Drill Now for oil

drag

So, will you please identify just what the set of ideas / ideals you claim is involved?

A "request" that the US military commanded.

Poor baby ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
|                                                                |
|        Vote Barack... Help Make America an Obama-nation        |
|                                                                |
|  Due to excessive spam, googlegroups, UAR & AIOE are blocked!  |

JosephKK wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

any evidence for that claim?

and to refuse a request to leave would have meant the entire country fighting against the US troops.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Jun 28, 8:06 pm, mpm wrote:

Good grief. That wasn't the point of my relating the fundamentals, which seems like it was a good idea, since you have little grasp. But even if it were, the most you could say is there may be a determination if someone actually was associated, if the capturing power decided "it felt like it." If done, the procedure would (should) not be done under civil law. Your idea of war and being in a war-zone is fantasy-like. Sure a non-participant could "be there." Whether they can do anything about being captured or not depends upon their _power_, or whatever a capturing power decides to _grant_ them, not their "rights." "Someone" in a state of affairs fearing for their survival does not care about anyone elses' pre-existing "rights," unless the cost to them (of consideration) in ensuring their own survival is of no or very little consequence. This is reality, as much as you would deny reality.

It is as if you don't really get the idea that Al-Qaeda is making membership vague, just for the purpose of being hard to ID. I said at the outset that a body of law for this scenario is not well developed yet. And that is true. Just because of that, you think you can just throw the whole thing into the civil domain of "rights." Now there is a pipe dream.

You are just so badly wrong. _Nothing_ guts it, as it is fundamental. That's why a war prisoner can be held for as long as the conflict goes on, without any sort of "personal" charge against them. It is not a civil case, where someone individually did something wrong and is charged for it. A soldier is never normally considered for "murder charges" even if they killed 100 others. It does not even come up as a question, but it would in the civil world. Your basic issue is simply a matter of whether or not they actually are party to the conflict, not whether they have rights. That alone is fair enough, but the rest you have badly bollixed.

The determination could _at most_ be whether the prisoner _shall_ have rights, not that they _do_. For they were not imprisoned for a crime by a civil authority, where their _pre-existing_ rights demand a trial on the basis of a prima facie commission of crime, and only then are rights stripped for determined sentence terms upon conviction. (There are no "sentencing terms" for a war prisoner, as they held for the duration.) As a prima facie warrior captured by an opposing war power, the war prisoner doesn't have any rights to _start with_, and they are not being accused of a crime for which their rights shall _then_ be stripped and get a determinate sentence. They can, at best, be determined to be a non-participant, and be granted rights _after_ a determination (that is, to be freed, not because they did not commit a crime, but because they were not believed to be a warrior). It is not a "crime" to be a soldier -- "crime" is the language of anti-social and destructive behavior in a sea of peace. Soldiering/war exists in a sea of violence -- a void of peace. There are no civil rights in a war. Soldiers normally just go home afterwards -- Violent acts (with no consideration of social order) committed during the war are not even considered for stripping rights. Only in usual circumstances are certain acts committed during war post-judged to be "war crimes." And that is a special class of "crime" itself.

Oh my. That is your "example?"

Not in war. You are just flatly wrong. The _most_ war prisoners are given is humane treatment. The essence of being imprisoned in war is that the rights have been lost, whether "justifiably" ("justify" is a civil/social term) or not. There near nothing civilized about war. I mean, that is why it is war, and not civilized. Prisoners of a war don't have rights. You are confusing civil law (before conviction) with military "law."

The idea of warfare being a matter of "playing fair" is what drivel is. It doesn't work that way. It never has. You don't understand what "threat to survival" means and how any living thing would respond. And you speak of others' "philosophical pipe dreams." Oh dear.

.com

ng term drag

dif?

ding - they

ats. =A0This

y

with

ne.

fact

ism,

s

.S.

ent

ons.

ater

n if

ed,

Well, if you drop a dime on the sidewalk in Cleveland, you've just=20 doubled the net value of the place. Of course that sort of thing=20 can have ripples.

--=20 Keith

Of course you prefer tax and spend. That way no one has anything to spend. You leftist weenies can't control those with their own resources.

