"Bwanna Nick" wrote in message
om...

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:d0g2b.251076$YN5.171900@sccrnsc01...
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
If we want to give them a prison membership, how can we do it?
I bet that if I try I can find people willing to donate the money to
provide their best players with prison memberships.

Why would anyone WANT to??? These people are prisoners and suspected
terrorists! Ridiculous! These people come over here to help destroy
our
country and you want to REWARD them??

Are *all* these "suspected terrorists" already undoubtedly guilty in your
mind of your worst suspicions? So what do you propose to do with them?
Kill them all? Keep them all locked up in cages for the rest of their
lives?

If I were Matt, I wouldn't dignify those questions with a response.

StanB

In article ,
(Nick) wrote:

I believe that it's in the best interests of the United States to treat its
prisoners as humanely as practicable, at least for the reason that it could
encourage the humane treatment of American prisoners or hostages in the
future.

Al Quaeda's and other Muslim Fundamentalist's mode of operation does
not take into account how we treat the Guantanamo detainees. There were
no Guantanamo detainees being "mistreated" when four planes were
hijacked, culminating with the murder of almost three thousand persons.
Their core belief is very simple: if you are "not sufficiently Islamic,"
then you are to be killed. Does that concept ring any bells with anyone?
If any of these groups take hostages from USA or any other country,
including fellow Muslims who are "not sufficiently Islamic", you can be
sure those victims will die a grisly death and they will make sure you
see it happen on videotape. These groups are totally fascist, anti-life,
anti-free-will. Defeating this evil is our generations equivalent of
battling Nazi Germany.

G

(Mogath3) wrote in message
Nick wrote to Matt Nemmers:
Are *all* these "suspected terrorists" already undoubtedly guilty in your
mind of your worst suspicions? So what do you propose to do with them?
Kill them all? Keep them all locked up in cages for the rest of their lives?

Why don't you ask the 2700+ families that lost someone in the tower collapse
that question?

Here's a link to the website of
"September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows":
http://peacefultomorrows.org/

Those "September Eleventh Families" have insisted that the tragic deaths of
their loved ones *not* be exploited as a political pretext by the United
States government to justify its foreign and military policies, which have
included the killing of innocent people abroad.

On the morning of 11 September 2001, one of my relatives went to work in a
building that was in the shadow of the World Trade Center in New York City.
A while later, he was told: "What are still doing here? Run for your life!"
As he was running, he watched one of the towers fall--it was a moment that
he said he will never forget. As far as I know, he would strongly disagree
with every assertion in Mogath's post.

What to do with them? Extract what you can from them and then SHOOT them
because thats exactly what they'd do to us.

What evidence exists to attribute such mortal criminal responsibility to
*every* prisoner now at Guantanamo for the attacks of 11 September 2001?
Or is any evidence even necessary before the United States applies that
proposed "preemptive" mass torture and execution to its suspected enemies?

Eventually, I suspect, most of these people will be released and go home.
They will go home with attitudes toward the United States and the American
people, which then they can pass on to others around them.

What planet are you from?? You cannot possibly be serious.

I hope that I am from a planet where most people still have some respect for
international law and conventions, not to mention some of the fundamental
moral values of the major religions of which I know. I know that I am from
a planet where most people don't support all of the United States's foreign
and military policies. Seriously, do all Americans know that fact?

Perhaps Mogath should read the comments in some British or Canadian
newspapers about the United States government: they could be educational.

These people LAUGH at us fo how we treat them. We feed them clean them up and
send them home so they can do us more harm. I see NOTHING wrong with flying
them home, ALL of them and during the flight randomly picking a few and just
picthing them out the cargo door. These people are so anxious to meet Allah,
why not help them?

Mogath may speak for many Americans today, but he does not speak for them all.

