Weekend Reader Tips

Dedicated to Sasha Trudeau.

1984, Orwell

The Hate had started:

The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one's teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one's neck. The Hate had started.

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. ...-

2006, Castro

Oswaldo Paya is Emmanuel Goldstein. ...-

Beatings and Mud Soup

A Visit with Cuba's Persecuted

By Carsten Volkery in Havana, Cuba

Accusations, arrests, executions -- the Cuban revolution isn't known for handling its critics gently. The spectrum of punishments ranges from beatings to prison in Guantánamo, where prisoners are served mud soup.

Oswaldo Paya sits in his living room in Havana's Cerro district. The door is locked and the window shutters are closed. Pictures of his three children hang on the wall next to a framed award certificate -- the Sacharov Prize the European Union's parliament awarded him for his commitment to human rights. Paya sways nervously back and forth on his rocking chair. He wipes his brow with a handkerchief. "It'll start in a moment," he says.

The Cuban national hymn blasts from loudspeakers outside as he gives an interview to European journalists. Paya gets up and peers through a gap in the shutters. Cuban flags hang suspended on the walls of the building opposite. A group of people stands in front of the building and yells insults in his direction. "You worm!" they holler. "Long live the Revolution!" Paya asks his visitors not to take any pictures. He doesn't want to provoke anyone. In the past demonstrators have vandalized his house, but this time there is no physical violence.

The Cuban version of the medieval pillory is called "Acto de Repudio" -- act of repulsion. Paya is Cuba's most well-known dissident and he often has to endure this kind of treatment. ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13379.7

Funny how a sudden silence on a blog can be deafening...

Just one more tree falling in the forest unseen and unheard by those with their eyes closed, with iPods firmly plugged into their ears, and dreaming of the next fairy tale to recite...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/19/mideast.html

Funny how a sudden silence on a blog can be deafening...

Just one more tree falling in the forest unseen and unheard by those with their eyes closed, with iPods firmly plugged into their ears, and dreaming of the next fairy tale to recite...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/19/mideast.html

Funny how a sudden silence on a blog can be deafening...

Just one more tree falling in the forest unseen and unheard by those with their eyes closed, with iPods firmly plugged into their ears, and dreaming of the next fairy tale to recite...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/19/mideast.html

Triple posting isn't all that funny Harry!

So now that we have a UN brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah we find that France no longer seems to have any interest in honouring its commitment to lead the UN force. Now that the bombs have stopped, France says it will commit some 200 troops to the 15,000 UN troops proposed. France went from volunteering to lead the UN mission, to now only contributing a token force troops to the cause!

However, a few nations have stepped up to the plate with larger troop commitments. Which nations you ask? Why Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Nepal. The problem with these particular nations is that they are all Muslim majority countries, that don't recognize Israel as a country! Didn't Indonesia promise to send elite special forces to help Hezbollah during the conflict? What responsible government would leave the safety of its citizens in the hands of its enemy's sympathizers.

Furthermore, the UN mission has no intention to disarm Hezbollah! Is this not truly a victory for Hezbollah, I mean the internation community is basically coming to the rescue of a terrorist group! For anyone who think this is peace you are dead wrong, this ceasefire has only made the situation worse.

My question is; does Israel have any obligation to honour this toothless ceasefire?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e8dffc00-04ee-4c9e-99c9-d9f5cb26dc74&p=1

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/444707p-374496c.html

So now that we have a UN brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah we find that France no longer seems to have any interest in honouring its commitment to lead the UN force. Now that the bombs have stopped, France says it will commit some 200 troops to the 15,000 UN troops proposed. France went from volunteering to lead the UN mission, to now only contributing a token force troops to the cause!

However, a few nations have stepped up to the plate with larger troop commitments. Which nations you ask? Why Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Nepal. The problem with these particular nations is that they are all Muslim majority countries, that don't recognize Israel as a country! Didn't Indonesia promise to send elite special forces to help Hezbollah during the conflict? What responsible government would leave the safety of its citizens in the hands of its enemy's sympathizers.

Furthermore, the UN mission has no intention to disarm Hezbollah! Is this not truly a victory for Hezbollah, I mean the internation community is basically coming to the rescue of a terrorist group! For anyone who think this is peace you are dead wrong, this ceasefire has only made the situation worse.

My question is; does Israel have any obligation to honour this toothless ceasefire?

One correction, Nepal a majority Muslim country

One correction, Nepal is not a majority Muslim country

Double posting isn't all that funny Ryan!

There harb, I've said it so you don't have to, albeit rather tongue in cheek, since it should now be obvious even to you harb that perhaps there are other explainations for double and triple posts appearing, such as gremlins and glitches in servers.

What ceasefire? Lebanon and the UN have already said that they have no intentions of disarming H'Bollah south of the Litani River. The two kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned. There is no ceasefire, it is null and void.

