"President Must Answer to Downing Street Memo"

rk wrote:

For instance, now the attention is on that the real
documents were destroyed. Be interesting to see where that goes.

snip

So, to migrate, I note that there was quite excellent documentation
of Apollo, with much of it still existing

If you're referring to the fire, surely you jest. Information delayed
for decades (like justice delayed) is essentially (especially for the
dead) information denied (the same as justice denied). Ask Scott and
Betty Grissom, if you've forgotten already.

and more and more becoming publicly available
and readily accessible in digital format over the net.

Could you be a bit more explicit, particularly as to its relevance to
the fire?

Challenger's Ghost

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:28:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



George William Herbert wrote:

Unfortunately, this is a naive and ignorant viewpoint.

Spies and Saboteurs have always been excluded from
the prisoner of war treaties.



Ah-ha! Spies and saboteurs! But spies spy for foreign powers, and
saboteurs sabotage things for foreign powers... in short, they are in
the employ of a foreign power. Take that aspect away, and they become
mere criminals, and subject to civil law.
In a peculiar way, your argument makes Al Queda either something
equivalent to an organized crime syndicate- and subject to civil law; or
a full blown foreign power- and subject to the Geneva Conventions in the
treatment of its members as prisoners to that given to prisoners of a
foreign power.

Or something in between, which is in fact what it is.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:01:09 -0400, in a place far, far away, Kevin
Willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
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.

While that is troubling (though being picked up on a battlefield
waging war in the name of Allah and the Taliban is certainly "probably
cause") and legitimate to criticize, what upsets many is the spurious
and hyperbolic comparison of this to gulags, and Nazi death camps and
the killing fields of Cambodia. This is odious, and trivializes and
minimizes what happened to millions of victims of those totalitarian
regimes. And it seems more born of partisanship than of any genuine
concern for the rights of those terrori--(SORRY) detainees.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:29:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jim
Oberg" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/004746.php

Times of London:

The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first
obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in
The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the
documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the
originals.

Gee, you mean the story was, in Dan Rather's words, "fake, but
accurate"?

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:43:18 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Jim Oberg wrote:

It appears that the notorious 'Downing Street memos' are not original
documents but 'reconstructions' based on originals that have been
conveniently destroyed. Does that raise any red flags in people eager to
believe the worst interpretation of them?



It depends if independent sources inside the British government confirm
that the memos are accurate.

Even if they are genuine, that doesn't make them "accurate." They
continue to prove nothing, and there are other memos that disprove
them.

1. What does this have to do with sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.history,
sci.space.policy?

2. And why do these individuals that supposedly added Maxon/Challenger's
Ghost to their killfiles still reply to these messages?


" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://tinyurl.com/9ts2x

"America's credibility, its conscience and soul, stand at a crossroad.
George Bush should be thoroughly investigated by a congressional
committee or independent counsel. And, if these allegations hold true,
Bush should be impeached and then imprisoned for war crimes against
humanity."

While they're at it, committee and counsel should look deeper into the
Columbia tragedy, and at long last, open an independent Challenger
investigation.

Challenger's Ghost

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:41:26 -0500, richard schumacher wrote:

And this has what, exactly, to do with space?

I don't know- I suppose if George Bush is indeed forced to resign and
is then replaced by a Condoleeza Rice/Saddam Hussein Co-Presidency
in the next few weeks, it could have an impact on the RTF schedule

Or maybe we're just in a lull, and these endless OT threads help pass the
time. Might be a useful thing for a long trip to Mars. Or not...

Dale

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:29:47 -0500, "Revision"
wrote:


and that Bush and his press
aids were spinning the hell out of every UN vote and every mention of
Iraq in the press in order to portray Iraq as a clear and immediate
threat.

Um, no. The Bush Administration's position was *always* to act
_before_ Iraq became an "immediate threat".

Brian

Pat Flannery wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Unfortunately, this is a naive and ignorant viewpoint.

Spies and Saboteurs have always been excluded from
the prisoner of war treaties.

Ah-ha! Spies and saboteurs! But spies spy for foreign powers, and
saboteurs sabotage things for foreign powers... in short, they are in
the employ of a foreign power.

Alas, no, being in the employ of a recognized foreign government,
or any foreign government, has never been required for someone to
be treated as a spy or saboteur. Though that is clearly the usual
case where it's applied historically.

It's what they're doing, not who they work for.

We would clearly nationally be within established international
legal norms if we just declared them to be spies and saboteurs,
gave them short but appropriately fair military tribunal hearings
and then had them all shot.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that most of them
prefer being interrogated and in a legally somewhat ambiguous
situation instead, and it's more useful for the US's efforts
to learn what intelligence we can.


-george william herbert

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:05:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
Snellenberger made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In this case, "we" are being asked to prove that the documents are
fakes, when the proper obligation is on the reporter to prove that the
documents are genuine.

The Killian scandal would NEVER have been uncovered if CBS hadn't placed
the "original" documents on-line so that they could be analyzed by font
and other experts in the blogging community.

Hey, Gunga Dan still thinks they're real. Which says he's even dumber
than we used to think.