Check your history. At NO TIME in the "recent decades" has the right held power.

Bush is no conservative (no conservative would leave the borders open enough that the Mexican army would invade Phoenix and the congress worse.

--
Keith

Wrong again. Look at the GDP just before and after tax cuts go into effect.

Nonsense.

Again with the strawmen. The issue is with the ones who WON'T support themselves. The ones who can't have other avenues. Government isn't needed.

--
Keith

Gitmo is not a war zone.

s

Exactly my point - which is why all of your prior comments about "state of nature/society" BS is exactly that: crap!. The guards at Gitmo are not worried about their "survival" (ditto for the rest of us), so there is no compelling reason to deny rights.

st

e is

Uh.., The Geneva Conventions?? Ever heard of them? I'm not saying the detainees actually qualify. What I am saying is that in the end, it really makes no difference. You seem to have a complete mental block over this, and frankly, I don't get the disconnect??

the

I never claimed it was a civil case. (your language, not mine.) But if you walk through the argument one more time (slowly if needed) the inescapable conclusion is that your position is totally gutted. See also below at (*), as relates to "personal" charges in a supposed state of "war".

A soldier is never normally considered for

Irrelevant, because whether a solider is brought up on murder charges does not even begin to address whether or not excessive use of police force in the instance cited (i.e, teenage homicide involving over- zealous police) is in fact an infringement of rights (of the teenager). The number of people killed, or their status as law- abiding US citizens, law breakers, illegal aliens or even the AlQuaeda supreme leader is not essential to answering that question. Work it through again when you get some time..

But since you mentioned it: Chemical Ali? Was he a soldier? You're really hung up on definitions, so I think that's a fair question.

Do you honestly believe it is "right" for the United States to hold persons (prisoners, if you want to call them that, or whatever..) indefinitely? With no access to trial, no opportunity to contest their detention? What if you were the one picked up?

We have a "war" on immigration. By your logic, is it "fair" and "right" to pick up the illegals and detain them indefinitely without access to counsel, or to challenge their detention? What if a mistake was made, and one of those picked up really was a citizen?

ue

,

Huh? The right to contest their detention is precisely the issue. And no harm is done if we (as society) grant them that right.

[Much edited.] You sound like a first-year law student. Heaven help us if you pass the bar....

(*)I didn't mention it before (because I really felt it unnecessary..) but this isn't even actually a "war". It's America's knee-jerk response to 19 Hijaackers who commandeered an airplane and did the unthinkable. It's more approrpriately a "police action". You don't go to "war" against 19 individuals. You also can't commit "war" against a noun, namely "terrorism".

But I'll concede that a Billion dollars later, it "is" a war. A stupid one, and one that continuously focuses on the wrong enemy. (Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, nor was it a threat to our national security in any meaningful way.)

ng

It only takes one. Would you like more?

Then why don't we sell their livers on the black market? Seems like an awful waste of revenue to me....

Then again, why don't we just nuke them??? By your "analysis", -- and I'm really using that term loosely -- we would be totally justified in doing so since we're "at war" and the enemy has no rights. And, via my prior analysis, you refuse to distinguish goodies from baddies - even to the point of not allowing them to contest their detention.

is

. =EF=BF=BDI

r )

In prior wars, (American Revolutionay War), there was actually quite a bit of civility. But of course, by logical extention of your arguments, one could never even surrender because you would be totally justified in blowing their brains out before they could even speak to you.

I really do think you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. And you certainly don't appear to have a grasp on history, and/or its prior wars.

War is a property of civilized society; it is inhearent in our very being. To argue otherwise shows how little thought you have placed into your "arguments".

Don't get me wrong -- I completely understand what you are trying to say here. I "get" that war is hell, and that it's bad and unthinkable, and when someone has a gun to your head ready to pull the trigger, you don't necessarily need to think mjuch about wether you should shoot them in the head, or just wound them in the foot.

My point (and only point really) is that the prisoners at Gitmo are NOT a threat, and are being held by a government which proports to uphold human rights. ALL of your arguments to the contrary are meaningless because at their heart, is the assertion that their treatment somehow impacts society's survival - which is clearly not the case.

