<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' background='none' style='font-family:arial;font-size:10pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;width:100%;'><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'><P>Paul,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>"The really ironic thing here is that terrorists don't have the ability <BR>to take over the US. They can maybe swing another stunt like 9/11, but <BR>what else can they do?"</P>
<P> </P>
<P>What do you mean, Paul? What else can they DO!!!!!!?????</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Do you really want to find out? You sound like 9/11 is was no big deal? A reminder, it killed 3,000 US Citizens, men, women, and children. Burned them alive, forced them to jump out windows, it destroyed families, and scared this nation for rest of eternity, it wasn't just a stunt, and heaven help us if you think against 9/11 is an acceptable lose. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>They don't want to take over the US, they want to kill us, and our troops, and that is what they will do if you release them. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>I don't disagree with you on the position that we should not have entered Iraq, and I agree with you that we should go after Bin Laudin. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>However, this court decisions goes way beyond Gitmo, or Iraq, or Iran. This is about the US Military not being able to hold onto people that they believe are enemy combatants. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The US Military needs to be able to detain foreign combatants if it believes they are a danger to national security. That is essential, otherwise, our troops cannot take captives. </P>
<P> </P>
<P> I don't believe in your false dilemma that it is either Mad Max, or an open civil trial of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, at taxpayer expense, that every combatant is in fact a danger to the US. There are rules in place, and detainees are released when we discover they are not a danger to the US. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The purpose of the detention is to determine if someone is a danger and to prevent them from acting out against our troops. Our troops should have the right to remove known and believed dangers from the battle field to protect themselves and civilians they are trying to protect. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Surrendering our troops ability to arrest and detain enemies of the United States without a civil trial is serious handicapping of our military in its ability to take action to protect the citizens of this country from people that are willing and attempting to hurt us. So much so, it is insane. This ruling WILL result in the death of innocent US citizens, there is NO question. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>By the time you have enough evidence to convict a terrorist, he has already blow himself up along with 50 innocent men, women, and children. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Donovan</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> <BR><BR>--- On <B>Sat, 6/14/08, Paul Rumelhart <I><godshatter@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Paul <SPAN><SPAN>Rumelhart</SPAN></SPAN> <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: <SPAN>GITMO</SPAN> Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>To: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>Cc: "<SPAN>Sunil</SPAN> Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Saturday, June 14, 2008, 10:07 PM<BR><BR><PRE>I realize the government is not trying to convict. That is the problem
the Supreme Court corrected.
Many of these detainees were caught as part of a bounty program set up
by the US government. Not the most trustworthy of operations, giving
money to people to finger terrorists. How many of them are people that
screwed over the guy getting the bounty? How many are just convenient?
Besides, we either follow the rule of law or we're living in a Mad Max
movie. It's long been a cornerstone of our court system that it's
better to let a guilty person go free when you don't have enough
evidence to convict them than it is to wrongly convict an innocent person.
The really ironic thing here is that terrorists don't have the ability
to take over the US. They can maybe swing another stunt like 9/11, but
what else can they do? Well, apparently they can frighten us into
giving up our inalienable rights in order to fend off another tragedy.
We've done more harm in this conflict to ourselves than we have to the
enemy. We've lost most of our international respect, we've chipped
away
at the laws that ensure our freedom, and we've strengthened the
Executive Branch beyond reason. We'll be living with that long after
the last detainee dies of old age.
If we really cared about taking out the terrorists, we would never have
gone into Iraq. We'd have tracked down Osama, and anyone else that
turned up in the ensuing investigation. We breed more terrorists every
day we're in Iraq. With 600 detainees, some percentage of whom are
undoubtedly innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, to
show for it.
So let's gather the evidence, take them to trial, give them a chance to
refute the charges, and hang anyone we find guilty of committing acts of
terror against the US while letting the innocent go free. It's the
right thing to do. The question I'm interested in is this: do we count
fighting back at our invasion of Iraq as a "terrorist act"?
Paul
Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> You ask," if our administration is so sure they have the biggest and
> baddest terrorists at Gitmo, then it should be not be unusually onerous
> for them to prove that in a court of law.
>
> If they don't have enough proof to convict, then why are they so sure
> they have the right people? "
>
>
>
> Paul, the government is not looking to convict. They are looking to
> detain people they believe are trying to hurt our troops or US
> Citizens. If they suspect someone is plotting against the US, they
> capture them, check to make sure they are not a threat, then either
> release them or attempt to get information from them that is useful in
> saving lives.
>
>
>
> You seem to ignore the fact that American Courts often release people
> that are guilty. You also seem to ignore the fact that the US military
> would have to release classified information to the public if they
> were to prove that the terrorist is in fact a terrorist. The terrorist
> could also communicate security information to try and prove their
> innocents.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Donovan
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 6/12/08, Paul Rumelhart /<godshatter@yahoo.com>/*
wrote:
>
> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge
> Detention
> To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 10:39 PM
>
> Why does the Supreme Court hate America?
>
> Anywho, if our administration is so sure they have the biggest and
> baddest terrorists at Gitmo, then it should be not be unusually
onerous
> for them to prove that in a court of law.
>
> If they don't have enough proof to convict, then why are they so
sure
> they have the right people? Because they've waterboarded them?
>
> Paul
>
>
> Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> > They have never received anything like a trial as we know it.
They
> > have had 'hearings' in which they are unrepresented and
are not
> > allowed to see the evidence against them. That might be a trial
> > elsewhere. In our tradition we never considered anything that
> > farcical to be a trial before.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:02:36 -0700
> > From: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com
> > To: chasuk@gmail.com
> > CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GITMO Detainees Can Challenge
Detention
> >
> > Chas,
> >
> > They were not deprived of due process of law. They were
tried, and
> > found guilty before they are sent and locked up in Gitmo. The
> > reason they are not tried in American Civilian Courts is
because
> > they are not US Citizens and because if they were it would
expose
> > US classified information which would put US soldiers and
possibly
> > civilians at risk.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Donovan
> >
> > */Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com>/* wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 18:59, Donovan Arnold
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe we should create an "Adopt a
Detainee"
> program. Those
> > that think they
> > > are innocent detainees can line up and open their
homes to
> > people considered
> > > to be unfairly detained at Gitmo. If they really
believe
> > that these people
> > > are innocent, and they are released, it would be
unfair to
> > send them back to
> > > their home country to be killed, right?
> >
> > I don't have any opinion as to the guilt or innocence
of the
> Gitmo
> > detainees, so I won't be inviting them into my house,
thank
> you.
> > However, that doesn't mean that I believe they should
have
> been
> > deprived of the due process of law, which is the real
subject
> > here.
> >
> > Chas
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>