"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9668C75E0A8A3rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...

"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> Spat the Words

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:rlrne.562$g5.425@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

MonsieurStat wrote:

Vice President ***** Cheney told CNN that he was "offended" by
Amnesty's description of Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times".
Cheney said "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the
United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't
take them seriously." Cheney also attempted to dismiss the
widespread reports of mistreatment of detainees. He said
"Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you
trace those back -- in nearly every case -- it turns out to come
from somebody who had been inside and been released to their home
country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."
Condoleezza Rice also weighed in on Amnesty's report - describing
the group's findings as ''absurd."

Civilized people are "offended" by ***** Cheney's role in flouting
international standards in treatment of POWs and political prisoners.

Yes we are but I wonder for how long. One of the main mandates of this
administration is to set new standards for a whole bunch of things.
They have already sold "preventive strikes" against other countries to
the public.

Not really. It was sold to the US Congress under false pretense.

Iraq is a double dip case. First they sold the policy of preventive
strikes which is the *right* of the United States to attack any country
that MIGHT be now, or could become in the future, a threat to the US
security. This policy is sold and sealed, and almost nobody is
questioning it anymore. In case of Iraq, since there was no potential
threat or even a remote possibility of Iraqis being able to attack the
US in any foreseeable future, they had to also invent the false
pretenses (WMD, etc.).

My feeling is that this will be the trend from now on. It is easy enough
to make the public (and the Congress) paranoid about any country with
potentiality of threats. Once that is achieved, then the preventive
strikes is the US official policy to deal with.


[snip]

If not enough of the Congress can see past their partisanship
and cronyism then we may have to wait until the next Congressional
elections in about 1 1/2 years.

One of Bush's major achievements in his first term was to redraw the
boundaries of congressional districts in a way that will ensure a
Republican majority in the Congress for the foreseeable future. Congress
will remain Republican for a LONG time to come. Their majority will only
increase in the next elections.

Stat.

Have used it too. The next logical step is dealing with
resistance that this kind of behavior might cause. So came the legal
ground work done by Alberto to legalize torture and override Geneva
conventions. Now has begun experimenting with how these new standards
should be implemented to be most efficient, and how they should be
sold to the public. If all goes well, I wouldn't be surprised if
Guantanamo Bay like prisons will be common place right inside the
American territory. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the
detainees be "bad" Americans who support terrorists. This is just the
beginning... Stat.

Woods

"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9668C75E0A8A3rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...

"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> Spat the Words

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:rlrne.562$g5.425@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

MonsieurStat wrote:

Vice President ***** Cheney told CNN that he was "offended" by
Amnesty's description of Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times".
Cheney said "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the
United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take
them seriously." Cheney also attempted to dismiss the widespread
reports of mistreatment of detainees. He said "Occasionally there are
allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those back -- in nearly
every case -- it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside
and been released to their home country and now are peddling lies
about how they were treated." Condoleezza Rice also weighed in on
Amnesty's report - describing the group's findings as ''absurd."

Civilized people are "offended" by ***** Cheney's role in flouting
international standards in treatment of POWs and political prisoners.

Yes we are but I wonder for how long. One of the main mandates of this
administration is to set new standards for a whole bunch of things. They
have already sold "preventive strikes" against other countries to the
public.

Not really. It was sold to the US Congress under false pretense.

Iraq is a double dip case. First they sold the policy of preventive strikes which is the *right*
of the United States to attack any country that MIGHT be now, or could become in the future, a
threat to the US security. This policy is sold and sealed, and almost nobody is questioning it
anymore. In case of Iraq, since there was no potential threat or even a remote possibility of
Iraqis being able to attack the US in any foreseeable future, they had to also invent the false
pretenses (WMD, etc.).

My feeling is that this will be the trend from now on. It is easy enough to make the public (and
the Congress) paranoid about any country with potentiality of threats. Once that is achieved, then
the preventive strikes is the US official policy to deal with.


[snip]

If not enough of the Congress can see past their partisanship
and cronyism then we may have to wait until the next Congressional
elections in about 1 1/2 years.

One of Bush's major achievements in his first term was to redraw the boundaries of congressional
districts in a way that will ensure a Republican majority in the Congress for the foreseeable
future. Congress will remain Republican for a LONG time to come. Their majority will only increase
in the next elections.
Stat.

Have used it too. The next logical step is dealing with
resistance that this kind of behavior might cause. So came the legal
ground work done by Alberto to legalize torture and override Geneva
conventions. Now has begun experimenting with how these new standards
should be implemented to be most efficient, and how they should be sold
to the public. If all goes well, I wouldn't be surprised if Guantanamo
Bay like prisons will be common place right inside the American
territory. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the detainees be
"bad" Americans who support terrorists. This is just the beginning...
Stat.

