| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2005 06:02:18 AM |
| Object: |
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
US law proposal attacked by campaigners
Human rights campaigners are calling it the 'November surprise' - a
last-minute amendment smuggled into a Pentagon finance bill in the US Senate
last Thursday.
Its effects are likely to be devastating: the permanent removal of almost
all legal rights from 'war on terror' detainees at Guantanamo Bay and every
other similar US facility on foreign or American soil.
.
|
|
| User: "Anaconda wrestlers for Jesus" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 09:19:55 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> suddenly spluttered:
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Takes vermin to know vermin.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 04:25:12 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
1. Because they're human beings, just like you.
2. Because we as a nation are better than the former Soviet
Union.
3. Because treating them well gives us a moral standing if our
troops are ever captured.
It's sad to see that some people have adopted the Jesus of the
Crusaders.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 04:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 07:55:59 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Raoef.122856$eX4.117142@fe07.news.easynews.com...
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us.
Then those who are captured and held indefinitely should be definitively
proven to be enemies, and not just the guy down the street who got turned in
by a ***** neighbor who wanted thim to go away.
Question: do you support the right of other governments to kidnap
Americans - from American soil - and remove them from the country to be held
indefinitely without charges?
"Yes" or "no".
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:08:40 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:j3ref.11$yx3.7@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Raoef.122856$eX4.117142@fe07.news.easynews.com...
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us.
Then those who are captured and held indefinitely should be definitively
proven to be enemies,
And the rules of war allow for that to take place AFTER THE CONFLICT HAS
ENDED! That's what waring countries pay reparations for.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:27:06 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfref.110356$Vw5.38836@fe04.news.easynews.com...
Then those who are captured and held indefinitely should be definitively
proven to be enemies,
And the rules of war allow for that to take place AFTER THE CONFLICT HAS
ENDED!
The war in Afghanistan has been over for over a year. The have elected a
leader, drafted a Constitution, and the Taliban government has been
replaced.
If you are claiming that we are now going to abide by the "rules of war"
(i.e. the Geneva Conventions), then there are multiple violations, including
torture and other mistreatment, barring all contact with the outside, and
not justifying why people - including civilians - are being held.
So answer the question, coward.
Do you support the right of other governments to kidnap Americans - from
American soil - and remove them from the country to be held indefinitely
without charges?
"Yes" or "no".
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:54:41 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:Bwref.16$yx3.8@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfref.110356$Vw5.38836@fe04.news.easynews.com...
Then those who are captured and held indefinitely should be
definitively
proven to be enemies,
And the rules of war allow for that to take place AFTER THE CONFLICT HAS
ENDED!
The war in Afghanistan has been over for over a year. The have elected a
leader, drafted a Constitution, and the Taliban government has been
replaced.
If you are claiming that we are now going to abide by the "rules of war"
(i.e. the Geneva Conventions),
Listen up kid. I had the "rules of war", the Geneva Convention, the "rules
of engagement" and all the General Orders drilled into my head for 8 fucking
years during the Vietnam war. You need to get yourself a little more
education if you think the "rules of war" have anything to do with the war
on terror. But, I'm easy to convince. Show me any exerpt from the Geneva
Convention that applies to terrorists. I do not, never have and never will
claim we are going to abide by the Geneva Convention. And furthermore,
George Bush was an idiot to say that we would treat "enemy combatants" in
accordance with the Geneva Convention accords. While you looking at it
though, you might pause at the part that says exactly who it pertains to.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 09:35:38 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lWref.105311$%05.68365@fe06.news.easynews.com...
The war in Afghanistan has been over for over a year. The have elected a
leader, drafted a Constitution, and the Taliban government has been
replaced.
If you are claiming that we are now going to abide by the "rules of war"
(i.e. the Geneva Conventions),
Listen up kid.
YOU listen up, you traitor ***** - this is a nation of laws, and a nation of
values. You and your terrorist-loving, America-hating right-wing pinhead
pals have done enough pissing all over the Constitution and everything this
great nation stands for. Now take your fascist, Nazi ***** and SHOVE IT
UP YOUR ***** you anti-American scumbag. The GOOD citizens of this nation
have had enough of your *****, and you will NOT control the direction of
this country's domestic or foreign policy for much longer.
Deal with it.
