[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Wed Apr 29 06:07:58 PDT 2009
Looks to me as though your going to have to try again. The point of the post you provide by way of example points to the perpetual double standard displayed when ever discussion heats up on the V. No suggestion whatever of what constitutes good manners or an insistence on the application. Sorry.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Sunil Ramalingam
Cc: vision 2020
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
I can stop with this, or provide more. Let me know your pleasure.
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-April/063203.html
Sunil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:57:58 -0700
Arbiter of manners? When? Where? Is there an specific example of this you can point to or is this another example of campbell's "hyperbole for comic effect" AKA making things up because, sadly, it's the best you can do?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Sunil Ramalingam
Cc: vision 2020
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Habeas Corpus at Bagram
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
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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/20090429/5a11d5c8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list