If you want to propose a different basis for your arguments, fine. But this isn't getting anywhere. -mpm

How do taxpayers benefit from tax bills being deferred with interest to pay? I think that tax-and-spend is bad, while borrow-and-spend is worse.

1. Most of the first half of Bush II's first term.

1. First half of Reagan's first term - Republicans ruled the Senate, while the House was ruled by a "conservative coalition" (my words) of conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Although I would call many of these recent conservatives neocons - still rightwing except for doing your-allowable borrow-and-spend.

As for fiscally conservative - I think the last time we truly had that was during the Eisenhower administration. A distant second (not that I am usually in a good mood to put that into "positive territory" at all) I would give to Clinton, though much of the credit goes to gridlock between the White House and Congress gridlocking spending boosts and unsupported tax cuts.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

erm drag

?

- they

=A0This

be

I wouldn't call them ideals I would call them theories they ar more about world view than about morals:

Neocons believe in a set of economic theories they often call "supply side". These involve cutting taxes and not reducing or even increasing spending. They have a money fairy show up to solve the debt problem. They differ among them selves about what the money fairy is.

Neocons believe that the president of the US should have more power than the founding fathers thought was wise. "Unitary president" in an expression they like the sound of.

Neocons believe that the ends justify the means in many cases to the point of allowing the rigging of elections, politicizing departments of the government and the use of torture etc.

Neocons believe that all social welfare is bad, except for any program that they may happen to depend on. They believe that the problem with the poor is that they are not well enough motivated.

Neocons believe that those who disagree with them do so because they are evil. This shows up as a couple of beliefs: (A) There is a great conspiracy among most of the scientists and the media to thwart their efforts "to make America the great nation it could be". They do this because they hate the country. (B) The highly educated are opposed to them and as a result the current whole education system is "the enemy".

Also neocons don't realized that Rush Limbaugh's show is supposed to be funny.

I think there may be more but I think I hit the high points.

Neocons

Of course it does--at that point earning an extra dollar by, say, investing in extra employees, profits you just 50 cents. And it's risky. Business could drop.

Whatever incentive people have to do money-making things, 50% tax reduces that incentive by at least 50%. So they don't do them as much.

Saving a dollar, though, gets you a dollar. Cutting becomes more attractive than expanding.

If taxes are 50% of your expenses it makes sense to spend more time with accountants, and less time designing new stuff.

If that's good, how?

Right, that provides incentive for people who are willing to do just about anything to make a tiny bit more. Greedy people.

Cheers, James Arthur

My accountants and financial advisors are telling me to take more out of the business and invest/employ/share/donate less. And to maximize loopholes in the process. That's no fun. I hate golf.

John

Sheesh. Done.

On Jun 29, 8:20=A0pm, mpm wrote: [... lots of good and correct argument ...]

At this point you have made a mistake. We don't "grant rights" we recognize rights. Human rights are a property of merely being human. We recognize the existing right or fail to.

BTW:

The last of the Uighurs that were being held at gitmo is one of the ones that the court was ruling on. They are a very difficult case for the US because they were turned over to the US military and not captured by them and once the US had figured out that they weren't terrorists the US had no place to send them home to. They are an oppressed minority in China and would have likely faced death if returned to China but nobody else wanted them.

[...]

At least this was true on the American side. The British acted horridly. The Americans treated the prisoners moderately well. It has been argued that this difference is part of the reason George Washington etc were able to beat the British. People tend to fight to the death if they know that death is what awaits them if they give up.

"They are an oppressed minority in China and would have likely faced death if returned to China but nobody else wanted them."

Hmm... pay back Fidel for the Mariel boatlift?

The not too poorly reported events since the run-up to the invasion until today makes it clear enough. I remind you of how we treated the Shah of Iran and Osama bin Laden over time. Hamid had better beware.

Incorrect. The guarantee of those rights is what the Geneva conventions(s) are all about. And as a direct consequence why the handling of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are crimes.

Maybe you need better advisors, those sound like leaches advising you to be the same as them. Go shopping for other advice.