I had the "rules of war", the Geneva Convention, the "rules
of engagement" and all the General Orders drilled into my head for 8
fucking
years during the Vietnam war.
So when did you decide to turn traitor, scumbag?
It was YOU who brought up the "rules of war", not I - and clearly they
aren't being followed by this administration with regard to so-called
"detainees". Only a blind, ingorant, America-hating traitor would dare to
lie their ***** off while suggesting otherwise.
Show me any exerpt from the Geneva Convention that applies to terrorists.
Show the world proof that the people being held by this country are all
"terrorists" you unAmerican scumbag.
I do not, never have and never will claim we are going to abide by the
Geneva Convention.
So which is it, *****-brain? "The rules of war require. . ." (your quote) or
the rules of war don't apply?
Damn, you right-wing traitors are some stupid fucks.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "serwad" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 01:15:06 AM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:Jwsef.165$yx3.83@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lWref.105311$%05.68365@fe06.news.easynews.com...
The war in Afghanistan has been over for over a year. The have elected
a
leader, drafted a Constitution, and the Taliban government has been
replaced.
If you are claiming that we are now going to abide by the "rules of war"
(i.e. the Geneva Conventions),
Listen up kid.
YOU listen up, you traitor ***** - this is a nation of laws, and a nation
of values.
TELLING ME! THAT IS WHY THIS NATION IS SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS AFTER 230
YEARS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 08:40:23 AM |
|
|
serwad <serwad@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jIvef.1253$cd1.1222@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
TELLING ME! THAT IS WHY THIS NATION IS SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS AFTER 230
YEARS!
Correction.....142 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 07:58:13 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:j3ref.11$yx3.7@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
Then those who are captured and held indefinitely should be definitively
proven to be enemies, and not just the guy down the street who got turned
in by a ***** neighbor who wanted thim to go away.
That's all well and fine - but what should happen to the captors?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 02:46:49 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:13 GMT, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
That's nice. But you have a very misguided view of the
Constitution. Let me help you.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS TO ANYONE, YOU STUPID
*****. IT SETS UP AND DELIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT SAYS
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO. IT DOES NOT GRANT
RIGHTS.
Rights preceded the Constitution.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 04:30:10 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:13 GMT, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
That's nice. But you have a very misguided view of the
Constitution. Let me help you.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS TO ANYONE, YOU STUPID
*****. IT SETS UP AND DELIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT SAYS
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO. IT DOES NOT GRANT
RIGHTS.
Rights preceded the Constitution.
Don
Exactly; people have rights, states and countries do not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 05:54:36 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 07:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:whpef.408$xD5.573058@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
No it doesn't. All the amendments are to the constitution which applies to
"we the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES". Even the Supreme Court has said
that:
Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been naturalized
or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision of
an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly
conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be permitted
to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a
resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an entering
alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the basis
of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due
process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of admission of
aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce the
exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon the
owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money
penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of clearance. 45
If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the decision of
the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a fair
hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the evidence. A
decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence has
been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the decision
of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the
Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal did
not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial hearing
on habeas corpus. 47
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS. An executive order is all that is
required to deny non-citizens any protections under our constitution. That
should be perfectly clear to anyone that paid attention to the enemy
combatants that actually were Americans versus those that are not. Pay
attention.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:01:17 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ayqef.140405$iC7.112730@fe08.news.easynews.com...
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS.
False. You really need to read the United States Constitution. Start at
the First amendment, just after the last comma:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that last part?
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Question: do you support the right of other governments to kidnap
Americans - from American soil - and remove them from the country to be held
indefinitely without charges?
"Yes" or "no".
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:45:39 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:Asref.14$yx3.8@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ayqef.140405$iC7.112730@fe08.news.easynews.com...
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS.
False. You really need to read the United States Constitution. Start at
the First amendment, just after the last comma:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that last part?
Yeah, I see it. You ever see this?
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
See that "the people of the UNITED STATES"? See that "and secure the
blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR posterity"? See that "establish
this contitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"? What part of that grants
rights to any non-citizen of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 09:31:28 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that last part?
Yeah, I see it. You ever see this?
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
Uh-huh.
And?
See that "the people of the UNITED STATES"?
English must be a second language to you. This statement says that "we the
people of the United States . . .do ordain and establish this Constution for
the United States of America.
