Re: $100/bbl is "good"???

Larry G wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:22 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry G wrote:
On Jun 15, 5:22 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry G wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:51 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry G wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:56 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rich - how about this:
"The drawings, discovered in 2006 on computers owned by Swiss
businessmen, included essential details for building a compact nuclear
device that could be fitted on a type of ballistic missile used by
Iran and more than a dozen developing countries, the report states."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR200...
now.. should the US go kidnap this Swiss guy and put him in Gitmo?
Answer truthfully. Is this guy not just as dangerous or even more
dangerous than your run-of-the-mill battlefield terrorist?
so the question: Is the US entitled to go capture this guy and put him
in Gitmo?
Do they hold him Gitmo, no. They turn him over to the Europeans where,
from appearances, there would seem to be enough evidence to convict him
for terrorism, or for aiding terrorist.
But in this case he has a clear affiliation with a country where he
could be investigated. With many of those being held in Gitmo that
affiliation is not clear because the person's identity is not clear. Or
it is not clear what country he is from. Or he is from a country that
supports terrorism (Iran, et al). Or he has caused suspicion, but
investigation is not possible because he is from one of those countries.
We certainly just can't take his word for it.
Do you mean that the folks in Gitmo now do not have a "clear
affiliation" with countries as in they are citizens of those
countries?
did you see who it was that was involved in the SCOTUS decision?
..."substantially weakens federal prosecutors' case against Ali al-
Marri, said his lawyer Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center of
Justice at the NYU School of Law.
“The government has argued that al-Marri has no right even to
challenge his detention through habeas corpus,”
Al-Marri, a legal resident alien from Qatar, was arrested in 2001 and
has been held in solitary confinement at a U.S. Navy brig near
Charleston for nearly five years. "
He had moved to Peoria, Ill., with his family a day before the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley
University.
The government has said federal agents found evidence that al-Marri,
originally charged with credit card fraud, had links to al-Qaeda
terrorists and posed a national security threat."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20080612-1337-enemycombatan...
this guy was not a battlefield combatant ... either...and his identity
and country of origin was clear
so why is the Swiss guy not to be put in Gitmo but the Qatar guy is?
oh.. and before you say Qatar is a "terrorist" country or
unfriendly...
"U.S.-QATARI RELATIONS
Bilateral relations are strong and expanding. The U.S. embassy was
opened in March 1973. The first resident U.S. ambassador arrived in
July 1974. Ties between the U.S. and Qatar are excellent."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5437.htm
so tell me again.. why does the Swiss guy not go to Gitmo but the
Qatar guy does?
We have people that don't believe illegal aliens should be deported -
should he just be deported because he committed a crime and that's it?
What are Qatar's laws about terrorists? Do they enforce those laws?
Do you suggest we turn him loose? We may have good relations with
Qatar, but that is far from being the same situation as Switzerland.
There's a lot of differences between the two - you're comparing apples
and oranges. Do you want someone who is a terrorist or is supporting
terrorist to get more than one opportunity to do their damage, or
doesn't that matter?
And since 4 of the judges of SCOTUS disagreed with the decision there is
plenty of room for other schools of thought. Do you not allow those?
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
yes.. I do.. there is obviously a legitimate difference of opinion
here and with about 20% of those who still support Bush but I am
seriously concerned that we have folks who do not support important
American Principles - principles that we have held up to the world as
defenders of human rights and we've tossed it down the drain because
there are bad guys in the world and we got cold cocked.
You are smart enough to know that I can agree with you in one area and
disagree with you in another. Using the 20% number as a blanket
indication of his approval in all areas is distortion of data and you know.

As far as the cold cocked I've covered that before. The cold cocking
came much earlier and nothing was done. To say Sept 11 is the first
attack is another distortion of facts and a denial of history.



First - there are no differences in terms of policy. We cannot have a
policy that is situational and dynamic to boot and we cannot maintain
good relations with Qatar if we treat them differently than
Switzerland on issues of imprisoning citizens of their countries.
That's one of the problems with or Foreign Policy right now...
That has always been the case with foreign policy. We treated the
Soviet Union and their nationals differently in 1944 that we did in
1954. Same country.





you question about whether we should turn someone lose or not is so
wrong and ou know it is.
it's not about turning anyone lose that you can prove is guilty.
It's about imprisoning someone indefinitely WITHOUT giving them the
opportunity to prove their innocence. This is against American
principles of basic human rights and fairness.
It's the very thing that we tell countries like China that they are
violating human rights by imprisoning people without a trial.
China would lock our citizens up also if we did not threaten them...
too bad other countries can't get that to work with us holding their
citizens.. right?
You and the 4 SC yokels are essentially supporting China's approach to
human rights because their idea is that anyone who is a "threat" to
them does not deserve a trial either.
You and the 4 SC guys support military control of our government.. in
those areas that the military deems that they should be in control
of...
in other words .. Bush and the Military determine what rules apply to
them... and the 4 guys on the SC agreed with them...
this sounds more and more like China's way of doing business. we
should be proud.
Interesting. Now you believe that you have more legal expertise, more
Constitutional expertise that 4 members of the Supreme Court.

