<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As far as just being informed that "WW II was
violent US policy to force <BR>> others to conform in our image", is
concerned, g . . .<BR>> <BR>> The only person that "informed" us here at
the Viz of such garbage, g, was <BR>> you.<BR>> <BR>> You really ought
to read more, g.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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 " <FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The
passing of sentences must also be <I>pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.</I></FONT>" 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Tom Hansen" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>smith@turbonet.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>garrettmc@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
<</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
<</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:06
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Humane interrogations
work</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Let me respond to your soments point by point, g.<BR>> <BR>>
[Point 1. We put prisoners of war in prisoner of war camps because there
<BR>> WERE prisioners of war. The detainees at Gitmo are not POW's and are
not <BR>> subject to the Geneva convention.]<BR>> <BR>> Since the
detainees at GITMO are NOT prisoners of war, they are subjects <BR>> to the
governing authority to which they are imprisoned and are afforded <BR>> the
same rights (the US Constitution) as a civil prisoner of that <BR>>
authority. These rights (again, the US Constitution) require that <BR>>
prisoners be charged with a crime and tried on those charges.<BR>> <BR>>
Yasee, g. It's either one (prisoners of war) or the other (civil <BR>>
prisoners brought up on charges). <BR>> <BR>> [Point 2. What
does winning the war have to do with anything? It sounds to <BR>> me as
though you are using the might makes right argument.]<BR>> <BR>> My
reflection of "winning the war" was a simple reminder that a goal <BR>>
("winning a war" in each case) can be reached while conducting "business"
<BR>> in accordance with established standards (the Geneva Convention accords
<BR>> for POWs, and the US Constitution for civil
prisoners).<BR>> <BR>> [Point 3. What moral high ground? We have just
been informed that WW II <BR>> was violent US policy to force others to
conform in our image.]<BR>> <BR>> Our perceived moral highground,
subsequent to WW2, is seeded within the <BR>> Marshall Plan for rebuilding
western Europe subsequent to WW2, along with <BR>> the creation of NATO
(North Atlantic Treaty Organization), <BR>> <BR>> In case you missed
these topics in school . . .<BR>> <BR>> The Marshall Plan<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> <BR>> NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> <BR>> <BR>> As far as just being informed that "WW II was
violent US policy to force <BR>> others to conform in our image", is
concerned, g . . .<BR>> <BR>> The only person that "informed" us here at
the Viz of such garbage, g, was <BR>> you.<BR>> <BR>> You really ought
to read more, g.<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow, Idaho<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---------------------------------------------<BR>>
This message was sent by First Step
Internet.<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.com/"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.com/</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>
Checked by AVG. <BR>> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 -
Release Date: 2/24/2009 6:43 AM<BR>> <BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>