<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Sorry, Bear. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But people are not charged twice for the same crime. It is illegal and unconstitutional. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Second, yes, the US can and does break international law to protect its own interests. Many nations do. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Third, no, I wouldn't want a US General in a time of war being hauled off in the middle of the war for accusations by an opposing force. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Fourth, yes, I would want a US General to drop a banned bomb versus not dropping one at all if it meant more people or US soldiers would die. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Fifth, our US leaders, like the President, Senators, Generals, Cabinet members, do have national security secrets that could be given to other nations, We are allowed to have secrets, like where we keep our missiles, where CIA operatives are located and their identities, locations of military equipment, and other information and technological secrets, which some could trade in favor of their freedom. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Six, yes, innocent people get killed in war and in military conflicts. That is a reality. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Next, I have everything against lawyers. And lawyers don't give all sides of an argument. They give whatever argument than can make to win. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Finally, no I don't think a bullet will solve every problem, but it could solve the problem of too many lawyers. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan<BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 3/30/09, bear@moscow.com <I><bear@moscow.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: bear@moscow.com <bear@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Spanish Court Considering Arrest Warrants for<BR>To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>, "vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>, "Sunil <SPAN>Ramalingam</SPAN>" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com><BR>Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:42 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>I have to jump in on this one!<BR><BR>Number one, IF they were indicted, tried and convicted, they wouldn't be handed over to <BR>anyone but the US Bureau of Prisons to serve out their sentences. And as far as being<BR>tried <BR>twice for the same crime, it happens defacto every day in the US. IF you commit a crime<BR>that is <BR>both a violation of state and federal law, you can and often are tried by BOTH, one after<BR>the <BR>other! <BR><BR>Number two, the US cannot violate international law in order to protect its national<BR>interests, <BR>ESPECIALLY international laws that WE have signed on to and have made US law through the<BR>US <BR>Constitution. <BR><BR>Number three, I DO want to see a US General that, in 2009 would use a bomb that was banned<BR><BR>in 2007, and killed an "old woman crossing the street". The bomb was banned by<BR>international <BR>law, period. Or do you think banned weapons should be
used because we feel like using<BR>them? <BR>It works both ways and IF we can use banned weapons, so can everyone else. And I would<BR>also <BR>like to see that same General have to answer for killing the "old woman crossing the<BR>street" no <BR>matter <SPAN>HIOW</SPAN> she was killed. OR are you advocating that collateral damage that results in<BR>the <BR>killing of innocent civilians is just part of war? Or is she not an innocent civilian<BR>because she <BR>happened to be crossing the street where we were planning to bomb - IN HER OWN COUNTRY!<BR>If you are, that puts the people killed in the World Trade Center in an entirely different<BR><BR>position. <BR><BR>Number four, what national secrets would be protected? A "national secret" that violates<BR>the <BR>US Constitution and US law is STILL a violation! Too often the "national secret" cross is<BR>dragged <BR>out to protect illegal and embarrassing acts of
our governments, not because they have<BR>any <BR>real benefit, but because they are illegal, immoral, or embarrassing! <BR><BR>Number five,no one is talking about giving or not giving aid to a country, we are talking<BR>about <BR>war crimes.<BR><BR>Number six, what have you got against lawyers? You don't want to hear and see both sides<BR>of <BR>an argument openly debated in courts? Just because a lawyer zealously advocates a<BR>position <BR>for a client, does mean that the lawyer is a "true believer" of the cause being debated<BR>one way <BR>or the other. Lawyer bashing, while popular, serves no purpose at all in a reasonable<BR>discussion <BR>of war crimes.<BR><BR>Number seven, If you don't think a world court should determine territorial boundaries,<BR>who do <BR>you think should do it? Are you aware that the boundary between the United States and<BR>Canada <BR>was settled by Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany? <BR><BR>Number eight, Do you
really think that a bullet in the back of the head is a solution to<BR>any <BR>problem? If it is, I'm glad we have the Second Amendment so I can defend myself from<BR>those <BR>that believe as you do.<BR><BR><BR><BR>---------------------------------------------<BR>This message was sent by First Step Internet.<BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.com/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.com/</A><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR> mailto:<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>