| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Spam Blocked" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2003 12:03:44 AM |
| Object: |
RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE SURFACE IN NATIONAL ENQUIRER SPLASH
IN A SEEMINGLY ORCHESTRATED ATTACK, THE MEDIA BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH
WILL INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...
AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES ///
NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO
DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PILLS...
See: http://www.DrudgeReport.com
.
|
|
| User: "Harry Grogan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
02 Oct 2003 04:20:26 PM |
|
|
(Spam Blocked) wrote in message news:<65dd6c00.0310012103.5459f20c@posting.google.com>...
CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE SURFACE IN NATIONAL ENQUIRER SPLASH
IN A SEEMINGLY ORCHESTRATED ATTACK, THE MEDIA BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH
WILL INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...
AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES ///
NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO
DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PILLS...
See: http://www.DrudgeReport.com
***** in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills first!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Starrett" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
02 Oct 2003 04:54:10 PM |
|
|
Harry Grogan wrote:
spamblocked@Jabble.com (Spam Blocked) wrote in message news:<65dd6c00.0310012103.5459f20c@posting.google.com>...
CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE SURFACE IN NATIONAL ENQUIRER SPLASH
IN A SEEMINGLY ORCHESTRATED ATTACK, THE MEDIA BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH
WILL INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...
AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES ///
NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO
DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PILLS...
See: http://www.DrudgeReport.com
***** in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills first!
He did promise to cooperate fully with the investigation. At least he is
cooperating, so maybe they will go easy on him.
--
John Starrett
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "fsds18t" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 10:31:39 AM |
|
|
John Starrett <jstarret@nmt.edu> wrote in message news:<3f7c9ed8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
Harry Grogan wrote:
spamblocked@Jabble.com (Spam Blocked) wrote in message news:<65dd6c00.0310012103.5459f20c@posting.google.com>...
CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE SURFACE IN NATIONAL ENQUIRER SPLASH
IN A SEEMINGLY ORCHESTRATED ATTACK, THE MEDIA BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH
WILL INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...
AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES ///
NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO
DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PILLS...
See: http://www.DrudgeReport.com
***** in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills first!
He did promise to cooperate fully with the investigation. At least he is
cooperating, so maybe they will go easy on him.
They better not. He is for the war on drugs, and for Ashcroft and his
ordering prosecutors to seek the maximum penalty possible. No more
plea bargains remember?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
04 Oct 2003 01:57:21 AM |
|
|
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
fsds18t wrote:
John Starrett <jstarret@nmt.edu> wrote in message news:<3f7c9ed8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
Harry Grogan wrote:
spamblocked@Jabble.com (Spam Blocked) wrote in message news:<65dd6c00.0310012103.5459f20c@posting.google.com>...
CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE SURFACE IN NATIONAL ENQUIRER SPLASH
IN A SEEMINGLY ORCHESTRATED ATTACK, THE MEDIA BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH
WILL INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...
AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES ///
NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN
DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO
DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PILLS...
See: http://www.DrudgeReport.com
***** in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills first!
He did promise to cooperate fully with the investigation. At least he is
cooperating, so maybe they will go easy on him.
They better not. He is for the war on drugs, and for Ashcroft and his
ordering prosecutors to seek the maximum penalty possible. No more
plea bargains remember?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sperminator" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
06 Oct 2003 10:25:02 AM |
|
|
Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message news:<lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
Rush is a fat ***** and he has a doubke standard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: "RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS!", scream the bitter Libs |
06 Oct 2003 10:31:04 AM |
|
|
"The Sperminator" <zackmansoor@aggieland.net> wrote in message
news:28b8f321.0310060725.1f6a99c9@posting.google.com...
Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:<lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
Rush is a fat ***** and he has a doubke standard.
TRANSLATION: "We liberal Democrats didn't mean it when we used to preach
'Innocent until proven guilty' and 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' and
besides, we are very upset that Rush is so successful and that we liberal
Democrats can't come up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush, no
matter how hard we try."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS!", scream the bitter Libs |
06 Oct 2003 11:29:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:31:04 GMT, "Barbara Walker"
<barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote:
"The Sperminator" <zackmansoor@aggieland.net> wrote in message
news:28b8f321.0310060725.1f6a99c9@posting.google.com...
Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:<lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
Rush is a fat ***** and he has a doubke standard.
TRANSLATION: "We liberal Democrats didn't mean it when we used to preach
'Innocent until proven guilty' and 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' and
besides, we are very upset that Rush is so successful and that we liberal
Democrats can't come up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush, no
matter how hard we try."
TRANSLATION from REPUBLICANESE to ENGLISH:
My name is Barbs. I don't know the difference between a *****
between consenting adults and trafficking in black market prescription
drugs, bribing a witness and being a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "D.G. Porter" |
|
| Title: Re: "RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS!", scream the bitter Libs |
06 Oct 2003 03:30:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:31:04 GMT, "Barbara Walker"
<barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote:
"The Sperminator" <zackmansoor@aggieland.net> wrote in message
news:28b8f321.0310060725.1f6a99c9@posting.google.com...
Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:<lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
Rush is a fat ***** and he has a doubke standard.
TRANSLATION: "We liberal Democrats didn't mean it when we used to preach
'Innocent until proven guilty' and 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' and
besides, we are very upset that Rush is so successful and that we liberal
Democrats can't come up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush, no
matter how hard we try."
TRANSLATION from REPUBLICANESE to ENGLISH:
My name is Barbs. I don't know the difference between a *****
between consenting adults and trafficking in black market prescription
drugs, bribing a witness and being a hypocrite.
Nahhh, it's much simpler -- "Our boy GOOD, your boy BAAAAAAAD."
Repugs suck butt-wind.
--
Add "dg" to username to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
07 Oct 2003 01:41:06 AM |
|
|
Rush is being investigated. That is all.
In this country, he has a right to a fair investigation, before you or
anyone passes judgement or decide to get a rope.
Try not to be like most Democrats.... otherwise know as a body of people
that hate free speech and democracy.
The Sperminator wrote:
Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message news:<lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
Rush is a fat ***** and he has a doubke standard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
07 Oct 2003 06:02:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:41:06 +0000, Bryan wrote:
Rush is being investigated. That is all.
In this country, he has a right to a fair investigation, before you or
anyone passes judgement or decide to get a rope.
As long as you are a white, rich, connected asswipe.
Try not to be like most Democrats....
Democrats hired Ken Starr?
I didn't know that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lsj7" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
06 Oct 2003 10:38:58 PM |
|
|
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
--
lsj7
"Germany is sheerly swallowed up by the merchants and companies, by
means of usury. Usury lives all secure in Germany, and rages as if he
were God and lord in all lands; no one may oppose him."
_____________Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Foreskin" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
07 Oct 2003 09:32:44 AM |
|
|
"lsj7" <modus_ponens@ifthenbut.coma> wrote in message news:<Myqgb.23512$9a7.14143@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
***** the Arabs that are locked up at Gitmo!
.
|
|
|
| User: "patrick maier" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
07 Oct 2003 02:59:27 PM |
|
|
"He wouldn't be suspect if he wasn't guilty..."
quote from that great Republican defender of human rights,
former Attorney General Edwin Meese
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
07 Oct 2003 02:22:52 AM |
|
|
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals". They were collected in a state of being
combatants. The standard and guarantees of the "rights" are not the
same. Meaning, the benefits of the very Constitution that they were
prepared to destroy do not directly apply. It is justice, is it not,
that instead they might only get to favor the same kind of "justice"
that they might be accustomed to in Afghanistan or Saudi, or whatever
armpit they crawled out of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
08 Oct 2003 10:50:58 AM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in
Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals".
In order to be war criminals they would have had to committed something that
could be considered a war crime. What war crime did these people commit? PS.
Fighting America during a war isn't a war crime.
They were collected in a state of being
combatants. The standard and guarantees of the "rights" are not the
same. Meaning, the benefits of the very Constitution that they were
prepared to destroy do not directly apply.
It's not the Constitution that applies here, it's the Fourth Geneva
Convention, the very Convention that Bush warned Saddam to obey regarding
any captured Americans; so it's a case of obey it when it's Americans
captured and ignore it when it's anyone else. Disgusting.
It is justice, is it not,
that instead they might only get to favor the same kind of "justice"
that they might be accustomed to in Afghanistan or Saudi, or whatever
armpit they crawled out of.