That's what I'm saying. If Israel reistablishes military opperations in Lebanon, everyone is going to blame Israel for violating the ceasefire, (which has already started to some degree) but the deal that Israel agreed to is not being honoured. It seems to me they have every right to start attacking Hezbollah again. In fact I think they need to start things up again, this ceasefire has set a dangerous precident.

Hmmmm, cracks appearing in the united front against Israel....LOL....

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1154525905236

Arab media slam Syrian president

Syria's president sparked a wave of anger after he knocked Mideast leaders as "half men" in a televised speech, underlining the divisions as Arab nations try to form a unified front in the wake of the Lebanon crisis.

So far governments have not commented on Assad's jibes - instead, the task has been left to newspapers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan - some of which are state-guided - which have been sizzling with personal and direct attacks on Assad the like of which the region has not seen directed against an Arab leader in years.

"If you meant Arab leaders when you said half men, then please clarify what makes you different from them," wrote Salwa al-Sharafi in Elaph, a Saudi-owned online publication.

Aziz al-Haj, also writing in Elaph, said "Assad trembles at the thought of merely a bullet being fired from Syria on Israelis" in the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war. That front has been quiet for decades.

An editorial in Egypt's El-Akhbar daily titled "Half a decision for half an official" said many were surprised that Assad "remained silent during the war ... and didn't take half a decision to respond to the treacherous Israeli offensive on Lebanon."......

I wonder if it will ever dawn on these people that the destruction meted out to Lebanon is proportional to Lebanons support for H'Bollah?

The first foreign troops arrived in Lebanon today to bolster the present contingent of UNIFIL troops. 50 French troops landed in Lebanon today. I believe the French have committed up to 200 troops in the near future, far below the several thousand that the world thought they would send.

I would have to agree with their cautious behavior at this point. Due to Lebanon saying that it will not disarm H'Bollah south of the Litani(which was a major article in Resolution 1701, to gain Israels agreement), and the UN forces having no mandate to confront H'Bollah, and remembering that under the very same conditions that exist now several dozens of their soldiers were blown up in their barracks in the early eighties by H'Bollah, I don't blame the French at all for holding off giving a full deployment until they are given an unequivocal mandate by the UN to use force against H'Bollah if they think the situation warrants military action.

Rivers of blood? ? How does one become "racially abused"? Furthermore, the Muslims are not reprisalling anyone. The reprisals are against Muslims. ...-

Rivers of blood: British - Muslim reprisals begin
This is London ^ | 08/18/2006 | Peter Stebbings

‘Reprisal’ attack on Muslim family By Peter Stebbings A Muslim man from Hornsey was attacked and racially abused as authorities in Haringey appealed for calm and tolerance in the wake of last week's foiled alleged terrorist attack. ...-
free republic

Dear male candidates for office: Using your wife and kid(s) as political props makes me less likely, not more likely, to vote for you. And that goes double for men who hide behind their wife and kid on campaign photos. It makes me think that doing dishes and driving the kid to soccer practice are more important to you than the job I am paying you to do. Oh, and if you use your family as props they are fair game for criticism and satire.

Wrong: zandeeformp.com
Right: tedmorton.ca

Dear female candidates for office: if you show up on my doorstep with your baby slung to your hip, or in a stroller, I will not vote for you. It makes me think that you think your stunt baby is more important than the job I am paying you to do. I am not electing you and your brat(s) as a team.

Wrong: lisamacleod.com
Right: www.joseeverner.ca

Q for the dubya bushists:

what was the biggest war crimes trial in the 20th century?

neuremberg. the nazis on trial. all the top guys they could grab that had nothing more to contribute to the allies in the form of secret mil. technology etc.

did these nazis get legal cousel, decent accomodation, family visits, more legal counsel, translators, reading and writing material etc?

yep.

now fast forward 60 years and shift your locale to guantanamo.

do these prisoners of the war on terror get legal counsel? nope. tortured? yep. copies of the koran to read? nope. family visits? hardly! more legal counsel? not yet! etc etc !!!

and you assholes still defend that hypocricy the size of a godam mountain range. nazis, who could have taken over the entire globe with a bit of fine tuning, garner ALL the rights of prisoners, they killed 10s of MILLIONS, and yet you claim the guantanamo detainees are 'already guilty bla bla bla'. 'national security bla bla bla'.

show us the evidence or let them go !!!! show the world what you got on them and STOP pissing off the entire arab people over this!!!

or let them go. you cant have it both ways dubya.

and this dirty little episode exposes the extremist rightists as being NO DIFFERENT from their arch enemy the extreme leftists. neither of you give a tinkers damn about core essential RIGHTS. only the ones you decide have the 'rights' that you decide they have in which case they arent 'rights' anyway because they are so fleeting and poorly anchored.

