from or thru
Syria. As long as they provide a service to the USA... no action will be
taken. Syria has no interest in interogatting a Canadian Citizen. Most are
sympathetic to the insurgents.


The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. I can only speculate why he was sent to
Syria vs Canada except that was where he was born. I sincerely doubt he
was
sent there so Syria could torture information out of him for us if only
because we know that such info is unreliable. If we thot he knew
something
he be at Gitmo.

No you couldn't.... he was not "captured" nor was he on any "list". He was
forthcoming with all information and was denied legal counsel and the
opportunity to contact Canadian officals and his family.

Vito.. wake up! It was wrong, it's been done on numerous occaisions, it's
not an isolated incident, it's illegal, it flys in the face of your
constitution and claims of moral decency. It's happening and you seem to
treat it like an anomaly..... when in fact it's SOP.

Our RCMP are being raked across the coals for their compliance to US demands
regarding this situation. Our diplomat to Syria is on the hotseat. He was
warned by the US diplomat to not get involved in this.... and didn't report
it.

You have not undertaken this with US citzens holding dual citizenship.

For gawds sake he was a 30 year old engineer who had been in Canada since he
was 17. He had a loving family and children. He was a contributing member of
society with no history of criminal behaviour. He spent 2 years being
tortured for information he did not have.... all at the request of your
government and their paranoid state of operation.

What level are you guys on right now... yellow or orange? Does it matter?...
do you even pay attention anymore? Do you even notice your rights and
freedoms being erroded? Is it because they are only taking small pieces of
it away at a time?

Did you see the website where US soldiers can post pictures of their
"Kills"...??? Strange world we live in!

With power comes responsibility...

CM

America is at war
 

In article cjq9f.63704$y_1.10985@edtnps89, Capt.Mooron
wrote:

"Vito" wrote in message


Well the US would not send anyone to Syria so he could be
tortured by their brutal ineffective methods either. I'm sorry you think
otherwise. Not that we are too moral but, having tried those methods at
the
Salem Witch Trials, we know they don't work.

Well Vito..... that's entirely the reason why he was sent. It is common
policy for the USA to do that to avoid their own laws. If you read the
report they informed not only this individual but the other three that they
were being interogated for information by request of the USA.

Look Syria is no friend of the USA... but it knows what needs to be done to
avoid "action" against it. Most of the insurgents in Irag come from or thru
Syria. As long as they provide a service to the USA... no action will be
taken. Syria has no interest in interogatting a Canadian Citizen. Most are
sympathetic to the insurgents.


The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. I can only speculate why he was sent to
Syria vs Canada except that was where he was born. I sincerely doubt he
was
sent there so Syria could torture information out of him for us if only
because we know that such info is unreliable. If we thot he knew
something
he be at Gitmo.

No you couldn't.... he was not "captured" nor was he on any "list". He was
forthcoming with all information and was denied legal counsel and the
opportunity to contact Canadian officals and his family.

Vito.. wake up! It was wrong, it's been done on numerous occaisions, it's
not an isolated incident, it's illegal, it flys in the face of your
constitution and claims of moral decency. It's happening and you seem to
treat it like an anomaly..... when in fact it's SOP.

Our RCMP are being raked across the coals for their compliance to US demands
regarding this situation. Our diplomat to Syria is on the hotseat. He was
warned by the US diplomat to not get involved in this.... and didn't report
it.

You have not undertaken this with US citzens holding dual citizenship.

For gawds sake he was a 30 year old engineer who had been in Canada since he
was 17. He had a loving family and children. He was a contributing member of
society with no history of criminal behaviour. He spent 2 years being
tortured for information he did not have.... all at the request of your
government and their paranoid state of operation.

What level are you guys on right now... yellow or orange? Does it matter?...
do you even pay attention anymore? Do you even notice your rights and
freedoms being erroded? Is it because they are only taking small pieces of
it away at a time?

Did you see the website where US soldiers can post pictures of their
"Kills"...??? Strange world we live in!

With power comes responsibility...

No. With power comes corruption, and greater power means greater
corruption.

As an Australian, I'm moving towards supporting China economically and
politically. I'm reluctant to do this but given the USA's long record
of constitutional protection is now a sick joke, China's record is
starting to look better, and they're big enough to resist the USA.

Economically, Australia will probably be better off than dealing with
the USA anyway.

PDW

America is at war
 

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote
And people like Vito wonder why even their long term friends and allies
like us Aussies are starting to leave. ....

Faced with a frozen nut on your boat's motor, that you knew would come loose
with a bit to WD-40 in a few hours or days, would you instead reach for a
cutting torch? No? Well the US would not send anyone to Syria so he could be
tortured by their brutal ineffective methods either. I'm sorry you think
otherwise. Not that we are too moral but, having tried those methods at the
Salem Witch Trials, we know they don't work.

Except that you *have* done it and there's no reason to think you've
stopped doing it. Your personal refusal to believe it is irrelevant.

The Auzzi held at Gitmo is not being physically tortured. He was captured in
Afganistan by Afghans whilst fighting for al Qaeda and the Taliban, having
left his family in Oz unsupported and gone there to support a gang who
killed women for being literate and no, I do not pity him. Why do you? He
gve up his rights as an Australian when HE eagerly adopted the radical
Muslim system.

No, he didn't give up his rights as an Australian. In fact he's not
committed any crime under then existing Australian law. We have
freedom of religion in Australia so his being a Muslim is irrelevant to
what he does, legally. When did the USA outlaw Islam?

Now he has been tried under that system and given to us for
deprogramming in liu of execution. Would you rather he'd been beheaded?

If he was caught on the field of battle, shooting at people, out of
uniform, he could have been shot or summarily executed and I wouldn't
care at all. Once you bring him into the system, that's different. I've
come to the conclusion that you're never going to see this.

The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. I can only speculate why he was sent to
Syria vs Canada except that was where he was born. I sincerely doubt he was
sent there so Syria could torture information out of him for us if only
because we know that such info is unreliable. If we thot he knew something
he be at Gitmo.

You've got nowhere to go in that one Vito, except denial. It happened.
It was illegal. It isn't the only case. Nobody is safe transitting a US
airport if your Govt thinks they know something.

People like you are pushing people like me away. I'm a right wing gun
nut by Australian standards. What do you think the long term
consequences of this sort of bull**** is going to be? Next time you
guys want to run a little invasion I'll be lobbying against it rather
than for it, because I now think your political leadership is
deliberately lying, condoning torture, and violating the principles
that supposedly distinguish you guys from the likes of Saddam's Iraq.

We'll move closer to the Chinese, who are becoming a big trading
partner and no worse to trade with than you guys, while being far far
less hypocritical about their hold on power. It's not going to be our
loss because as a lower middle ranking power with huge energy, iron and
uranium resources, we'll always be able to find customers. We're really
the only First World country in the southern hemisphere.

You're rapidly losing the moral authority that gets allies to willingly
support you. After that you're left with naked power and threats. Soon
after that, things start really falling apart. It's amazing how
successful the Al Quaeda nutcases have been in trashing your
institutions by psychological leverage, getting your own people to do
their dirty work for them, while willing fools like you cheer on the
process. All achieved at the cost to them of a handful of deaths in the
aircraft back in 2001. So far it's cost you 2000 American lives in Iraq
and what - a billion dollars a day? While making enemies out of more
and more people. Way to go.......

You guys are idiots. Deal with it.

PDW