The point is that America is not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, or at least
there used to be a difference. It's a sad day when America acts like some
third world dictatorship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
09 Oct 2003 02:08:15 AM |
|
|
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in
Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals".
In order to be war criminals they would have had to committed something that
could be considered a war crime. What war crime did these people commit? PS.
Fighting America during a war isn't a war crime.
The crime was to fire on UN patrols of the no-fly zone for an entire
decade. The crime was to not permit UN inspections to continue their
sanctioned efforts past 1998. The crime was to violate UN Resolution
1441, by failing to demonstrate the destruction of the "stockpiles" that
the UN insisted existed.
They were collected in a state of being
combatants. The standard and guarantees of the "rights" are not the
same. Meaning, the benefits of the very Constitution that they were
prepared to destroy do not directly apply.
It's not the Constitution that applies here, it's the Fourth Geneva
Convention, the very Convention that Bush warned Saddam to obey regarding
any captured Americans; so it's a case of obey it when it's Americans
captured and ignore it when it's anyone else. Disgusting.
Not so. America was threatened by the nation of Iraq, and responded.
We can argue all day if the threat was "imminent", or the legality of
"pre-emptive" strikes, or if the war was sanctioned by the UN. In the
end, America responded with respect to its own national security. Until
the UN can establish that we were at fault or broke some non-existent
international law, then the US has the right to incarserate and question
combatants in its course of actions to protect herself. The Geneva
Convention does not preclude this.
The 3rd of the 4 Geneva Conventions refers to prisoners of war and their
protection, and the 4th deals with enemy civilians or civilians in enemy
hands.
Do you have a claim that these were criminals were violated? As a
party to the Geneva Conventions, the US is required tp treat every
detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. What is
humane, and how have we violated this?
**
It is justice, is it not,
that instead they might only get to favor the same kind of "justice"
that they might be accustomed to in Afghanistan or Saudi, or whatever
armpit they crawled out of.
The point is that America is not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, or at least
there used to be a difference. It's a sad day when America acts like some
third world dictatorship.
It is equally sad when some G5 nations act irresponsibly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
09 Oct 2003 09:58:07 AM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:zP7hb.709792$YN5.592464@sccrnsc01...
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in
Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals".
In order to be war criminals they would have had to committed something
that
could be considered a war crime. What war crime did these people commit?
PS.
Fighting America during a war isn't a war crime.
The crime was to fire on UN patrols of the no-fly zone for an entire
decade.
That's not a war crime. In fact I think you will find that the no fly zones
were actually illegal.
The crime was to not permit UN inspections to continue their
sanctioned efforts past 1998.
That is not a war crime.
The crime was to violate UN Resolution
1441, by failing to demonstrate the destruction of the "stockpiles" that
the UN insisted existed.
Again, you said they were war criminals, you have yet to show me a war
crime. Maybe you simply don't know what a war crime is.
They were collected in a state of being
combatants. The standard and guarantees of the "rights" are not the
same. Meaning, the benefits of the very Constitution that they were
prepared to destroy do not directly apply.
It's not the Constitution that applies here, it's the Fourth Geneva
Convention, the very Convention that Bush warned Saddam to obey regarding
any captured Americans; so it's a case of obey it when it's Americans
captured and ignore it when it's anyone else. Disgusting.
Not so. America was threatened by the nation of Iraq, and responded.
Don't make me laugh. Are you on medication? Tell me how the State of Iraq
threatened the largest nation on Earth?
We can argue all day if the threat was "imminent", or the legality of
"pre-emptive" strikes, or if the war was sanctioned by the UN. In the
end, America responded with respect to its own national security. Until
the UN can establish that we were at fault or broke some non-existent
international law, then the US has the right to incarserate and question
combatants in its course of actions to protect herself. The Geneva
Convention does not preclude this.
The 3rd of the 4 Geneva Conventions refers to prisoners of war and their
protection, and the 4th deals with enemy civilians or civilians in enemy
hands.
Do you have a claim that these were criminals were violated? As a
party to the Geneva Conventions, the US is required tp treat every
detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. What is
humane, and how have we violated this?
Maybe you'll get a hold of the convention and tell me where it mentions the
phrase "illegal combatant". Hint - It doesn't, Rummy made that up.