* dubya bush.

Watch out gang, Rob J is mixing his meds again. So what brought this rant on Robert? Lads at Gitmo get three squares a day, their own prayer rug, koran even though they are technically not POWs since they are not combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention.

An Epiphany:

My wife and I recently had our first child - a daughter - who is just about 4 months old. She has just started to do that baby gesture where they reach for you with both arms - splayed a little to each side - as if to say, "Carry me."

On the third or fourth occassion where she made this little gesture, I suddenly had a moment of clarity about how to sum up political views.

When talking about politics, we often talk about social liberals/conservatives versus fiscal liberals/conservatives, wealth creation versus zero-sum theory, the state versus the individual and so on.

But, now I realize that you can sum up where a person is on the political spectrum based on at what point they think it acceptable for people to turn to the government (or any other manifestation of "The Authorities") and, in a babyish way say, "Carry me." The level of their radicalness (probably not a word) is how bad of a tantrum they throw when they are not immediately picked up and "carried" by that government. The bad parent (government) is the one that gives into that tantrum for fear of looking like a bad parent.

Think about it...All people, at some point, will look to "The Authorities" for help. But, for conservatives, the "carry me" point only comes when the individual needs real physical protection from a threat to either their person or property from criminals (i.e. "Carry me justice system") or an outside invader ("Carry me military").

To be a liberal, the "Carry me" plea is for anything else. It only varies by degree.

Example: Somebody says something that truly offends you.
Conservative reponse: Go to the person or entity (if it is an organization) and tell them how you feel and see if you can come to a resolution. In other words, face up to your problems and take care of them yourself.
Liberal reponse: File a human rights complaint. Sue (but, of course, it's not about the money). And demand laws to protect others from going through the "horror" you have experienced. In other words, "Carry me, courts and government."

Another example: This month, I can't afford to feed my child and buy my usual quota of beer and popcorn.
Conservative reponse: Make the tough decision and sarcifice on the beer and popcorn.
Liberal reponse: Complain that the cost of beer and popcorn (I mean childcare) has been made too excessive by the corrupt capitalists and demand that the government subsidise your childcare (because it would be bad optics to ask for beer and popcorn subsidies - at least for now). In other words, "Carry me, government."

I haven't fully fleshed out this theory. Anyone who sees a problem, let me know. But, the basic point is that, being a conservative means you have to think and come up with unique solutions to your own problems. Being a liberal is so easy though. It only requires you to address every problem with "Carry me...[someone else]"

Bryceman, congratulations on joining the ranks of parenthood. It is both the most rewarding and frustrating of times. It is worth every moment.

I also love your parent/kid analogy. Works for me. I always compared Quebec separating to a spoilt teen wanting to move out of the house but still expects to get their allowance.

mr not: would that be the copy of the koran they had to fish out of the toilet?

did ANY of the nazi war crimes folks get tortured whilst in custody? I have never heard a single allegation of that from anyone in the entire 60 years that have passed.

did inmates at guantanamo AND/OR abu grihab get tortured? YEP, we's gots the video !!! care to comment on the discrepancy???

and note the heavy use of the 'technicality'. its called a WAR on terror but the opposition is conveniently not 'combatants' as in a WAR so, nyuk nyuk nyuk they dont get the same fundamental intrinsic and most basic RIGHTS (for whatever reason) as the americans give themselves.

which thank you mr not, proves my point about their arrogance!!

and yet again the arch rightist personified by mr not reverts to type, engages in personal attack when they cant win the arguement with logic and historical fact etc. such so so typical bushist rightistisms......

f* dubya bush and all his false 'christian' ethics

well one advantage when quebec leaves in a huff, at least there's going to be more friggin room on packages when the francais is phased out. then the point size for the english directions/ingredients/etc will double just in time for me to continue to be able to read without eyeglasses.

LOL !!!

Hey RobertJ:

I'm getting a little sick of folks like you referring to those at Gitmo as "prisoners of war." They are not. The best explanation I have ever heard (read actually) was at ejectejecteject.com. The article was called "Sanctuary". It was referenced on this site some time ago.

Basically, here is how you classify a "prisoner of war". If the subject doesn't pass this test, they are NOT subject to the same "rights" of a true "POW".

1) Does the person wear a uniform signifying that they are a member of a military charged with defending the political interest of their country? In carrying out their military function, do they wear a uniform at all?

2) Will they stop fighting because the government of their country tells them to? In other words, "Do they follow orders?"

3) On the battlefield, are they capable of taking prisoners and taking care of them as POW's as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions? If they mistreat captured soldiers are they or their superiors subject to judgement by a military or political body?

4) Are they governed by any laws that require them to treat civilians differently than soldiers? Do they respect those laws? Do they distinguish themselves from the civilian population (by wearing a uniform - see Item 1) so that the enemy knows that they are a legitimate target in time of war while the civilian without a uniform is not?

