"President Must Answer to Downing Street Memo"

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...


On that basis shouldn't you be invading Saudi Arabia?



One at a time, Jon...



And shouldn't you be invading Zimbabwe?



It's on the list.


Won;t need to invade Zim. Mugabes socialist utopia will kill off
everyone there. It'll be turned into some national park afterwards.

Scott Hedrick wrote:



Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces
were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during
the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view.



Exactly so- the flaw in your analogy, Pat, is that the unlawful combatant
forces you mentioned were rebelling against their government, not defending
against a foreign one.



The Confederacy considered itself a lawful government, and the Northern
forces to be foreign invaders into their national territory.

Pat.

In article ,
says...
The United States in a state of collapse is what the
Left likes best

I'm curious, Scott. Do you have any evidence what so ever, much less
proof, of that statement?
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

Pat Flannery wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:

Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces
were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during
the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view.

Exactly so- the flaw in your analogy, Pat, is that the unlawful combatant
forces you mentioned were rebelling against their government, not defending
against a foreign one.

The Confederacy considered itself a lawful government, and the Northern
forces to be foreign invaders into their national territory.

That is why it is called the War of Northern Aggression.

In article ,
h says...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:51:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
It is...in wartime...we haven't legally declared war on anyone yet; if
we had, then all those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay would be POWs
and subject to their rights under the Geneva Conventions.

No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.

True (excepting the torture claims, if true).

On the other hand, the Constitution has explicit requirements on the
ability of the government to detain people without probable cause,
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, habeas corpus,
representation by a lawyer, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. "all
those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay" are denied these rights.

(The Constitution limits the ability of the government to become a
tyranny. There is no special exception for non-citizens, even if those
non-citizens have been accused, without proof, of being terrorists.)
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:16:11 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
Silverlight made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In message , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_resear ch_facility.org writes
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:09:11 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Going to war under knowingly false pretenses,

Why does this bizarre delusion persist, in the wake of all of the
investigations that show otherwise?

...The delusion comes from one point of order and one point alone: the
WMDs were *not* found. Everything else that was a justification for
the war - Saddam is a murdering sick ******* who's Satan's abusive
boyfriend, the Kurds were being exterminated, women were being
oppressed, Iraqi money was funding the Taliban and Al & Fred Queda's
terrorist activities, etc, etc - was true.

On that basis shouldn't you be invading Saudi Arabia?

Yes, but until there's sufficient oil flowing from other places that
would be disastrous for the world economy.

BTW, why were all those Saudi high-ups allowed to leave the US after
September 11?

Ask the low-level bureaucrat that allowed that without any documented
permission from higher up.

And shouldn't you be invading Zimbabwe? "Murdering sick *******"
certainly fits, and his actions are destabilising Africa. Sorry, I
forgot. No oil. And who needs stability? After all, the terrorists now
active in Iraq have access to nuclear materials.

Unfortunately, simply being brutal dictator by itself isn't sufficient
reason for removal. It require a complex of reasons. But I'd be all
in favor of it.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:24:27 -0000, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


So do you have any actual ideas for how to improve the international
law to deal with these issues? Or are you just blowing anti-American
smoke around out of frustration?

I'll assume that's a rhetorical question...

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article ,
says...


The United States in a state of collapse is what the
Left likes best



I'm curious, Scott. Do you have any evidence what so ever, much less
proof, of that statement?


Yes. The Dems do their damndest to bring that about, everything from
ruinous social programs to badmouthing the military in a time of war.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:


Scott Hedrick wrote:



Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces
were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during
the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view.


Exactly so- the flaw in your analogy, Pat, is that the unlawful combatant
forces you mentioned were rebelling against their government, not defending
against a foreign one.


The Confederacy considered itself a lawful government, and the Northern
forces to be foreign invaders into their national territory.



That is why it is called the War of Northern Aggression.


Only by those who don't correctly refer to it as the War of Southern
Aggression.

Scott Lowther wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Scott Hedrick wrote:

Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces
were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during
the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view.

Exactly so- the flaw in your analogy, Pat, is that the unlawful combatant
forces you mentioned were rebelling against their government, not defending
against a foreign one.

The Confederacy considered itself a lawful government, and the Northern
forces to be foreign invaders into their national territory.

That is why it is called the War of Northern Aggression.

Only by those who don't correctly refer to it as the War of Southern
Aggression.

The South formed their own country and wanted to chart their own
destiny. Then the unionists with massed armies invaded the South. The
unionists were the aggressors.