They have been held for how long now without being charged?
**
It is justice, is it not,
that instead they might only get to favor the same kind of "justice"
that they might be accustomed to in Afghanistan or Saudi, or whatever
armpit they crawled out of.
The point is that America is not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, or at least
there used to be a difference. It's a sad day when America acts like some
third world dictatorship.
It is equally sad when some G5 nations act irresponsibly.
What? By not following you into a war that was blatantly for no real purpose
(where are the weapons?) they have shown more sense than America or the UK
displayed. You should learn from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
09 Oct 2003 10:57:40 PM |
|
|
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:zP7hb.709792$YN5.592464@sccrnsc01...
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in
Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals".
In order to be war criminals they would have had to committed something
that
could be considered a war crime. What war crime did these people commit?
PS.
Fighting America during a war isn't a war crime.
The crime was to fire on UN patrols of the no-fly zone for an entire
decade.
That's not a war crime. In fact I think you will find that the no fly zones
were actually illegal.
The crime was to not permit UN inspections to continue their
sanctioned efforts past 1998.
That is not a war crime.
The crime was to violate UN Resolution
1441, by failing to demonstrate the destruction of the "stockpiles" that
the UN insisted existed.
Again, you said they were war criminals, you have yet to show me a war
crime. Maybe you simply don't know what a war crime is.
Perhaps it would help if you tried reading and not intensionally
mis-interpreting what I have written Again, presuming that you are
prepared to let facts get in the way of your theories and fiction....
1. Crimes. Not a "war crime" as at the time Iraq was under a cease
fire agreement which they violated with their criminal activity to fire
on UN sanctioned Coalition forces maintaining the no-fly zone as
established and ordered by the UN.
2. Crime. Again, not a "war crime", but instead a criminal violation
of the UN Resolutions.
Did you get that? In simpler terms for your sake..... the UN
established the terms of the cease fire against Iraq from the 1991 Gulf
War. The terms of this agreement established that the UN would insist
on UN inspectors to have un-fetered access throughout Iraq to verify the
destruction of the "stockpiles" of WMD that they, the UN Security
Council, established existed within Iraq. This same cease fire
agreement also established that Coalition forces would enforce a no-fly
zone over Iraq.
They were collected in a state of being
combatants. The standard and guarantees of the "rights" are not the
same. Meaning, the benefits of the very Constitution that they were
prepared to destroy do not directly apply.
It's not the Constitution that applies here, it's the Fourth Geneva
Convention, the very Convention that Bush warned Saddam to obey regarding
any captured Americans; so it's a case of obey it when it's Americans
captured and ignore it when it's anyone else. Disgusting.
Not so. America was threatened by the nation of Iraq, and responded.
Don't make me laugh. Are you on medication? Tell me how the State of Iraq
threatened the largest nation on Earth?
We can argue all day if the threat was "imminent", or the legality of
"pre-emptive" strikes, or if the war was sanctioned by the UN. In the
end, America responded with respect to its own national security. Until
the UN can establish that we were at fault or broke some non-existent
international law, then the US has the right to incarserate and question
combatants in its course of actions to protect herself. The Geneva
Convention does not preclude this.
The 3rd of the 4 Geneva Conventions refers to prisoners of war and their
protection, and the 4th deals with enemy civilians or civilians in enemy
hands.
Do you have a claim that these were criminals were violated? As a
party to the Geneva Conventions, the US is required tp treat every
detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. What is
humane, and how have we violated this?
Maybe you'll get a hold of the convention and tell me where it mentions the
phrase "illegal combatant". Hint - It doesn't, Rummy made that up.
They have been held for how long now without being charged?
**
It is justice, is it not,
that instead they might only get to favor the same kind of "justice"
that they might be accustomed to in Afghanistan or Saudi, or whatever
armpit they crawled out of.
The point is that America is not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, or at least
there used to be a difference. It's a sad day when America acts like some
third world dictatorship.
It is equally sad when some G5 nations act irresponsibly.
What? By not following you into a war that was blatantly for no real purpose
(where are the weapons?) they have shown more sense than America or the UK
displayed. You should learn from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
10 Oct 2003 10:19:02 AM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:U6qhb.442714$2x.159637@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:zP7hb.709792$YN5.592464@sccrnsc01...