You will note that the US military treated the uniformed soldiers of the Iraqi army with full honor. There have been no reports of anything else. Heck, batallion commanders were even allowed to keep their sidearms as a show of respect and authority. Same with the Nazis. Same with any army that the western powers have ever fought where the enemy passed the test represented by the questions I have given here.

The most important point here is that these are people who don't take orders from any legitimate government. They are not fighting because the leaders of their countries told them to and they won't stop fighting just because the leaders of their countries tell them to.

If, at the end of WWII, there were German units, or U-boats, or whatever, that ignored the order to surrender, they would have been branded as renegades by all sides (including the Germans) and no one would have questioned their being hunted down and treated differently than the soldier on the battlefield who obeys orders.

Rights are balanced with responsibilities. If you shrug off your responsibilities in war...you lose the rights. The End.

Please attempt to learn about what you speak before you open your trap again.

yo brycie:

it is exactly this legalistic mumbo jumbo that puts the guantanimo detainees in limbo and thus robbed of THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL that I object to.

when are we going to get to SEE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. hmmmm???? not convenient at this time is it ???? what is the white house afraid of???

my guess: the evidence is the same low quality used to get into iraq in the first place, but it is going to be too embarassing if this factoid leaks out, therefore better to leave some number of innocents mixed in with the guilty and thus dubya saves face.

did you ever care to LOOK into precisely HOW these detainees were 'found'?? some of them were just grabbed off the street minding their own business !!!

how do the arrogant americans KNOW with such certainty that all the detainees are 'guilty' of 'whatever'??? if the evidence is THAT good lets see it !!!

but no, they are in mumbo jumboland legal limbo so nyuk nyuk nyuk 'make me' says dubya like the recess-yard-sandbox-bully he is.

the 'trap' here is the 'trap' the americans have set and are about to step in themselves.

by the way, its PRIVILIGES balanced with responsibility, RIGHTS are the stuff EVERYONE is supposed to get EQUALLY however distateful for some. its the acid test sirrah. the RIGHT to COUNSEL is one of THE MOST BASIC OF ALL RIGHTS. its the one where you get someone 'on the outside' free to go hither and thither mustering up arguements so you are ensured all the OTHER rights.

but the bushists have made godam sure that this fundamental RIGHT has been abridged for these 'in-limbo' types.

even the very conservative present supreme court said so. but naturally the 'rightists' (oh the irony of THAT word!!!) in the white house choose to IGNORE that decision and STILL refuse to MAKE SURE the detainees GET A FUCKING LAWYER.

because theyve taken another look at the evidence in secret and let out a big collective 'uh oh' when they saw it was wanting.

you dont get it.

right on texas only it's more like the spoiled child that always threatens to leave home.

Thanks, bryceman. Good, justifiable points re "Carry me" AND Geneva Convention rubrics.

RobertJ: yawn.

miranda:
'you have a right to a LAWYER if you cannot afford one ...etc'

legal aid:
if you dont have the cash right now and lots of it, you will still get a LAWYER, just not right away.

duty counsel:
on the spot quickie legal advice from licenced LAWYERS at no cost, RIGHT IN THE COURT HOUSE.

you get hauled into jail in a foreign coutry?
jeezuz. get a lawyer somehow.

ANY godam time you get dragged into court, civil or criminal, GET A GODAM LAWYER.

buying property? wanna save a few bucks closing the deal???? mmmmm nah. better GET A LAWYER.

lawyers that get busted and dragged into court? even THEY 'get a lawyer'.

but................. guantanimo ????? ummmmm, lawyers ???????? uuuhhh...... where ????? are they apparitions and ghosts???? what are the procedures and sequence of steps to present our defence, and the venue and and and .....

whats that ????? we dont GOT NO GODAM LAWYER 'CAUSE THE BUSHISTS SAY WE CANT?????

everything else is secondary until and unless you GET A LAWYER TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED IN THE SINGLE MOST COMPLEX SYSTEM DEVISED IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION. and that is the LEGAL SYSTEM. which varies from country to country. and contradicts itself and is vague even within the same country and NOTHING is guaranteed except that if you dont GET A LAWYER, then youre FUCKED. which is EXACTLY why the bushists will NOT allow the detainees to GET A LAWYER.

its a godam SETUP.

do you get it now oh bushists?????

Bryceman - congrats on the birth of your daughter, and thanks for the clarity of your comments, including taking RobertJ to task. Alas, the latter is unlikely to be as rewarding as the former. "Answer a fool according to his folly..."

RobertJ - I do not use the word "fool" lightly. Vent your spleen in more measured doses, and watch your language.

RobertJ: DOUBLE YAWN. (And for Pete's sake, grow up.)