Woods

Perseid ha escrito:

"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> Spat the Words

Not really. It was sold to the US Congress under false pretense.
Most in Congress know now it was wrong (for the reasons given by
Bush), but leaving the Iraqis before they have some armed forces
is also wrong (even though US troop presence is contributing
to the violence).

there have been many lies right from the beginning and frequent
re-namings. all very ugly. but, as seen from here (Spain), the
sickening novelty was that neither Mrs Clinton nor Kerry had anything
to say.

it was something to watch that "war on terror" predictably
change its focus, its name, its flimsy rationale (Bin Laden -- AlQuada
-- Afghanistan --- Iraq -- Sadam -- WDM -- insurgents -- democracy).

the silence was strange. do the Americans somehow find Bush
attractive? are they somehow intimidated by the rich boy's nonchalance
in the face of disaster?

how come they silently accepted the Gulag?

I would not believe that Bush is a fundamentalist. is it true that his
brother (Jeff? Jeb?) converted to Catholicism?

The recent Amnesty statement is more damning than anything
I've seen recently, and I've heard the worst is yet to come
out of Abu Gharaib (rape pictures by the hundreds). US military
intelligence and army grunts raping Iraqi women then sending
them out into the populace to tell their story.

In the end it could be the accumulated weight of corruption
and incompetence, along with someone like Mark Felt giving
more dirt from the inside, that will bring down the Bush
house of cards.

If not enough of the Congress can see past their partisanship
and cronyism then we may have to wait until the next Congressional
elections in about 1 1/2 years.

Have used it too. The next logical step is dealing with
resistance that this kind of behavior might cause. So came the legal
ground work done by Alberto to legalize torture and override Geneva
conventions. Now has begun experimenting with how these new standards
should be implemented to be most efficient, and how they should be

to the public. If all goes well, I wouldn't be surprised if Guantanamo
Bay like prisons will be common place right inside the American
territory. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the detainees be
"bad" Americans who support terrorists. This is just the beginning...
Stat.

Woods

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message news:KyPne.1426$g5.764@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

dreamwalker wrote:

"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:rlrne.562$g5.425@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

MonsieurStat wrote:

Vice President ***** Cheney told CNN that he was "offended" by Amnesty's description of
Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times". Cheney said "For Amnesty International to suggest
that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them
seriously." Cheney also attempted to dismiss the widespread reports of mistreatment of
detainees. He said "Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those
back -- in nearly every case -- it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and been
released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."
Condoleezza Rice also weighed in on Amnesty's report - describing the group's findings as
''absurd."

Civilized people are "offended" by ***** Cheney's role in flouting international standards in
treatment of POWs and political prisoners.

Woods

I'm pleased with the term unlawful combatants. It clearly describes those who take to the
battlefield without a uniform.

You mean like the Continental Army of the Revolution, or do you mean like civilians who weren't
doing anything? Inquiring minds want to know!

The combatants in question have choose to fight a war with

unconventional means.

There has been no evidence presented to support such a claim against any of the detainees, let
alone all of them. However, it should be noted that a number of them have been release without
any charges being brought against them, which indicates they were not guilty of any such activity.



All they need to do is put on a uniform and align themselves with a country or

legimate state to be considered POW's.

You mean like the Minutemen? What was their uniform, again?

Umm, we're talking Al Queda. That arguement is old and stale.

Of course it would be damn tough to complete a suicide attack

dressed in a enemy uniform.

Since suicide attacks started *after* the detainees were detained, it should be a given that such
was not a consideration re: a uniform.

9/11

Plus, no middle east country in their right mind with overtly support

them. If they did decide to fight a uniformed war they'd also be granted POW privledges. Such as
no interrogation.

Civilians minding their own business don't wear uniforms and are protected under the Geneva
convention, as well. Odd that doesn't seem to be a consideration ...

Al-Queda's idea of minding their own business is to run airplanes into buildings containing innocent
peopel.

The Bush administration has done well in this area. They've clearly defined the

Islamic hardliners as defining the rules of this engagement.

The Bush administration has screwed up royally, and has had to release a number of detainees
because they had not one shred of evidence to hold them.

They were cleared and released. Something that didn't happen in Soviet gulags.

By the way, Amnesty's definition of Gitmo being a gulag seems flawed. The definition of a gulag is a
forced labor camp.

As for Amnesty? They're a contributor to the DNC. That cancels them out as a fair arbitrator.

They're an international organization that the US has lauded when it mentions other human rights
abusers. Odd that Bush suddenly has a problem with accepting their assessments when the claims
touch a bit closer to home. Also odd that Bush made sure that military personnel can't have any
cameras, or other recording devices, that could further embarass him and expose his policies.

Woods