'And the intensest form of hatred is that rooted in fear, which compels to
silence and drives vehemence into a constructive vindictiveness, an imaginary
annihilation of the detested object, something like the hidden rites of
vengeance with which the persecuted have made a dark vent for their rage,
and soothed their suffering into dumbness.'
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

--Nick

gh wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Nick) wrote:
I believe that it's in the best interests of the United States to treat its
prisoners as humanely as practicable, at least for the reason that it could
encourage the humane treatment of American prisoners or hostages in the
future.

Al Quaeda's and other Muslim Fundamentalist's mode of operation does
not take into account how we treat the Guantanamo detainees.

My point was much more general, and it seems to have been misunderstood here.
So I shall restate what I wrote, while adding some further explanation.

I believe that it's in the best interests of the United States to treat its
prisoners (any "prisoners-of-war", not just those at Guantanamo) as humanely
as practicable, at least for the reason that it could (yes, it might not
necessarily succeed) encourage the humane treatment of American prisoners or
hostages in the future (which have been captured by *any* nation or group,
not just Al-Qaida).

For a *hypothetical* example, suppose that the United States were to invade
Country X, which has no known connection whatsoever with Al-Qaida or any other
"Muslim terrorists". Suppose that the people of Country X were aware that the
United States has been routinely torturing and executing its suspected "Muslim
terrorist" prisoners. Then how much more likely would the people of Country X
be to assume that their men would be treated with comparable cruelty if they
were captured by the United States? Then how much more likely would the people
of Country X be *not* to treat their American prisoners as humanely as the
United States would wish?

There were no Guantanamo detainees being "mistreated" when four planes were
hijacked, culminating with the murder of almost three thousand persons.
Their core belief is very simple: if you are "not sufficiently Islamic,"
then you are to be killed. Does that concept ring any bells with anyone?

I abhorred the Taliban (who also were denounced by most Islamic scholars), but
it's untrue that the Taliban attempted to kill every non-Muslim resident of
Afghanistan. The tiny Hindu and Sikh minorities therein faced discrimination,
of course, yet not genocide.

I have a friend of Pakistani heritage, who was born in Libya and grew up in
Saudi Arabia. He was brought up as a Muslim, yet he has become an atheist.
He abhors both Islamic fundamentalism and United States imperialism.

If any of these groups take hostages from USA or any other country,
including fellow Muslims who are "not sufficiently Islamic", you can be
sure those victims will die a grisly death and they will make sure you
see it happen on videotape. These groups are totally fascist, anti-life,
anti-free-will. Defeating this evil is our generations equivalent of
battling Nazi Germany.

Osama bin Laden (or his successor) does not have anything close to the power
that Adolf Hitler once had.

'Nothing is great or little otherwise than by comparison.'
--Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)

--Nick

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

Why grant asshole (enlistee in Uncle Samuel's murderous armed forces) his lies?
We can't settle such a wager -- because that would be in the control of the
most vicious anti-human government in the history of the human species -- BUT
I'm willing to bet that NONE of the victims of the U. S. A. currently being
held prisoner ar Guantanamo is a "terrorist" in the meaning of the word PUBLICY
assigned by Dubya, Nemmers and their ilk. (Incidentally, Nemmers either lies
or is ignorant when he says, "These people come over here to help destroy our
country ... " They were KIDNAPPED (by REAL TERRORISTS) and transported to
Guantanamo, AT THE VERY LEAST, in contravention of the Geneva conventions
concerning treatment of prisoners of war.

Any discussion with asshole Nemmers is a waste of time, although, I admit, its
lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be countered. Of course you
are an adult and should (will, I know) make your own choices of disputants.

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:d0g2b.251076$YN5.171900@sccrnsc01...
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
If we want to give them a prison membership, how can we do it?
I bet that if I try I can find people willing to donate the money to
provide their best players with prison memberships.

Why would anyone WANT to??? These people are prisoners and suspected
terrorists! Ridiculous! These people come over here to help destroy our
country and you want to REWARD them??

Mr. Nemmers:

Are *all* these "suspected terrorists" already undoubtedly guilty in your
mind of your worst suspicions? So what do you propose to do with them?
Kill them all? Keep them all locked up in cages for the rest of their lives?

