[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

Tue Apr 28 18:17:51 PDT 2009

It's this sort of post that makes your attempts to become the arbiter of manners so puzzling.

Sunil

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: ophite at gmail.com; lfalen at turbonet.com
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:51:05 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram

"Incidentally, I directed this originally at Gary, but he seems 
unwilling to defend torture on its own terms."  

My goodness isn't the nascent little ambulance 
chaser cute when he gets all up on his hind legs and brays about how others 
should be ashamed?

The reason that I don't "defend torture" is because 
that  I see no compelling need to. As I've said before, I do not believe 
that waterboarding is torture, I do not believe that the previous administration 
had a policy promoting the use of torture, and  I don't think that your 
pretending to be the arbiter of all that is righteous, pure and holy 
necessitates my responding to every idle quack and query that's directed my 
way. 

Now how's about you knock it off with the phony 
shame routine and save it for closing arguments in kiddy court 
alright?

g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Andreas Schou 

  To: lfalen 
  Cc: vision2020 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:57 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus 
  at Bagram

Roger --

No: just until the cessation of hostilities in 
  the "war on terror." Which, because it is not a "war" in any meaningful sense, 
  but rather a massive combined military/law enforcement action, cannot ever 
  end. 

Incidentally, I directed this originally at Gary, but he seems 
  unwilling to defend torture on its own terms. You, on the other hand, are not 
  half as clever (or half as moral; I can't tell which). We did not have an 
  official policy of torture during WWII, when we were actually faced with 
  destruction by an opponent of equal strength. In the "War on Terror," we are 
  faced with an enemy that has killed less than 1/10th the number of Americans 
  that died at Normandy. 

To resort to barbarism in the face of such a 
  comparatively minor threat is rank cowardice. You should be ashamed.

-- 
  ACS

(Incidentally, Roger: by conceding that waterboarding is torture, 
  you just conceded that the Bush administration is guilty of a number of 
  crimes. A single instance of torture, or conspiracy to commit torture, is a 
  federal crime with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.)

  On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

  I 
    never said that there should be an indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. 
    Don't put words in my mouth.
Roger

    -----Original message-----
From: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
Date: 
    Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:03:08 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas 
    Corpus at Bagram

> It was during a time of armed insurrection, as 
    specified in the
> Constitution. The United States was rife with 
    traitors, both to our
> principles and to our government. He did what 
    was necessary. Even accepting
> the counterfactual that 9/11 was an 
    armed insurrection, the Constitution
> cannot possibly permit the 
    indefinite suspension of habeas corpus during a
> permanent 
    war.
>
> -- ACS
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:36 
    AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> > 
    Joe
> > What do you think os Lincoln's suspension of Habeas 
    Corpus?
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> 
    > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 
    2009 18:05:13 -0800
> > To: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
> 
    > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
> >
> 
    > > FYI Hilary Bok is a philosopher. Works in free will, which is the 
    same
> > > area I work in.
> > >
> > > 
    Joe Campbell
> > >
> > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:35 
    PM, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > 
    > > Hilary Bok at the Washington Monthly has the best piece I've 
    seen
> > > > about the habeas corpus rights of prisoners at 
    Bagram. The previous
> > > > administration's 
    too-clever-by-half reading of U.S. v. Eisentrager
> > > > 
    (the case upon which the detention regime at Guantanamo) has led to
> 
    > > > some serious, and intentional, confusion of the 
    respective
> > > > jurisdictions of our military and federal 
    courts.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/
> 
    > > > 2009_02/017017.php
> > > >
> > > 
    > This article pretty much sums up what I think about Bagram.
> 
    > > >
> > > > -- ACS
> > > > 
    =======================================================
> > > 
    > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > 
    > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > 
    >               http://www.fsr.net
> > 
    > >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > 
    =======================================================
> > 
    >
> > >
> 
  >
>
>

=======================================================
 List 
  services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the 
  communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

  http://www.fsr.net                       

  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090428/5d08be76/attachment-0001.html 