No RobertJ:

It is you who doesn't get it. "Rights" are something that someone can lay a legal claim to. Privileges are something that are granted or revoked at the whim of an authority. Look up the definitions in a dictionary. I'm not going to argue this one with you. I am correct on this and you are incorrect. It's really that simple.

More, to claim a "right", you have to be covered by the laws of a jurisdiction under which you obey your balancing "responsibilities." Example, both the US and Canada have it written into their Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (respectively) that everyone has the right to freely move within the nation...but, that right can be taken away when you are incarcerated for a crime. In other words, you fail to honor your responsiblities, you lose your rights. This is the foundation of all law going back as far in history as I know. Where do you live?

I know that liberals have a hard time accepting this. They think that rights are something that they just get for living...but, it's not true.

I cannot go to another country and claim a legal right that goes beyond any treaties that exists between my country (Canada) and the country I am visiting. If I am caught with heroin in Thailand, I will face the death penalty. I cannot say to them, "I'm from Canada...you know, the country of Trudeau." and expect them to say, "Oh...ok, then you have rights." It's not gonna happen.

The same goes for those being held at Guantanamo. They have no legal right to counsel. They are not covered under US civilian law and, as I have already clearly established (because you are now avoiding that topic), they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

You keep talking about "evidence" and what are these people "guilty" of...as if you think that they are accused of being traditional criminals. Please take some time to think before you speak Robert...is it your contention that they are military officers deserving of the protection of the Geneva Conventions (which I have already debunked)? Or are you claiming that they are criminals and that they should be subject to the US Justice system? You can't have it both ways. They are not the same thing.

I haven't heard anyone says that they are "guilty" of a crime as defined by the US Department of Justice. As a bit of a lark, I urge you to call up the office of the US Attorney General and ask about "due process" for people who hide among civilians in the Middle East and sacrifice their children as suicide bombers to kill other civilians. Please...really try this. The way that they laugh at you might knock some sense into you.

Of course, they would laugh because it is beyond their jurisdiction. Now, ask them the same question...but replace "Middle East" with "Downtown Los Angeles", and then the rules of "right to counsel", "due process", and all of that do become relevant.

Now, when it is terrorists killing soldiers or civilians this way (by not obeying the rules of war), we are into an area of combat that we have never had to face before.

The US Supreme court has been handing down rulings saying that the President doesn't have "carte blanche" to do whatever he wants to these detainees for as long as he wants. But, no one...not even the courts are arguing that they have the same rights (or "privileges" as you call them) as an American citizen.

lookout: if you are ever busted for ANYTHING, or know anyone busted for ANYTHING, or have ever heard of a legal case of anyone busted for ANYTHING worthy of a defence attorney, did that individual decide to go it alone and refuse or for any other reason, show up in court WITHOUT A LAWYER???????????

so why the 'yawn' about the detainees RIGHT TO COUNSEL ????

jeezuz, even those detainees who HAD ARRANGED for lawyers, their attornies werent allowed to interview them !!!

and that sirrah, REEKS of bushistism.

thuggery at the highest level.

kangaroo court revisited; the worst practice inflicted upon a typical russian citizen in the depths of communism: STAGED trials. denied PROPER legal advice. PRECISELY what the bushists are doing RIGHT NOW.

and still you defend it.

you have shown your TRUE nature sirrah, a fascist despot perfectly willing to beat up anyone you choose. in any way you choose including denying them reasonable access to the legal system which has taken CENTURIES of fine tuning.

all withheld in the interests of the bushist white house because of the danger of yet another huge embarassment called 'lack of evidence'.

if-ya-got-the-evidence-lets-see-it-otherwise-shut-the-fuk-up-and-let-them-go.

it is axiomatic that you cant lock people up because of what they 'might' do. or because you dont like them.

unless youre an arrogant american bushist spewing false 'christian' values.

Very well said, bryceman. Many thanks for your civil, lucidly stated argument. (And give that little gal a hug!)

TRIPLE YAWN, RJ.

On a personal level, I hope you get some help with your delusions and your serious anger management problems. And perhaps you could start by wording your posts more moderately. It would be a good exercise and your arguments might carry more weight. I'm surprised Kate lets you get away with your uncouth rants. You say she gives you special dispensation. How come?

It appears RobertJ really believes "it is axiomatic that you cant lock people up because of what they 'might' do. or because you dont like them."

Why? Defend your assertion, since many legitimate governments follow this practise. For the sake of argument, let us suppose the current American administration also follows this practise. Are they the worst offender, or are there other governments that "unjustly" lock up more people. If so, ought we not focus on them first?

Briefly, please, and without profanity.

Last point. These prisoners do not fall under any definition we have yet. They are not POWs and they are not civilians accused of a crime on US soil. Those are the only two scenarios we have for defining people who are detained.

