The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
.
|
|
| User: "Joe S." |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:48:18 PM |
|
|
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
The Bush junta is at war -- they are conducting an undeclared war against
our basic liberties -- against freedom of the press, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of ideas, and the freedom
to transmit and discuss those ideas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:24:55 PM |
|
|
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
Please explain when this was done.
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
And the administration is correct.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
We are in a war against radical Muslims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:40:51 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
Please explain when this was done.
Please keep up with current events... read the headlines at least.
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
And the administration is correct.
Okay, so you say those we capture are not from a war. Got it. (See
below).
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
We are in a war against radical Muslims.
Okay, now you say the radical Muslims we capture are from a war ("we
are in a war against radical Muslims").
Gee, you're no help... you're just like the Bush regime. You say we're
not in a war, but we are in a war. Did they confuse you or are you
just by nature dishonest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 04:10:27 PM |
|
|
On 8 Jul 2006 12:40:51 -0700, wrote:
Bob wrote:
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
Please explain when this was done.
Please keep up with current events... read the headlines at least.
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
And the administration is correct.
Okay, so you say those we capture are not from a war. Got it. (See
below).
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
We are in a war against radical Muslims.
Okay, now you say the radical Muslims we capture are from a war ("we
are in a war against radical Muslims").
Gee, you're no help... you're just like the Bush regime. You say we're
not in a war, but we are in a war. Did they confuse you or are you
just by nature dishonest?
The old Repug two step, tails they win, heads you lose. They never
admit they're wrong about anything. That's why they're so damn funny
to watch dance. They just go around and around in circles lying their
butts off day after day... just like Bush. Monday black is white,
Tuesday white is black. We're at war, no, not really. Those radical
Muslims are subject to the Geneva Conventions, no wait, what day is it
maybe not today.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PerfectlyAble" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:27:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
The three activist justices, you know the ones the judges that were
put their or heldup as being against judical activism, voted against
the core of legal judispurdence, that everyone is equal in the eyes
of the law. I repeat these activist justices voted against the core
value they are swore to uphold. Like Bush swore to defend America
yet 3000 died on his watch isnt' he an expert on how to fight
terrorism!
Welcome to USA 21st Century, the liars are put in power by liars
(Enron)
and have the judges support their lying. No rule is too easy to ignore.
Seit Heil!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 08:47:05 PM |
|
|
"PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1152386837.524809.8580@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
The three activist justices, you know the ones the judges that were
put their or heldup as being against judical activism, voted against
the core of legal judispurdence, that everyone is equal in the eyes
of the law. I repeat these activist justices voted against the core
value they are swore to uphold. Like Bush swore to defend America
yet 3000 died on his watch isnt' he an expert on how to fight
terrorism!
Welcome to USA 21st Century, the liars are put in power by liars
(Enron)
and have the judges support their lying. No rule is too easy to ignore.
Seit Heil!
"Since Welfare!" ???
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Logician" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
09 Jul 2006 01:20:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
I saw the Bush/King interview and Bush is pretty serious on this point
- don't mess with Bush, he won't hesistate to use lethal force.
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
True
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
This speaks to the IRA/Freedom Fighters/Fifth
Column/Resistance/Rebels/Confederate Americans - there is just one rule
which is who wins decides the game rules!
Basically bin Laden and his friends are losing, so they are
criminals/terrorists. If they were winning, they would be Do Gooders
freeing the world from secular evil.
If Washington had lost, he would have been hanged and labeled a
criminal/terrorist. Your books would list him like Guy Fawkes
http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dion" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
09 Jul 2006 10:13:13 AM |
|
|
"Logician" <sales@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:1152426055.790829.58140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
I saw the Bush/King interview and Bush is pretty serious on this point
- don't mess with Bush, he won't hesistate to use lethal force.
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
True
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
This speaks to the IRA/Freedom Fighters/Fifth
Column/Resistance/Rebels/Confederate Americans - there is just one rule
which is who wins decides the game rules!
Basically bin Laden and his friends are losing, so they are
criminals/terrorists. If they were winning, they would be Do Gooders
freeing the world from secular evil.
If Washington had lost, he would have been hanged and labeled a
criminal/terrorist. Your books would list him like Guy Fawkes
If GWBush is impeached and removed from office I'd certainly celebrate each
year. A small bonfire with burning effigy seems fitting. Perhaps a yearly
celebration would remind us of the folly of war of choice.