Eventually, I suspect, most of these people will be released and go home.
They will go home with attitudes toward the United States and the American
people, which then they can pass on to others around them. In my opinion,
what the United States does to or what the American people do for them now
could significantly influence what their attitudes likely will become.
Even a few gestures of simple human compassion might go a disproportionately
long way in abating their presumed hostility toward the United States.

Also, if a "suspected terrorist" were to develop an obsession with chess,
then
whom should that "reward" most? The "terrorist" or his potential target(s)?

You're a moron, Sloan, but I had no idea your insanity went so deep so
as to propose we try to make life better for those who want to kill us.

As your military career continues, perhaps someday you will go abroad and
attempt to kill people (and perhaps you will succeed) on behalf of the United

States. Perhaps someday (Who can always foresee the fortunes of war?) you
will become a prisoner of those people whom you have been attempting to kill.

Then what would you do? Might you demand "your right" to play chess during
your captivity? Then suppose your captors were to tell you (see above):
"Do you believe that we are insane? Why should *we try to make life better
for those who want to kill us*?"

Then you may hope that your enemies will treat you with more mercy than you
seem willing to show toward them.

"You need no mercy, and therefore know not how to show any."
--Nathaniel Hawthorne (The Marble Faun)

--Nick

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

I have a son and a former friend (former stepson) who were around the "Twin
Towers" on 11 September 2001.

The son actually worked in one of the buildings. However, his daily routine
may have saved his life. He reports to work at 0800 hours -- but has not had
breakfast -- so he makes it a point to go out at about 0900 hours to get a bite
to eat. On 11 September 2001, he was returning to work, after having had his
eggs and coffee, when the first plane struck his building. He tried to get
into the building to help in the rescue work, but was prevented from so doing,
by a member of the Army of Occupation that we in New York call the NYPD. (One
of my daughters is a nurse and served as a triage supervisor at the Javits
Center.) My son, does not hate Muslims or the attackers of the Twin Towers,
although he still believes the lies of his government about them and "al
Qaida". My former friend (former stepson), although a representative United
Statesian "liberal", never has said anything in argument against my "certain
knowledge" that the attackers were his own government, although he is still
outraged at the "inconvenience" of being kept out of his office (losing money
as a partner in his law firm) for about a month after the attacks. His office
is about a block away from the Twin Towers, on Broadway. (Incidentally, he is
a devout, practising, ultraconservative Orthodox Jew and Zionist, whom I NEVER
have heard say a word against Islam or Palestine.)

I wonder about others directly or "nearly" directly involved. The assholes who
scream for blood -- aside from the official and unofficial members of
government -- may merely be what Larry Parr calls "gutter patriots" and "TV
peasants".

(Mogath3) wrote in message

Nick wrote to Matt Nemmers:
Are *all* these "suspected terrorists" already undoubtedly guilty in your
mind of your worst suspicions? So what do you propose to do with them?
Kill them all? Keep them all locked up in cages for the rest of their
lives?

Why don't you ask the 2700+ families that lost someone in the tower
collapse
that question?

Here's a link to the website of
"September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows":
http://peacefultomorrows.org/

Those "September Eleventh Families" have insisted that the tragic deaths of
their loved ones *not* be exploited as a political pretext by the United
States government to justify its foreign and military policies, which have
included the killing of innocent people abroad.

On the morning of 11 September 2001, one of my relatives went to work in a
building that was in the shadow of the World Trade Center in New York City.
A while later, he was told: "What are still doing here? Run for your life!"
As he was running, he watched one of the towers fall--it was a moment that
he said he will never forget. As far as I know, he would strongly disagree
with every assertion in Mogath's post.

What to do with them? Extract what you can from them and then SHOOT them
because thats exactly what they'd do to us.