I'll grant that the US had better come up with some set of rules or else public opinion will turn as time goes on. But, they are doing nothing wrong as defined by any laws anywhere...domestic or international.

OK...enough.

Either RobertJ is a troll and deliberately speaking foolishly just to try to stir up people into explaining what everyone should already know...or he is mentally handicapped.

Either way, I'm done.

Thanks for the congrats Texan Canuck and Henry. It is indeed both frustrating and fun...but I wouldn't trade it for anything. I'm more nervous about the teenage years.

I'm afraid that, when she wants to start dating, I'm going to be one of those paranoid fathers who feels he might have to buy a big freezer in which to store all of the young men's bodies (kidding of course).

"They are not covered under US civilian law and, as I have already clearly established (because you are now avoiding that topic), they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions."

and there it is folks !! the essence of the bushists position !!!

do tell, what 'right' did the americans have to traipse into a foreign country, round up thousands and dump them into a foreign lockup using exclusionary logic to deny them legal representation???

do tell, what sort of brooha would ensue if some nation did THAT to thousands of americans that they dont like???

but that doesnt happen does it, because usa is the only world power right now and theyve more or less locked down the borders.

making them cheap common bullies.

and why do you keep harping on geneva convention at the same time you harp on the point they are not traditional combat soldiers??? YOURE they one keeps drumming up THAT red herring.

REGARDLESS of what basis they are incarcerated, it is an unprecedented event that so many individuals have been kept incommunicado and albelled as not having rights to counsel.

it is EXACTLY what one might expect out os somewhere like cuba or n korea. I find it most most most hypocritical that these bastions of freedom and democracy (and reliable oil supply) americans see fit to pick and choose who else shares those priviliges. most hypocritical.

and here it is again asswipe: how does ANYBODY 'know' what these detainees have done to land themselves in guantanimo if it isnt PRESENTED in a court or hearing or some other venue which, egad, involves structured predetermined procedures called the legal system????
ie WITH LEGAL COUNSEL HANDLING THE MYRIAD DETAILS.

it would seem the americans have the 'right' to decide they are going to beat up and 'make an example of' using all manner of kangaroo court excuses.

by the way, have these detainees even been charged with anything or is THAT all speculative as well???

I guess actually laying charges is uncomfortably close to the actual well known and well used procedures of then bringing them to 'horror of horrors' TRIAL WITH A LAWYER PRESENT.

you want to know why americans are so despised in so many corners of the world? THIS is the knid of thing they do to get that hatred. all their bullying and duplicity.

well one day theres going to be a friggin nuke pop off in some coastal town because of the resentment they are so thoroughly creating directed at themselves.

still waiting for someone to cite a SINGLE instance where white house honcho has EVER publicly admitted to screwing up big time against the interests and rights of another country.

still waiting ......

still waiting .......

not gonna happen at this juncture ......

QUADRUPLE YAWN, RJ. This is getting boring. Good night.

uh henry !!!

check any legal volume in canukistan:

they dwell pretty much exclusively on reconciling existing sanctions against illegal acts ACTUALLY COMMITTED.

but first the crown has to PROVE IN COURT that ya did it. not that you were maybe possibly coulda done it but havent actually done it yet.

THATS the part about the axiom.

aaaaand true to form brycie resorts to insults and mud slinging and personal attacks.

so now it is my turn to 'yawn'.

bryceman - they grow, you grow. Do it reasonably right, pray lots, and you will have no cause for paranoia...but buy the shotgun anyway :)

This is for you Bryceman.

www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/3456/h_rulesdating.html

:)

"I'll grant that the US had better come up with some set of rules or else public opinion will turn as time goes on. But, they are doing nothing wrong as defined by any laws anywhere...domestic or international."

sooooo brycie, what youre saying is the americans have chosen to make up the rules as they go.

who else can do that and getand get away with it than a bully?

is there any effort anywhere in the present bushist administration to work out these 'new rules'???

no???? not surprising !!!

the simple fact is the bushist regime is similar to a street thug school yard bully.

the kind whose victims eventually grow up and smash the living * out of them. the americans are, right now, sowing the seeds of a huge eventual retribution. all because of the bushist attitude of 'wesayso' and the desire to lock up a bunch of schmucks they grabbed off the streets of baghdad.

sheesh.

RobertJ - imagine (pardon the Lennon allusion) two different restaurants. You are in one, bitterly complaining about some imagined problem with the food, and being tolerated by the waiter (and the rest of the diners). The other restaurant is force-feeding swill to unwilling patrons its management drags in of the street...

How should you act?

do tell, what 'right' did the americans have to traipse into a foreign country, round up thousands and dump them into a foreign lockup using exclusionary logic to deny them legal representation???

