OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

U.S. law has no criminal jurisdiction in Ireland, nor England, so we cannot make things done there 'illegal' and there is no domestic law against 'charity organizations' in general which, of course, they all claim.

Nice try but, for one, intentionally flying aircraft into skyscrapers on U.S. soil *is* a crime against U.S. law and, second, "living outside the U.S.A." is one reason, among others, why it's a 'war' and not an arrest warrant.

You tell me.

No, you asked if I "suggested" and I said I suggested no such thing.

Ssshh. I'm one of 'they' ;)

Yeah. And the idea that "if only it weren't for the USA" the IRA would have all gone home... well, there were home.

I can hardly wait for the election anomalies in a 'world government'.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:11:38 -0330, Bill D. wrote: ...

How is it that you expect your credibility to be enhanced by inserting an apostrophe into the middle of a word?

It most certainly is.

It's not a 'claim' it's a fact.

As I have already shown that claim of "did nothing" is false.

Trivial matter to solve, though. Simply confiscate the funds on the other side.

No, it doesn't. And that Congress has not made vacuum tube amplifiers illegal isn't an 'endorsement' of them. And that Congress has not made it illegal to call them all thieves and liars isn't an endorsement of that either.

Utter nonsense.

I actually sympathize with the problem but you simplify a complex issue to the point of absurdity. "Britain says arrest these people who, btw, happen to be US citizens entitled to full protections of the Constitution just like everyone else... oh, ok.. we'll run right out and do that."

It isn't that simple.

That's the plan, all right.

'wrong',

Bottom line all that stuff is ploy to make WAR nice....come on gimmee a break. Thats the reason this thread should die.

Apology accepted.

Among others.

That would be my twin brother.

No, these free teasers promote the seminars which take place on the lovely resort planet Risa and start at 1,000 bars GPL (gold pressed latinum) per day for 4'th tier seats; transportation, lodging, and local escorts not included.

Seminar schedules and tickets are available through all reputable Star Cruiser booking agents throughout the quadrant.

I am not 'defending' anything, certainly not your phrasing.

Read my other post where I pasted in the relevant Geneva text for the requirements to qualify as 'prisoner of war'.

I already did and if you didn't snip things out you wouldn't be so confused.

Supreme

held

It seems to me from the fact that a Supreme Court decision was rendered that the saboteurs had access to lawyers and courts. I believe the current adminstration attempted to deny such to the current captives.

and

can

without

pasted

name

An unfriendly summary of that memo might see it as a self-serving justification to support actions already taken (denial of POW status to al Qaeda and Taliban). Especially interesting are the history of previous administrations that stretched the POW treatment to captives even while denying that they merited it, and the concerns about war crimes prosecution (presumably by a foreign power or a later less-friendly US administration).

Also perhaps german to the discussion is that fact arguably as a reward for such loyal support, Mr. Gonzales was susequently promoted.

and

"Declared war"? I thought that was one of the powers of a sovereign nation. In which case, their combatants captured by us would be POWs.

Sir, I must apologize for my insolence. In reviewing a number of threads in various NGs, I now realize that you are expert in many fields some of which appear to be as follows:

Computer Science. The Global Economy. Retrieval, shipment and distribution of natural resources (in particular oil). National Sovereignty Issues History Warfare Politics, Domestic and International. International Law Financing and Arming of Fringe Groups. Foreign Policy United Nations Policy and Doctrine As well, I think you are responsible for the development of a medication that has been found effective in the treatment of Coughs, colds, scabby holes and pimples on the dick. I'm not quite sure of that one though, further research is required.

What's of very great interest to me however, is that you enter and exit discussions without ever finding it necessary to offer chapter and verse for your arguments and you do it with no scars. Yet, you have the insight to be able to ,out of hand, dismiss sourced arguments presented by others. That is absolutely f***in' amazing and leaves me awestruck. Your select vocabulary seems to be made up of words such as propaganda, paranoia, smear tactic, poppycock, clueless and you sling them all around with great abandon and appear to require no justification in doing so. As a matter of fact your arrogance is *so* profound that you have no difficulty stating that you are right, *period*, and that you have no need to justify statements if you feel you don't wish to. When you present that kind of shit, my envy grows exponentially.

So, let's cut to the chase. I was wondering if you give courses or seminars on all the above subjects as well as the tactics used to implement your arguments. If so, I would like to enroll immediately for the course/seminar on 'Domestic and International Politics'. I would next like to partake of the one on 'Natural Resources' and I would be willing to take the remainder of them in whatever order is convenient to you. However, I don't want a 'Pimples on the Dick' course/seminar.

I'm assuming they are free of charge as most of the crap "Er" content is being given away free in these NGs *without* being requested.

Please feel free to respond whenever the spirit moves you. Or not.

Regards,

'Unlawful' are those who do not meet the 'lawful' definition.

Al Qaeda are not simple 'hijackers'.

Depends on what you're asking about. That military law is applicable in the theater of operations? What other law would you suggest? Since the US Constitution, a contract between the People of the United States and the government they formed, clearly doesn't apply to a foreign land.

Irrelevant to the issue you posed of whether "all men are created equal" means they all end up in the same situation regardless of what they've done or how they did it.

Depended on who caught them but the issue was what the Geneva Convention required, not what extras a country could elect to do.

However, your impression isn't correct. In 1942 captured German saboteurs, one being an American citizen, filed for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court held...

(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith."

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

The opening summary is further illuminating:

"The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, [317 U.S. 1, 19] on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.....

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942,2 appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'. The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts."

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

Note: violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, not 'criminal'.

The one I have is a PDF photostat of it. Oh wait. A google on the file name came up with it.

Hey, shuddup, or he'll whack you with his shillelagh.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

You are the one that called it a misrepresentation, so it should be you the one doing the explaining.

Geo

I realize this is going to be a terribly difficult concept for you to get a hold of but one can have violated more than one law, even with just one act, and be subject to more than just one jurisdiction.

Bummer, eh?

No kidding? Ya don't suppose that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, you know, the folks who declared war and flew planes into skyscrapers, being harbored and based there had anything to do with it, do ya?

Because the half sentence quotes taken out of context interspersed in the article's opinion tirade is.

They are not protected, hence... they are not protected.

It's YOU who want to make rash assumptions about it.

Protections are afforded 'A'

If you are not 'A'...

I object to misrepresentations, period.