It means that the FF's ("people of the United States") were announcing the
document by which this nation - a nation of laws - would be guided in all
matters. It does not say that the document only APPLIES to U.S. citizens.
Damn, you're a stupid *****.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 09:51:04 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C5E9FC.5DE02C10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message =
news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
=20
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message=20
news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com...
=20
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of =
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of=20
speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, =
and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that last part?
Yeah, I see it. You ever see this?
The Constitution of the United States of America
=20
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect =
union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the =
common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of =
liberty=20
to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this =
Constitution for
the United States of America.
=20
Uh-huh.
=20
And?
=20
See that "the people of the UNITED STATES"?
=20
English must be a second language to you. This statement says that =
"we the=20
people of the United States . . .do ordain and establish this =
Constution for=20
the United States of America.
=20
It means that the FF's ("people of the United States") were announcing =
the=20
document by which this nation - a nation of laws - would be guided in =
all=20
matters. It does not say that the document only APPLIES to U.S. =
citizens.
=20
Damn, you're a stupid *****.
Screw you teenager. Get off my computer with your imbecilic language.
P L O N K !!!
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C5E9FC.5DE02C10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Joseph Welch" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>>=20
wrote in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> <BR>> "J.C." <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:jcsplace@hotmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>jcsplace@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message <BR>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com</FONT></A><FONT=
=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...<BR>> <BR>> >> "Congress shall make =
no law=20
respecting an establishment of religion, or<BR>> >> prohibiting =
the=20
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of <BR>> >>=20
speech,<BR>> >> or of the press; or the right of the people =
peaceably=20
to assemble, and to<BR>> >> petition the government for a =
redress of=20
grievances."<BR>> >><BR>> >> See that last =
part?<BR>>=20
><BR>> ><BR>> > Yeah, I see it. You ever see =
this?<BR>>=20
><BR>> > The Constitution of the United States of =
America<BR>>=20
<BR>> > We the people of the United States, in order to form a =
more=20
perfect union,<BR>> > establish justice, insure domestic =
tranquility,=20
provide for the common<BR>> > defense, promote the general =
welfare, and=20
secure the blessings of liberty <BR>> > to<BR>> > ourselves =
and our=20
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for<BR>> > =
the United=20
States of America.<BR>> <BR>> Uh-huh.<BR>> <BR>> =
And?<BR>>=20
<BR>> > See that "the people of the UNITED STATES"?<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
English must be a second language to you. This statement says that =
"we the=20
<BR>> people of the United States . . .do ordain and establish this=20
Constution for <BR>> the United States of America.<BR>> <BR>> =
It means=20
that the FF's ("people of the United States") were announcing the =
<BR>>=20
document by which this nation - a nation of laws - would be guided in =
all=20
<BR>> matters. It does not say that the document only APPLIES =
to U.S.=20
citizens.<BR>> <BR>> Damn, you're a stupid =
*****.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Screw you teenager. Get off my =
computer with=20
your imbecilic language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 =
size=3D7>P L O N=20
K !!!</FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C5E9FC.5DE02C10--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 03:02:56 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C5EA17.307D42B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chickenshit.
--=20
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? =
Have=20
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html=20
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:bLsef.106663$Ur3.80195@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message =
news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
=20
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message=20
news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com...
=20
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of =
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom =
of=20
speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to =
assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See that last part?
Yeah, I see it. You ever see this?
The Constitution of the United States of America
=20
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more =
perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the =
common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of =
liberty=20
to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this =
Constitution for
the United States of America.
=20
Uh-huh.
=20
And?
=20
See that "the people of the UNITED STATES"?
=20
English must be a second language to you. This statement says that =
"we the=20
people of the United States . . .do ordain and establish this =
Constution for=20
the United States of America.
=20
It means that the FF's ("people of the United States") were =
announcing the=20
document by which this nation - a nation of laws - would be guided =
in all=20
matters. It does not say that the document only APPLIES to U.S. =
citizens.
=20
Damn, you're a stupid *****.
Screw you teenager. Get off my computer with your imbecilic language.
P L O N K !!!