Simple...September 11, 2001. The US knew that the source of the problem was Afghanistan so they invaded. They did not traipse in. They committed an act of war that they were willing to back up. Afghanistan is free to fight back. But, as the Afghanis I know here in Canada have told me, that would never happen because only 5% of Afghanis supported them.

In short, the US kicked some ass and rounded up the bad guys. Yeeehawww. Note how, in Afghanistan, no one argues (not even the CBC) that there is a distinction between Afghans and Taliban.

do tell, what sort of brooha would ensue if some nation did THAT to thousands of americans that they dont like???

To do that, another nation would have to invade the US. I think even you, Robert, are bright enough to figure out what would happen in that situation.

To further highlight the difference between those at Gitmo and those who really have rights, I refer you to the Moussaoui (spelling?) case.

Someone arrested on American soil - even though he was directly implicated in the worst mass murder of civilians in US history. Assigned a full legal team and all of the "rights" of a defendant...miranda, due process, the whole thing.

My position is proper, clear, and well proven. Not gonna answer your ramblings anymore Robert. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. You are thoroughly defeated. Poll the other free thinking people on this site. Keep banging your head against the wall if you like. Me and those who share my ideals will keep the rest of us (including the mentally feeble) safe with our ideals.

For those who are interested:

4. “Unlawful” combatants are those who take a direct part in hostilities without having the legal right to do so under the LOAC.
----
MILITIAS, VOLUNTEER GROUPS AND ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS
10. In some cases, a party to a conflict may have armed groups fighting on its behalf that are not part of its armed forces. Such groups may be fighting behind enemy lines or in occupied territory. Partisans and resistance fighters who fought in occupied territory in the Soviet Union and France during World War II are examples of such groups.

11. Members of militias, volunteer corps and organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, are combatants provided they:
a. are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b. wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c. carry arms openly; and
d. conduct their operations in accordance with the LOAC.

12. Militias, volunteer corps and organized resistance movements must “belong” to a party to the conflict in the sense that they are acknowledged by that party as fighting on its behalf or in its support.
---
CONDITIONS TO RETAIN COMBATANT STATUS
15. To ensure the protection of the civilian population, combatants are required to distinguish themselves
from that population when engaging in an attack or preparing to mount an attack.

16. There may be situations where, owing to the nature of the hostilities, armed combatants (such as resistance movements) cannot normally distinguish themselves from the civilian population. In such situations, those personnel retain their status as lawful combatants and their entitlement to prisoner of war
status upon capture provided they carry their arms openly:
a. during each military engagement, and
b. during such time as they are visible to the adversary while they are engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which they are to participate.
---
CIVILIANS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES
28. Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities (other than a levée en masse) are unlawful combatants. They lose their protection as civilians and become legitimate targets for such time as they take a direct part
in hostilities.

29. If captured, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are not entitled to PW status, but they must nevertheless be treated humanely. They may also be punished as unlawful combatants but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees.
---
36. In all cases of doubt as to the status of persons captured during hostilities, they shall be treated as PWs until a properly constituted tribunal has determined their proper status. If the tribunal determines that the captive is a lawful combatant, that captive will be entitled to PW status. For the CF, the composition of the tribunal and the procedure to be followed can be found in the Prisoner of War Status Determination Regulations, in QR&O[s].

From the "Law of Armed Conflict", which happens to be the Canadian Army handbook on the subject.

I really don't think the RobertJ has adequately studied this subject.

Cheers
JMH

Signaller222:

Thank-you. I have not had that good of a laugh from reading something in a long time.

I'm thinking of printing it out and framing it.

Thank-you JMH:

No, it is obvious that RobertJ is not someone who is educated or even clear-thinking.

What scares me is that there are so many out there who would even dare to speak out strongly when they have no real basis on which to form an opinion. As long as they don't outnumber us, I guess we're safe, though...for now.

"is bush an idiot?"

well ya dont have ta take my word for it, this from the washington post:

Pundits Renounce The President
Among Conservative Voices, Discord

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A04

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

Joe Scarborough asked whether Bush is smart enough to lead. (Msnbc Photo - Msnbc Photo)

These have been tough days politically for President Bush, what with his popularity numbers mired in the 30s and Republican candidates distancing themselves as elections near. He can no longer even rely as much on once-friendly voices in the conservative media to stand by his side, as some columnists and television commentators lose faith in his leadership and lose heart in the war in Iraq.

etc etc......

sooooooo leading prominent republicans are coming round to what Ive been saying since oh, say, before 'Y2K' ......

any comment all you guantanimo defenders?????

got news for ya brycie !!!

IRAQ HAD NUTHIN TO DO WITH 911. IT WAS ALL AL QUADA. NOT saddam.

but it did provide the necessary excuse.

and this from item 29 in jhm's posting:

"They may also be punished as unlawful combatants but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees."

yoooooo hoooooo !!!!! the arrogant americans refuse to conduct these FAIR TRIALS AND ALL JUDICIAL GUARANTEES.

that ladies and gentlement is the crux of my objection.

