[Vision2020] Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Thu Jun 19 06:25:04 PDT 2008

I try to avoid citing Wikipedia as much as possible.  That is why my 
citation concerning Arnold's argument comes directly from Article 1, 
Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless 
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Although Pearl Harbor was attacked (or some may say "invaded"), President 
Roosevelt never suspended the US Constitution.  He merely violated it by 
interring thousands of US citizens with Japanese ancestry.

How does that saying go again?  "Those that fail to learn from history are 
doomed to repeat it."

Granted, similar to Wikipedia, anybody can contribute to this document.  
However, the process is considerably more extensive.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> Vizzz peeps,
>  
> While I don't really want to get drug into this conversation, and I find
> myself agreeing with our Donovan that Pearl Harbor was attacked and not
> invaded (semantics, really), I must say to Donovan (and anyone else)
> that I'm not sure I'd cite Wikipedia as the be-all, end-all of internet
> reference material, especially since anyone and their dog can
> "contribute" to it.
>  
> your pal,
>  
> DC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:12 AM
> To: Chasuk
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com; Tom Hansen
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?
> 
> 
> 
> Chas,
> 
>  
> 
> Does this sound familiar:
> 
>  
> 
> "December 7th <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_7> , 1941
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941> -a date which will live in
> infamy-the United States of
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> America was suddenly and
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor> deliberately
> attacked by naval <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy>
> and air
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Air_Service> forces
> of the Empire of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan> Japan."
> 
>  
> 
> It should, because it was said by President Roosevelt.
> 
>  
> 
> Notice the word attacked. Japan never invaded, it attacked. Just like
> the Terrorists, terrorist from varies countries in the Middle East. 
> 
>  
> 
> "Attack on Pearl Harbor" is in Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia.
> "Invasion of Pearl Harbor" is not. 
> 
>  
> 
> So, sorry to say, your statement, "Peral (Pearl) Harbor was an invasion,
> clear and simple.  It isn't arguable, though you will probably try." Is
> not supported by the existing facts and opinions of those in better know
> over you and me. 
> 
>  
> 
> Maybe in your universe, Pearl Harbor was invaded and taken over by the
> Japanese. But in this one where FDR was President and Congress declared
> war on Japan, they attacked. 
> 
>  
> 
> "following brutal rapes by our soldiers" Do you have any evidence of
> such allegations? Or are you jumping to that conclusions?
> 
>  
> 
> "We responded by invading a nation that was not involved in the attack.
> Since that
> time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of
> thousands of innocent Iraqis have died."
> 
>  
> 
> I didn't say I supported invading Iraq, did I. I was against the idea
> even when Tom Hansen, and half the other go along Marxists on this list
> were gunning for Saddam in place of Bin Laudin.  Further, this has
> nothing to do with terrorists being detained and having access to civil
> courts. Many of the innocent deaths which you report, are the cause of
> Terrorists which we once had in custody but were let go because of
> terrorist sympathizers and lawyers in this country more concerned for
> their rights then the survival of the nation. 
> 
>  
> 
> My argument is, that the rights of the victims, soldiers, and citizens
> are denied when unlawful combatants and terrorists are released because
> of US lawyers and terrorist sympathizers fight for their rights over the
> rights of the people they kill and victimize. 
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Donovan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/18/08, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>, "Tom Hansen"
> <thansen at moscow.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen"
> <idahotom at hotmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:43 PM
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 21:47, Donovan Arnold
> 
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > No, it wasn't an invasion. It was an attack. Just like Pearl Harbor
> 
> was an
> 
> > attack. How many people that attacked Pearl Harbor or planned the
> attack,
> 
> > got sympathies and access to Civil Courts in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> Peral Harbor was an invasion, clear and simple.  It isn't arguable,
> 
> though you will probably try.
> 
> 
> 
> > Andreas, what happened to the rights of all the dead people and their
> 
> > families that were killed on the 9/11? How about those people forced
> to
> 
> jump
> 
> > from a 100 story building to their death because of actions by the
> 
> > terrorists your sympathize with? How about the rights of the people
> that
> 
> > were alive with their flesh burnt off as they slowly wait for their
> death
> 
> > after the 9/11 attack, they have no rights? What happened to their
> rights,
> 
> > Andreas? I don't see you squawking about the children left without a
> 
> mother
> 
> > or fathers because of these terrorists? Do they get to appeal three,
> six,
> 
> > eight times, the judgment rendered against them by this monsters? You
> 
> > show no outcry for them. You show more concern and empathy for the 170
> 
> > terrorists that killed our people, then for the sick injustice done
> 
> against
> 
> > their victims. Why is that exactly, Andreas?
> 
> 
> 
> How does all of this emotive language help your argument?  A group of
> 
> terrorists attacked our nation.  We weren't invaded.  We responded by
> 
> invading a nation that was not involved in the attack.  Since that
> 
> time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of
> 
> thousands of innocent Iraqis have died.  They have died, women and
> 
> children, by having their flesh seared off, in horrific explosions,
> 
> from starvation, following brutal rapes by our soldiers, or after
> 
> months of hideous torture.  What happened to their rights?  While that
> 
> is an emotive, interesting question, it hasn't nothing to do with the
> 
> actual subject of this conversation.  You show more concern for
> 
> winning an argument than with investigating the truth.  Why is that
> 
> exactly, Donovan?
> 
> 
> 

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college 
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/