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any
laws.
Tell that to families that have sons locked up by this government in
Gitmo.
They need lawyers, do they not? Or is wag the finger enough in your
opinion?
These are "war criminals".
In order to be war criminals they would have had to committed something
that
could be considered a war crime. What war crime did these people
commit?
PS.
Fighting America during a war isn't a war crime.
The crime was to fire on UN patrols of the no-fly zone for an entire
decade.
That's not a war crime. In fact I think you will find that the no fly
zones
were actually illegal.
The crime was to not permit UN inspections to continue their
sanctioned efforts past 1998.
That is not a war crime.
The crime was to violate UN Resolution
1441, by failing to demonstrate the destruction of the "stockpiles" that
the UN insisted existed.
Again, you said they were war criminals, you have yet to show me a war
crime. Maybe you simply don't know what a war crime is.
Perhaps it would help if you tried reading and not intensionally
mis-interpreting what I have written
I'm not intentionally misrepresenting you. You're trying to slither off the
hook and change what you said. It's still at the top of this thread. You
said, "These are war criminals". You didn't call them criminals, you called
them WAR criminals. I have been pointing out to you ever since that in order
to be war criminals they would have to have comitted war crimes. Maybe
you've finally woken up to the rather loose language you employed earlier.
Again, presuming that you are
prepared to let facts get in the way of your theories and fiction....
1. Crimes. Not a "war crime" as at the time Iraq was under a cease
fire agreement which they violated with their criminal activity to fire
on UN sanctioned Coalition forces maintaining the no-fly zone as
established and ordered by the UN.
Good. Glad to clear that up. So they're not "war criminals" then? Take back
that claim.
2. Crime. Again, not a "war crime", but instead a criminal violation
of the UN Resolutions.
Well, you shouldn't have called them "war criminals", you should have called
them criminals.
Did you get that? In simpler terms for your sake..... the UN
established the terms of the cease fire against Iraq from the 1991 Gulf
War. The terms of this agreement established that the UN would insist
on UN inspectors to have un-fetered access throughout Iraq to verify the
destruction of the "stockpiles" of WMD that they, the UN Security
Council, established existed within Iraq. This same cease fire
agreement also established that Coalition forces would enforce a no-fly
zone over Iraq.
Okay, post me where the resolution mentions the no-fly zones. Find me any UN
document that says that they are permitted.
(Snip)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lsj7" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
09 Oct 2003 08:19:13 AM |
|
|
Bryan wrote:
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Not so. America was threatened by the nation of Iraq, and responded.
Would you care to cite how exactly Iraq threatened the United States-and
when exactly the deed was done? Can you pin down a single event based on
fact? Please! Name me one shred of evidence, indisputable, that Iraq was a
threat to the farmer in Iowa, or the typist in New York City? Its about
oil, dude, and how the time was ripe for a move on the oil fields in Iraq.
No amount of blustering by the Bush administration, and use of scare tactics
on the public, can hide the oil motive.
--
lsj7
"Germany is sheerly swallowed up by the merchants and companies, by
means of usury. Usury lives all secure in Germany, and rages as if he
were God and lord in all lands; no one may oppose him."
_____________Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
09 Oct 2003 10:31:00 PM |
|
|
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Kel wrote:
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:gRtgb.696941$Ho3.153934@sccrnsc03...
lsj7 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Not so. America was threatened by the nation of Iraq, and responded.
Would you care to cite how exactly Iraq threatened the United States-and
when exactly the deed was done? Can you pin down a single event based on
fact? Please! Name me one shred of evidence, indisputable, that Iraq was a
threat to the farmer in Iowa, or the typist in New York City? Its about
oil, dude, and how the time was ripe for a move on the oil fields in Iraq.
No amount of blustering by the Bush administration, and use of scare tactics
on the public, can hide the oil motive.
Indisputible evidence? Only if your mind is prepared to move itself
from its foregone conclusions. Here are some quotes and references...