What evidence exists to attribute such mortal criminal responsibility to
*every* prisoner now at Guantanamo for the attacks of 11 September 2001?
Or is any evidence even necessary before the United States applies that
proposed "preemptive" mass torture and execution to its suspected enemies?

Eventually, I suspect, most of these people will be released and go home.
They will go home with attitudes toward the United States and the American
people, which then they can pass on to others around them.

What planet are you from?? You cannot possibly be serious.

I hope that I am from a planet where most people still have some respect for
international law and conventions, not to mention some of the fundamental
moral values of the major religions of which I know. I know that I am from
a planet where most people don't support all of the United States's foreign
and military policies. Seriously, do all Americans know that fact?

Perhaps Mogath should read the comments in some British or Canadian
newspapers about the United States government: they could be educational.

These people LAUGH at us fo how we treat them. We feed them clean them up
and
send them home so they can do us more harm. I see NOTHING wrong with
flying
them home, ALL of them and during the flight randomly picking a few and
just
picthing them out the cargo door. These people are so anxious to meet
Allah,
why not help them?

Mogath may speak for many Americans today, but he does not speak for them
all.

'And the intensest form of hatred is that rooted in fear, which compels to
silence and drives vehemence into a constructive vindictiveness, an imaginary
annihilation of the detested object, something like the hidden rites of
vengeance with which the persecuted have made a dark vent for their rage,
and soothed their suffering into dumbness.'
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

--Nick

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire.)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

"Jerome Bibuld" wrote in message
...
Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

Why grant asshole (enlistee in Uncle Samuel's murderous armed forces) his
lies?
We can't settle such a wager -- because that would be in the control of
the
most vicious anti-human government in the history of the human species --
BUT
I'm willing to bet that NONE of the victims of the U. S. A. currently
being
held prisoner ar Guantanamo is a "terrorist" in the meaning of the word
PUBLICY
assigned by Dubya, Nemmers and their ilk. (Incidentally, Nemmers either
lies
or is ignorant when he says, "These people come over here to help destroy
our
country ... " They were KIDNAPPED (by REAL TERRORISTS) and transported to
Guantanamo, AT THE VERY LEAST, in contravention of the Geneva conventions
concerning treatment of prisoners of war.

Any discussion with asshole Nemmers is a waste of time, although, I admit,
its
lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be countered. Of course
you
are an adult and should (will, I know) make your own choices of
disputants.


Hahaha!! "....lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be
countered." This is exactly why I speak up when Ol' Jerry spews his
conspiracy theories on this forum. His latest is that 9/11 was planned,
prepared, and executed by the United States Government. Good one, Jer.

Call me what you want, but I don't buy into the kind of ideology that Ol'
Jerry does. He's certainly entitled to his opinion (however ridiculous it
may seem) that the government and her supporters are guilty until proven
innocent, while suspected terrorists should have the benefit of the doubt
(and probably, a red carpet rolled out for them while they dine on caviar
and Dom Perignon), but that line of bull**** is just too big and lumpy for
me to let slide, let alone swallow.

Ol' Jerry's a thinker, to be sure, but his mind is too far gone to be swayed
by facts and logical thinking. Age is doing its damage and time is having
her way with him, so I never expect anything of real substance to fall out
of his mouth when it comes to politics other than that of chess. And I
don't suspect his neurons will resume firing long enough for him to realize
the error of his ways before he passes on to the Great Beyond, but in the
meantime he certainly does serve as interesting entertainment.

You may not agree with my stance on these issues, Nick, but I certainly hope
you're not deluded enough to agree with Ol' Jerry's take on them. I believe
you're an intelligent individual and I respect your opinions, but we're just
going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards,

Matt

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
I have a son and a former friend (former stepson) who were around the
"Twin Towers" on 11 September 2001. The son actually worked in one of
the buildings. However, his daily routine may have saved his life.
(snipped)
I wonder about others directly or "nearly" directly involved. The assholes
who scream for blood -- aside from the official and unofficial members of
government -- may merely be what Larry Parr calls "gutter patriots" and
"TV peasants".

