[Vision2020] Humane interrogations work

[a]

As far as just being informed that "WW II was violent US policy to force 
> others to conform in our image", is concerned, g . . .
> 
> The only person that "informed" us here at the Viz of such garbage, g, was 
> you.
> 
> You really ought to read more, g.

My goodness, hamster its like you make being foolish and belligerent your full time job. You really ought to read more-carefully. I was quoting directly from Mr. Clevengers previous pacifist post. 

As to point one, you're not exactly on target there either. The unlawful combatants at Gitmo were granted the minimal protections of common article three status of the Geneva convention by the US supreme court on 29 June 2006 This stipulates that " The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Decidedly no mention of being afford the same rights as a "civil prisioner" (what ever that is) under the US constitution and most definatly no mention of being brought to America to be tried in a US civilian court. Military tribunal held at Guantanamo meets the requirement more than adaquately.

g


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
To: <smith at turbonet.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net>; <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Humane interrogations work


> Let me respond to your soments point by point, g.
> 
> [Point 1. We put prisoners of war in prisoner of war camps because there 
> WERE prisioners of war. The detainees at Gitmo are not POW's and are not 
> subject to the Geneva convention.]
> 
> Since the detainees at GITMO are NOT prisoners of war, they are subjects 
> to the governing authority to which they are imprisoned and are afforded 
> the same rights (the US Constitution) as a civil prisoner of that 
> authority.  These rights (again, the US Constitution) require that 
> prisoners be charged with a crime and tried on those charges.
> 
> Yasee, g.  It's either one (prisoners of war) or the other (civil 
> prisoners brought up on charges).  
> 
> [Point 2. What does winning the war have to do with anything? It sounds to 
> me as though you are using the might makes right argument.]
> 
> My reflection of "winning the war" was a simple reminder that a goal 
> ("winning a war" in each case) can be reached while conducting "business" 
> in accordance with established standards (the Geneva Convention accords 
> for POWs, and the US Constitution for civil prisoners).
> 
> [Point 3. What moral high ground? We have just been informed that WW II 
> was violent US policy to force others to conform in our image.]
> 
> Our perceived moral highground, subsequent to WW2, is seeded within the 
> Marshall Plan for rebuilding western Europe subsequent to WW2, along with 
> the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization),  
> 
> In case you missed these topics in school . . .
> 
> The Marshall Plan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
> 
> NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
> 
> 
> As far as just being informed that "WW II was violent US policy to force 
> others to conform in our image", is concerned, g . . .
> 
> The only person that "informed" us here at the Viz of such garbage, g, was 
> you.
> 
> You really ought to read more, g.
> 
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>           http://www.fsr.com/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 2/24/2009 6:43 AM
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090224/6dfe88ca/attachment.html