[Vision2020] Humane interrogations work

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Two questions: 

If the military tribunals are so swell, why are so many JAG officers pointing out their deficiencies?

Second, who is this?  Is this Gary or someone else signing off as 'g?'

Sunil

From: smith at turbonet.com
To: garrettmc at verizon.net; jampot at roadrunner.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:33:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Humane interrogations work










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/20090224/9aab8b0a/attachment.html