I want them to be run thru the legal system like all other accused felons and then run thru again if IF they are guilty.

but the bushists are 'afeared' the 'evidence' (whut dat?) wont support the convictions. and so they sit in guantanimo in limbo. a limbo created by the americans and their ad hoc and cherry picked application of whatever rules they see fit to apply.

brycie:
"To do that, another nation would have to invade the US. "
ummm, not gonna happen brycie !!! us of a is king of the mountain and as expected are using that immense power to beat up anyone they feel like!!! thats what bullies do sirrah !!!

aaaaand back to you mr heirichs:

gee, more hypocricy: the american revolution was won by the participation of farmers and shop keepers, NOT exclusively a professional army.

we gonna void that victory now???

incidentally, any foreign invader land in MY backyard I would feel quite comfortable putting a couple rounds in their head. right in the eyeball to show the marksmanship their dealing with. insignia or not.

any guesses how long this guantanimo farce will be allowed to continue???? any statute of limitations on this grey area status glitch??

oh. that too is at the whim of the bushists. I see. no current rules, so ignore the criticism and rights violation because harumph harumph even though THEY ARE IN AMERICAN JURISDICTION NOW, the 'normal' civil and 'normal' military paths to justice just aint there nyuk nyuk nyuk.

and meanwhile, fast forward 15 or 20 years, one of these blokes has his finger on the 'trigger' be it a dirty bomb or suitcase full of anthrax or airplane loaded with napalm, you think he's gonna reconsider retribution???

so it would appear the longer these non-com's non-whatevers are kept out of circulation, the more dire the situation and necessity to 'lock 'em up an' trow aways da key (how many times you hear THAT applied to offenses not yet committed?)'. its called a VISCIOUS CIRCLE and the americans created it for themselves.

and THAT ladies and gentlemen brings us full circle to whit: the arrogance of american superpower fueled bullying is the petrie dish of a LOT of the animosity they are now getting from numerous quarters.

I genuinely hope YOU brycie are on that train that al quada hits next time around. hows THAT for getting personal????

irony of ironies: americans trot out the propaganda about bringing democracy to iraq and .....
kill 10s of thousands of iraqi citizens in the process.

weird. hey baghdad toddler !! yer free but yer dead !!! har har har

but well in keeping with their centuries long history of violence and aggression. they are after all, the single most aggressive and violent and militant nation/empire since the begining of time. hint: rome didnt have the hydrogen bomb. hint #2: soviet communism didnt exist when the americans were committing genocide on the natives as they expanded west.

sooooooo it would appear that these 'non-combatant non-civilians' are simply evening the odds by coming up with a new 'category' of fighter. and the bushists are too stoooopid (see previous post "is bush an idiot") to know how to deal with them, so they revert to type and do the common street thug thing. the thing they have so much experience at. (meddle meddle meddle etc)

2 CENTURIES of aggression. they appear to be hard wired to commit it.

but this is 2006, a time of instant communication and suitcase nukes. there will be an atonement and the bystanders including me will join in unison with 'thats very sad but not unexpected'.

japan has clearly learned the lesson that the americans dished out to them but have not learned themselves: if you choose to engage in war, there can be very negative unexpected consequences.

but bush is (quoting his own words now) a 'war president'.

ya george !! ya GOT yer war eh??? (see previous post "is bush an idiot" again)

etc etc

Robert, Hussein WAS a genocial, terrorist supporting, WMD using maniac. He never accounted for the WMD the UN knew he had. Iraq and the rest of humanity is better off without him, and all of your other genocidal Communist heros. These are indisputable facts. If you want to hang your Communist hat on Saddam then so be it.

"Unlawful combatants" have one right: a bullet to the head.

Please try to notice how this residual violence in Iraq is Muslim on Muslim -- not Iraqi on American. These freaks are planting land mines on soccer fields where they know CHILDREN WILL PLAY.

You defend this while demonizing Americans who really just want to give Iraqis a representative government? You're just SICK. SICK!

aaaaah...

C'mon you guys!
All RobertJ needs is a hug and hims will feel better. Maybe pat-pats on hims back will bring up the nasties hims got.

Congratulations, bryceman, on the birth of your daughter. Always keep her "emotional tank" full, listen to her, establish a real relationship with her, set the rules and stick to them, and you'll be fine through the teenage years.

My husband and I have just about got our two daughters through that rough passage (our younger girl is 19), and I've found that a sense of humour is essential. If you can find some humour in a potentially explosive situation and let your teenager save face rather than backing her against the wall, it's a good thing for both of you.

'Hang in there, and have fun! The years fly by faster than you think.