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants
it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman
al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and
1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official
familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency
has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri
$300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with
al Qaeda.
and
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and
al Qa'ida going back a decade," Tenet wrote. "Credible information
indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and
reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in
Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al
Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have
credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq
who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also
stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the
areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
Yes, it is also about oil. Oil for France.... Dude!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2955789.stm
There is an economic as well as political aspect to the views of
countries including France and Russia. Russian firm Lukoil says it
expects its contract to develop Iraqi oilfields to be honoured while
France's state-controlled oil company TotalFinaElf also reached
similar potentially lucrative understandings. France was also the
leading supplier of goods to Iraq under the UN's oil-for-food programme.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqfull.html
As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion
dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France,
and Russia.
In February 2000, Iraq's Oil Ministry named Agip and Gaz de France
as leaders on a $2.3 billion PSA (production sharing agreement)
project to develop these fields, which reportedly have total
recoverable reserves of more than 10 Tcf.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ctrl Alt Del" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
04 Oct 2003 08:11:15 AM |
|
|
In article <lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
says...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
According to Limbaugh it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
04 Oct 2003 11:39:32 PM |
|
|
Then I'm sure he'd agree. If guilty, he should be punished. Let's
wait and see if he's guilty first.
Ctrl Alt Del wrote:
In article <lbufb.401477$2x.135783@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
says...
Because someone is being investigated, does not mean he broke any laws.
According to Limbaugh it does.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clough" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 12:07:45 PM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2003 08:31:39 -0700, (fsds18t) wrote:
They better not. He is for the war on drugs, and for Ashcroft and his
ordering prosecutors to seek the maximum penalty possible. No more
plea bargains remember?
The bloated bimbo himself has said druggies should have the book
thrown at them. He should do serious prison time.
Clough
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desperate Dem With Flailing Arms Enron, Halliburton, Yellow Cake, CIA Leak@ Whaaa Whaaa .com" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
02 Oct 2003 04:40:23 PM |
|
|
Ted Kennedy killed a Woman DUI and is still Senator.
Rush will have an even bigger audience now as all these Liberals here that
claim to hate him but still listen to him , clearly demonstrate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
08 Oct 2003 11:55:25 AM |
|
|
"Desperate Dem With Flailing Arms" <Enron, Halliburton, Yellow Cake, CIA Leak@ Whaaa Whaaa .com> wrote in message news:<bX0fb.9232$3S.6760@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Ted Kennedy killed a Woman DUI and is still Senator.
Rush will have an even bigger audience now as all these Liberals here that
claim to hate him but still listen to him , clearly demonstrate.
"Claim" to hate him? "Claim"? Are you daft? Oh! Sorry! I didn't
realize I was in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
Being a Rush fan really says a lot about you. And believe me, we feel
sorry for you, but what can you do, huh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clough" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 05:49:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:40:23 GMT, "Desperate Dem With Flailing Arms"
<Enron, Halliburton, Yellow Cake, CIA Leak@ Whaaa Whaaa .com> wrote:
Rush will have an even bigger audience now as all these Liberals here that
claim to hate him but still listen to him , clearly demonstrate.
Will the bloated blubberbarrel still rant against 'druggies'?
Clough
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "scott" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 07:25:30 AM |
|
|
Yes and Ted could not even get a ***** across a bridge.
"Desperate Dem With Flailing Arms" <Enron, Halliburton, Yellow Cake, CIA
Leak@ Whaaa Whaaa .com> wrote in message
news:bX0fb.9232$3S.6760@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Ted Kennedy killed a Woman DUI and is still Senator.
Rush will have an even bigger audience now as all these Liberals here that
claim to hate him but still listen to him , clearly demonstrate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "B" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 11:18:27 PM |
|
|
"scott" <ezgoiing@intertex.net> wrote in
news:22Cdnd9i9N0l9-CiU-KYiQ@intertex.net:
Yes and Ted could not even get a ***** across a bridge.
That is nice ... I am sure the family of that poor girl will be so pleased
that you called her a *****.
B.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Kessler" |
|
| Title: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH WILL BE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS |
03 Oct 2003 12:52:31 PM |
|
|
"scott" <ezgoiing@intertex.net> wrote:
Yes and Ted could not even get a ***** across a bridge.
I understand your fanatical hatred of anyone and everyone who
disagrees with you politically, but what makes you think Mary Jo
Kopechne was a prostitute?
Nice, by the way, slandering the dead that way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