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C5EA17.307D42B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chickenshit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>-- =
<BR>JW<BR>***************<BR>"You've done=20
enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have =
<BR>you left=20
no sense of decency?"<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html">htt=
p://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html</A>=20
</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"J.C." <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jcsplace@hotmail.com">jcsplace@hotmail.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:bLsef.106663$Ur3.80195@fe01.news.easynews.com">news:bLsef.10=
6663$Ur3.80195@fe01.news.easynews.com</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Joseph Welch" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>> wrote in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:Qssef.130$yx3.117@fe02.buzzardnews.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> <BR>> "J.C." <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:jcsplace@hotmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>jcsplace@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message <BR>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>news:TNref.127605$eX4.117@fe07.news.easynews.com</FONT></A><FONT=
=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...<BR>> <BR>> >> "Congress shall =
make no law=20
respecting an establishment of religion, or<BR>> >> =
prohibiting the=20
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of <BR>> >>=20
speech,<BR>> >> or of the press; or the right of the people =
peaceably=20
to assemble, and to<BR>> >> petition the government for a =
redress of=20
grievances."<BR>> >><BR>> >> See that last =
part?<BR>>=20
><BR>> ><BR>> > Yeah, I see it. You ever see =
this?<BR>>=20
><BR>> > The Constitution of the United States of =
America<BR>>=20
<BR>> > We the people of the United States, in order to form a =
more=20
perfect union,<BR>> > establish justice, insure domestic =
tranquility,=20
provide for the common<BR>> > defense, promote the general =
welfare, and=20
secure the blessings of liberty <BR>> > to<BR>> > =
ourselves and=20
our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for<BR>> =
> the=20
United States of America.<BR>> <BR>> Uh-huh.<BR>> <BR>>=20
And?<BR>> <BR>> > See that "the people of the UNITED =
STATES"?<BR>>=20
<BR>> English must be a second language to you. This =
statement says=20
that "we the <BR>> people of the United States . . .do ordain and =
establish=20
this Constution for <BR>> the United States of America.<BR>> =
<BR>> It=20
means that the FF's ("people of the United States") were announcing =
the=20
<BR>> document by which this nation - a nation of laws - would be =
guided in=20
all <BR>> matters. It does not say that the document only =
APPLIES to=20
U.S. citizens.<BR>> <BR>> Damn, you're a stupid=20
*****.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Screw you teenager. Get off my =
computer with=20
your imbecilic language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 =
size=3D7>P L O N=20
K !!!</FONT></STRONG></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C5EA17.307D42B0--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 06:08:52 AM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
Chickenshit.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Are you related to the Welch in the article?
Did you choose to post under his name?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 06:28:22 AM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:U1Aef.929$q93.429745@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Are you related to the Welch in the article?
Yes.
Did you choose to post under his name?
Yes.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:05:02 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:whpef.408$xD5.573058@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
No it doesn't. All the amendments are to the constitution which applies to
"we the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES". Even the Supreme Court has said
that:
Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been naturalized
or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision of
an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly
conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be permitted
to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a
resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an entering
alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the basis
of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due
process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of admission of
aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce the
exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon the
owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money
penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of clearance. 45
If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the decision of
the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a fair
hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the evidence. A
decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence has
been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the decision
of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the
Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal did
not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial hearing
on habeas corpus. 47
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS. An executive order is all that is
required to deny non-citizens any protections under our constitution. That
should be perfectly clear to anyone that paid attention to the enemy
combatants that actually were Americans versus those that are not. Pay
attention.
Then the Supreme Court is wrong. Amendment V:
No person shall be . . .
The term "citizen" does not occur in the Fifth Amendment.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 08:47:21 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Obref.423$xD5.585349@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:whpef.408$xD5.573058@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those
wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
No it doesn't. All the amendments are to the constitution which applies
to
"we the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES". Even the Supreme Court has said
that:
Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been
naturalized
or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision
of
an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly
conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be
permitted
to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a
resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an
entering
alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the
basis
of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due
process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of
admission of
aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce
the
exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon
the
owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money
penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of
clearance. 45
If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the
decision of
the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a
fair
hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the
evidence. A
decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence
has
been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the
decision
of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the
Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal
did
not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial
hearing
on habeas corpus. 47
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS. An executive order is all that
is
required to deny non-citizens any protections under our constitution.
That
should be perfectly clear to anyone that paid attention to the enemy
combatants that actually were Americans versus those that are not. Pay
attention.
Then the Supreme Court is wrong.