--
Dion
The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
"The President has broken the law,
and the censure resolution I introduced
is intended to hold him accountable.
Nobody says that we shouldn't be
monitoring suspected terrorists. Of
course we should, and we can under
current law. We have yet to hear a
reasonable argument from the president
or anyone else why it was necessary to
break the law." Russ Feingold
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:21:50 PM |
|
|
In news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
They call them "unlawful combatants", because they're not soldiers in any
nation's army.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant, for what it's worth.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:36:40 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
They call them "unlawful combatants", because they're not soldiers in any
nation's army.
Ok, so you say then we're not in a war. Then, how can Bush claim that
he has the authority to snatch Americans off the street and lock them
away permanently, without providing evidence, a warrant, or a day --
ever -- in court? How can Bush claim that he has the authority to
wiretap Americans without a warrant? How can Bush claim he can break
laws because we're "at war"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:52:03 PM |
|
|
In news:1152387400.423923.8000@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva
Convention rights to captives because they are not prisoners of
war.
They call them "unlawful combatants", because they're not soldiers in
any nation's army.
Ok, so you say then we're not in a war.
No, I didn't.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 03:02:24 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152387400.423923.8000@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152386144.149571.239140@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva
Convention rights to captives because they are not prisoners of
war.
They call them "unlawful combatants", because they're not soldiers in
any nation's army.
Ok, so you say then we're not in a war.
No, I didn't.
Ok, so you say then we're in a war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 03:09:05 PM |
|
|
In news:1152388944.125688.155370@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com "Kevin"
<kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, so you say then we're in a war.
So what?
Just how many different IDs do you post under?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 03:40:08 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152388944.125688.155370@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com "Kevin"
<kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, so you say then we're in a war.
So what?
Just how many different IDs do you post under?
Well, Kevin (kevprice1@...) is my primary one, with my real name. But,
I access these groups through Google (groups.google.com), and they have
an annoying post limiting guard in place that often refuses to print my
post because I "have exceeded my posting limit for this period". I
rarely post more than a handful of new or responding posts when I
visit, so this is why the policy is very annoying to me. Sometimes,
such as today, I got that message after only a few posts. Strangely,
it appears that a word count is involved, since I've been refused
additional posts after but even one posting.
So, while I would prefer to use just my real name, but I have to jump
to other old email accounts to continue at times.
I've been intending to streamline this somehow... probably by just
creating several free email accounts with the same nickname, but I'm
open to other suggestions if you have any.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 03:43:11 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152388944.125688.155370@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com "Kevin"
<kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, so you say then we're in a war.
So what?
So what?! Well, if we're in a war, then why aren't the prisoners of
war afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which governs
the treatment of prisoners of war, and of which the U.S. is a signee,
and, if these are prisoners of war, then what is the real motive of the
Bush regime to deny that that they are?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 07:44:09 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:1152388944.125688.155370@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com "Kevin"
<kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just how many different IDs do you post under?
Two, this and one back up if Google says "I've exceeded my post limit".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
09 Jul 2006 12:05:48 AM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
They call them "unlawful combatants", because they're not soldiers in any
nation's army.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant, for what it's worth.
I think we're clear on Bush's claims. Most other experts on the
Geneva Conventions don't agree. And the torture only gets bad
intelligence and fires up the various enemies. Meanwhile, not
one victim of the attacks of September 11 has been brought back
to life by all the "War on Terrorism." And the FBI and
international police agencies are proving that this is best
handled as a law enforcement problem not a war. But that
wouldn't have ensured Bush's re-election, nor given the U.S.
permanent military bases in the Middle East and control of the
gas pipeline through Afghanistan.
Almost 1,600 Iraqis were "freed" this past month in Baghdad and
environs alone, as attested by the census at the Baghdad morgue.
That's over half of the 9/11 deaths, but Iraqis don't count,
right?
--Jeff
--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Oinka" |
|
| Title: Re: War or No War? |
08 Jul 2006 02:34:45 PM |
|
|
The Bush whitehouse is definitely engaged in a war with reality.
The rest of us are just a captive audience to his downward spiral into
the pit of inescapable conclusions.
..
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Constitutional
rights to citizens as they see fit, because we are "at war".
The Bush regime claims that they are entitled to deny Geneva Convention
rights to captives because they are not prisoners of war.
So, this regime speaks from two sides of the same mouth, depending on
how they want to twist the truth? Are we in a war, or aren't we?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