Not to mention your analogy is completely wrong. Show me one American
citizen that has been detained at Gitmo without probably cause. Padila?
He's been tried. There is a HUGE difference between the US and China
and you know it.

Terrorists are not American citizens. They are not military members
subject to the Geneva Convention. They deliberately attack innocents.
No other military force in the world has done that. They are unique in
their efforts. You want to give them a kiss and a farewell hug. They
deserve every evil they get. They deserve worse, but I don't condone
random torture.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008

Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.

re: "Terrorists are not American citizens."

how about those that are alleged to be terrorists?

why would you assume that someone is a terrorist without some kind of
proof?

do you think there has never been terrorists before now?


do you think other countries don't have terrorism and/or never had it
before?

what gives this country the right to deal with terrorists differently
than the rest of the world does?

There have been. In Britain from Ireland. And they were held. And Britain knew the origins of those people.


have you noticed.. for instance, that we now have .....eco-terrorists?

or that countries that have people opposed to the current government
now label those folks as "terrorists".


Now who's getting into semantics. I don't care what you call them. But any militant who targets civilians is a terrorist. As far as I know know the so called eco-terrorists have not targeted people, just property. They are vandals on a grand scale.


" Lawmakers demand freedom for Chinese held at Gitmo"

Lawmakers chastised the Bush administration on Wednesday for allowing
the Chinese government to interrogate Chinese Muslim detainees at the
U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay and demanded they be freed in
the United States.

The two lawmakers, Reps. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., and Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif., said the Uighurs — members of a Chinese ethnic group —
should be compensated and apologized to for any abuse they may have
suffered while held in the detention center at U.S. naval base in
Cuba.

Uighurs fled their homeland in western China and settled in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, only to be swept up later in the U.S.-led
dragnet for terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A federal judge has called their imprisonment unlawful, but the Bush
administration opposes releasing them unless they can go to a country
other than the United States.

At a House Foreign Affairs hearing on interrogation methods at
Guantanamo, Delahunt asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn
A. Fine to confirm that Chinese officials were let into the prison.

"We were informed that the Chinese government sent people to interview
and interrogate the Uighurs," Fine said.

Additionally, Fine said, FBI officials reported that U.S. military
personnel woke up Uighurs every 15 minutes in a sleep-depravation
interrogation tactic known as "the frequent flyer program" before the
Chinese interrogators arrived.

"Did they draw the conclusion that this was, that we had American
military personnel collaborating, doing this to, if you will, soften
up the Uighurs for examination by Chinese Communist agents?" Delahunt
asked.

Fine answered: "They reported this was the technique that was used,
what they call the frequent flyer program, to put the Uighurs in a
position to be interrogated by the Chinese government."

Rohrabacher called the military's involvement "ridiculous." He said
the Uighurs should be freed in the U.S.

"And we will call on the government to do so forthwith," Rohrabacher
said. "And if it indeed looks like they've been unjustly treated that
we offer some compensation as well as an apology."

Both lawmakers agreed to push the Bush administration to release the
Uighurs in the U.S., although Delahunt predicted that Rohrabacher, a
Republican, "will have more access to the powers that be than I will."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the issue,
and a spokesman for the State Department did not immediately return a
call seeking comment.

Under U.S. law, the Uighur men cannot be sent back to China because
they are likely to face persecution and torture. The administration
has been seeking refuge for them in other nations, and five were sent
to Albania in 2006. As of two months ago, 17 Uighurs remained at
Guantanamo, awaiting countries to take them.

In March, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. has
"no desire to be the world's jailer, and we look forward to the day
Guantanamo is shut down. And part of that solution is working with
other countries to take people back under the right circumstances."

A report by the human rights group Center for Constitutional Rights
indicates that officials from at least 17 other countries have been
allowed to interrogate their citizens being held at Guantanamo. The
report accuses interrogators from six nations — China, Uzbekistan,
Libya, Jordan, Tajikistan and Tunisia — abuse Guantanamo detainees
with the consent of U.S. officials.

The group has for the last seven years sought access to U.S. courts
for detainees at Guantanamo."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_go_co/congress_chinese_muslims

How can you defend this? These are people who had NOTHING to do with
9-11 or attacks on the US ... and look at what we are doing ...

we are rounding up people who are trying to get away from being
persecuted and giving them back to who they are running from...

and it has nothing to do with us at all...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/07/anybody-home.html


We also have two 2 Border Guards being held in solitary confinement after being convicted on trumped up charges against a Mexican drug dealer that the President refuses to get involved in. Am I happy about it. No. But rather than protecting Chinese Muslims I would be more impressed if the two Congressional reps used their energy to free two falsely accused American citizens rather than posturing internationally to appease folks we shouldn't bee caring an awful lot about. Same for you. Where is your outrage for the American citizens? No, you'd rather sound all high and mighty about Gitmo.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA


--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008

Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
.