No, you simply don't understand the constitution. Read the preamble. It very
plainly, in little words even, explains who it pertains to.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 09:32:09 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tPref.110642$Vw5.3243@fe04.news.easynews.com...
No, you simply don't understand the constitution. Read the preamble. It
very
plainly, in little words even, explains who it pertains to.
You can't even fucking read it, apparently.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 11:21:28 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Obref.423$xD5.585349@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:whpef.408$xD5.573058@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those
wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
No it doesn't. All the amendments are to the constitution which applies
to
"we the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES". Even the Supreme Court has said
that:
Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been
naturalized
or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision
of
an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly
conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be
permitted
to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a
resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an
entering
alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the
basis
of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due
process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of
admission of
aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce
the
exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon
the
owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money
penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of
clearance. 45
If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the
decision of
the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a
fair
hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the
evidence. A
decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence
has
been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the
decision
of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the
Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal
did
not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial
hearing
on habeas corpus. 47
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS. An executive order is all that
is
required to deny non-citizens any protections under our constitution.
That
should be perfectly clear to anyone that paid attention to the enemy
combatants that actually were Americans versus those that are not. Pay
attention.
Then the Supreme Court is wrong.
No, you simply don't understand the constitution. Read the preamble. It very
plainly, in little words even, explains who it pertains to.
Nope. It explains who ordained and established the Constitution (and the
goals
they hoped to achieve), not who would benefit from its protection. Also, no
currently living person was alive at the time that the Constitution was
drafted,
which would mean that no one alive today would be entitled to its
protection.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 11:32:22 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y3uef.1125$3o6.381424@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Obref.423$xD5.585349@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:whpef.408$xD5.573058@twister.southeast.rr.com...
J.C. wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first
place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those
wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Actually, the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons.
No it doesn't. All the amendments are to the constitution which applies
to
"we the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES". Even the Supreme Court has
said
that:
Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been
naturalized
or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the
decision
of
an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly
conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be
permitted
to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a
resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an
entering
alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the
basis
of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due
process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of
admission of
aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce
the
exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon
the
owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money
penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of
clearance. 45
If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the
decision of
the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a
fair
hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the
evidence. A
decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence
has
been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the
decision
of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the
Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal
did
not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial
hearing
on habeas corpus. 47
Due process is NOT AFFORDED NON-CITIZENS. An executive order is all
that
is
required to deny non-citizens any protections under our constitution.
That
should be perfectly clear to anyone that paid attention to the enemy
combatants that actually were Americans versus those that are not. Pay
attention.
Then the Supreme Court is wrong.
No, you simply don't understand the constitution. Read the preamble. It
very
plainly, in little words even, explains who it pertains to.
Nope. It explains who ordained and established the Constitution (and the
goals
they hoped to achieve), not who would benefit from its protection. Also,
no
currently living person was alive at the time that the Constitution was
drafted,
which would mean that no one alive today would be entitled to its
protection.
Whatever you say.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
16 Nov 2005 06:10:24 AM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
Whatever you say.
So that's how seriously you take human rights issues?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 04:56:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:13 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Of course, before stripping inmates of rights (which have been well
established in internation treaties), it would behoove the US to show
some evidence that these people are indeed guilty of *anything
(besides of being arrested).
And then, of course, it would behoove the US to follow the
human-rights treaties that it's already committed to.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights |
15 Nov 2005 05:06:23 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:qn4kn1da7b6b3pc6le33f9k1i5mr5tqud9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:13 GMT, "J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87ek5h7uaf.fsf@drizzle.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641703,00.html
Guantanamo inmates to lose all rights
Why were these vermin ever afforded any "rights" in the first place?
Our constitution does not describe "rights" for our enemies or anyone
else
that seeks to destroy us. After all, it was preceeded by those wonderful
words "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the
United
States and anyone else wondering around out in the world".
Of course, before stripping inmates of rights (which have been well
established in internation treaties), it would behoove the US to show
some evidence that these people are indeed guilty of *anything
(besides of being arrested).
No, war is little different. At least it was for me. You guys that play the
intellectual warfare games with its great danger of maybe a paper cut or two
can do all the theorizing. Me, I'll just keep my faith in our sons and
daughters that are dodging the bullets.
--
Some people call this Northeast Hell
We just call it South Texas
J.C.
All spam forwarded to:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
