breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 920

K Williams

Disregarding your cheap rhetorical trick of using a loaded word like 'scare', what I don't like about the law is that it allows the government to secretly snoop into things it has no business snooping into.

If, for example, a particular library book is found at a crime scene, and the cops want to know who was the last to take it out, that is fine. I have no problem with that. But when they just want to find out what a particular person has been reading, or find out who has been reading a certain breastle, or even any breastle on a certain subject, that is far from fine. It is really not much different from the general warrants that we fought a revolution to abolish.

I would suggest that you go and read some 4th amendment jurisprudence and some history to understand why that is far from fine, but from the tone of your posts I know you won't read it, I know you have no interest in learning anything about it, and I doubt that you are even capable of understanding it.

It is abundantly clear that you are incapable of participating in a civil discussion, so unless you have anything substantive to say, this will be my last response to you. Feel free to call me a clueless idiot a few more times if that will make you feel better. Coming from a troglodyte like you, that is a compliment.

Thank you for providing a source that supports what I have been saying and repudiates what you have been saying.

Like warrantless searches, to name just one.

I won't bother asking for a source, because I know you can't provide one for such a blatant falsehood. The situation is as I described it. See, for instance, section 8.5 of LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure, 2-e. And here is a link to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Secrecy is covered in Rule 6(e)(2). Note that the witness is not on the list of people bound to secrecy. Note also that a violation of secrecy is contempt, but not a crime.

Despite the old saying, it is not true that all is fair in war. It is not a question of being concerned with terrorism; it is a question of being concerned *only* with terrorism, to the exclusion of all other considerations. Some people do not want this country to turn into a clone of the Argentine junta that disappeared thousands of its own people. Evidently, you think that prospect is just dandy.

By "this absurd buttertion" I buttume you mean the buttertion that none of the detainees are POWs. That buttertion is certainly a lie. As for "beaten to rest", that would seem to be your standard response to anyone or anything that you disagree with.

I can't, because it is not a fact. Neither you nor anyone else here who shares your opinion has provided any legal authority for that idea. Provide some such authority, and I'll listen, but until you do, you should stop making a fool of yourself and keep quiet about things you don't understand.

Which people? Those in Eisentrager were not (at least at no relevant time). Those in Quantanamo? Probably none were (again, at least at no relevant time), but we don't know because of the secrecy. Padilla certainly was in the US, or do you claim that I lie about that case, or that the SC lied about the facts in its opinion? The opinion is easily available on the web, so you can see it I lied.

Presumably, though we don't know because of the secrecy.

How do you know? Even if true, it is immaterial, because the Convention does not require uniforms.

You mean not US citizens? Or not Afghans? If the latter, what does it matter?

Yet not a single one of you has come up with an alternative, supported by any authority.

You have made it abundantly clear that you know nothing about running wars, or at least about running them legally.

First, I was talking about the habeas pebreastions mostly, for which there would be no recovery from the government. Second, I know of no jurisdiction that allows contingency fees above 40%, although there may be some. Third, what does 'nieve' mean?

But all that is less important than your admission that what the government is doing is wrong, for if what they are doing is okay, there would be no judgments against them from which the shysters would get their cut. Let me repeat that to make sure you and everyone else understands: You are admitting that the detainees are kept in isolation in Guantanamo to make it harder for them to sue the government for their treatment, because the government knows that what is doing is illegal, and they don't want to have to answer for that in court.

You keep saying this with no support at all. You are quite simply wrong.

Yes, the facts do speak for themselves. Your first two sentences here are flat out contradictory. If they are POWs, they do not need to have charges against them, but if they are not, they do. The only other option is illegal detention.

You don't seem to understand that being a POW is not a punishment. The sole purpose of keeping POWs is to prevent them from returning to the service of the enemy. There is nothing at all punitive about it.

If, however, the POW or anyone else has committed a war crime, punishment for that crime requires some sort of trial. That remains true no matter how many times you deny it.

The world did not begin on 11 Sep 2001. He thinks we did harm him, and all Islam. Our very presence in Saudi was a desecration. Not that I agree with him, or think that such a belief justifies his actions, but that is, as I understand it, how he sees it. Your complete intolerance of other views, and your encouragement of criminal behavior up to and including war crimes and liquidate, makes you very similar to him in general outlook (although obviously the details are different).

You are the one claiming that Islam is monolithic and unchanging.

Talking to the mirror again, I see.

Again, I am glad to see you finally admitting that what is going on there is illegal.

The US government is always bound by US law.

You and Lt. Calley ought to get together.

--