<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>Tom,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>You are smarter then this.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>We don't let convicted sex offenders around children.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>We don't let people with deadly airborne contagious diseases into the public. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Likewise, we don't let enemy soldiers out of detention until the war is over. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>It is not to deny the rights of those detained, but to protect the rights of others they will harm. While criminals, sex offenders, terrorists, and enemy soldiers have rights, they do not supersede the rights of the entire public to remain safe and secure in their homes and in their daily lives. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>I know you are smart enough to know that innocent people have the right to be protected from people that would reasonably do them harm if given an opportunity, especially if they even admit to such intentions in words or in past deeds. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Donovan</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>--- On <B>Mon, 6/16/08, Tom Ivie <I><the_ivies3@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Tom Ivie <the_ivies3@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 4:42 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv37190224>
<TABLE style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; WIDTH: 100%; COLOR: rgb(51,51,51); FONT-FAMILY: arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Guilty and convicted of crime before one occurs. Glad we can only do that to people in other countries.<BR><BR>Tom & Liz Ivie<BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 6/16/08, Donovan Arnold <I><donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com><BR>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 5:18 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv295674072>
<TABLE style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; WIDTH: 100%; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-FAMILY: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit" vAlign=top>
<P>Sunil,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>The purpose of detaining combatants, is not to put them on trial. The point is to keep them from shooting at our troops.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>This fact continues to elude you. Again, the purpose isn't to say they are criminals, and should be tried, but to keep them from doing something to you, me, Americans, and our troops. It isn't for any other reason. You cannot have a trial to convict someone of something they are going to do. But we should be able to detain them to keep them from killing us. It is called the right of self preservation. And it is just plain common sense to take the enemy off the field and keep them from killing you. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The second fact that fails to elude you is that these terrorists, many of which plotted to kill thousands of Americans, have been given more rights than any other prisons of war in the History of the World. They can already have many trials. To give them more is a waste of taxpayer monies. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The final fact, that seems to elude you, is that US Soldiers will no longer take hostages if they feel that they will not remain contained during the military conflict and may be given another opportunity to shoot at them again. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>There is something wrong with our court system when terrorists are given more rights than US citizens and the soldiers charged with the task of watching and containing them. Something is very wrong with this picture. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Donovan</P>
<P> </P>
<P><BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 6/15/08, Sunil <SPAN>Ramalingam</SPAN> <I><sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: <SPAN>Sunil</SPAN> Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>To: <BR>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 10:43 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv745920124>
<STYLE>
#yiv37190224 #yiv295674072 #yiv745920124 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv37190224 #yiv295674072 #yiv745920124 .hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
</STYLE>
He has also not addressed his prior claim that they had already been tried, when no trials have taken place. Kangaroo court hearings are not trials.<BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:26:53 -0700<BR>> From: chasuk@gmail.com<BR>> To: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>> CC: idahotom@hotmail.com; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention<BR>> <BR>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 19:45, Donovan Arnold<BR>> <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > You are incorrect on ALL Counts of your last email:<BR>> <BR>> Am I? If I am wrong on ALL counts, then rebut all counts. I concede<BR>> that I may be partially wrong on ONE count, but hardly ALL.<BR>> <BR>> Importantly, I wrote that:<BR>> <BR>> > So this isn't so much a matter of stripping the military of a right that it has historically<BR>> > had, but of restoring
legal rights to prisoners -- rights which were taken away with dubious<BR>> > justification, and during a time of public hysteria.<BR>> <BR>> Note the word "historically." History does predate the United States,<BR>> at least for the rest of the world. Historically, enemy combatants<BR>> were members of the enemy armed forces. Our Supreme Court redefined<BR>> the historical meaning in 1942, and in this I erred when I stated:<BR>> <BR>> > This power wasn't granted until post-9/11.<BR>> <BR>> I was thinking of the later expansions, such as the Military<BR>> Commissions Act of 2006. I apologize for my mistake.<BR>> <BR>> As you didn't address any of my other alleged errors, I can't respond further.<BR>> <BR>> Chas<BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR></DIV><PRE>=======================================================<BR> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR> http://www.fsr.net <BR> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></DIV><PRE>=======================================================<BR> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR> http://www.fsr.net <BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></DIV><PRE>=======================================================
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>