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

Shortly after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, I took part in an
informal discussion with several visiting university students of Arab heritage.
Every one of them condemned the attacks with evident sincerity; every one of
them took pains to emphasise that the attackers, if they all were supposed to
be Muslims, did not represent their views on how a good Muslim should act.

At one point, our discussion went like this:

A: Do you know what's most amazing about all that's happened lately?
B: What do you think?
A: Today, the United States suddenly has gained the private sympathies,
if not the public support, of nearly the whole world.
B: Yes, and the Americans did nothing on their own to deserve it.
I: I can understand what you mean. If the United States's foreign and military
policies were very bad on 10 September 2001, then--without changing--how
could they have suddenly become very good on 12 September 2001?
C: I am afraid that the Americans are obsessed with pursuing revenge now, and
they will not be content until they have killed at least thousands of our
people, whether or not they had any responsibilities for what happened.
The Americans will not feel any better until they have enough bloodshed.
A: I am afraid that you are right. How long will it be before the Americans
lose the sympathies of nearly the whole world?
B: God knows, but it will happen.
C: And perhaps much sooner than you (I) might think.
I: I would hardly be surprised by that.

There are legal, moral, and pragmatic reasons for the United States to treat
its "detainees" at Guantanamo more humanely than it evidently has been doing.
As too many Americans might not respect any legal or moral arguments for more
humane treatment there, I have emphasised only the pragmatic argument: The more
humane treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo could encourage the more humane
treatment of American prisoners-of-war or hostages in the future.

'And the intensest form of hatred is that rooted in fear, which compels to
silence and drives vehemence into a constructive vindictiveness, an imaginary
annihilation of the detested object, something like the hidden rites of
vengeance with which the persecuted have made a dark vent for their rage,
and soothed their suffering into dumbness.'
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

--Nick

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
Why grant asshole (enlistee in Uncle Samuel's murderous armed forces) his
lies? We can't settle such a wager -- because that would be in the control
of the most vicious anti-human government in the history of the human species
-- BUT I'm willing to bet that NONE of the victims of the U. S. A. currently
being held prisoner ar Guantanamo is a "terrorist" in the meaning of the word
PUBLICY assigned by Dubya, Nemmers and their ilk. (Incidentally, Nemmers
either lies or is ignorant when he says, "These people come over here to help
destroy our country ... " They were KIDNAPPED (by REAL TERRORISTS) and
transported to Guantanamo, AT THE VERY LEAST, in contravention of the Geneva
conventions concerning treatment of prisoners of war.

Dear Mr. Bibuld:

Here are some articles about the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo:

"American Cant: The treatment of Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners by the
United States offends a sense of justice" by Peter Beaumont in
'The Observer' (13 January 2002):

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...631883,00.html

"So if the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are not criminals or combatants,
what are they? They are the examples that America feels it needs to make
before the world, condemned before the fact by their alleged membership of
a criminal association. They are triply damned, one suspects, by their
nationality, religion, and the colour of their skins."
--Peter Beaumont (13 January 2002)

"US Interrogators Turn to 'Torture Lite'" by Duncan Campbell in
'The Guardian' (25 January 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...881841,00.html

"The United States is condoning the torture and the illegal interrogation of
prisoners held in the wake of September 11, in defiance of international law
and its own constitution, according to lawyers, former US intelligence officers,
and human rights groups."
--Duncan Campbell (25 January 2003)

"One Rule for Them: Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul.
What about Guantanamo Bay?" by George Monbiot in
'The Guardian' (25 March 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

"Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of
international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state;
it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run
the world..."
--George Monbiot (25 March 2003)

"America's Dirty Torture Secret" by Henry Porter in
'The Guardian' (10 September 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...038845,00.html

"Weeks go by without serious newspapers (in the United States) investigating
or commenting on human rights abuses by the American government....There is
evidence that the US authorities have encouraged the use of torture and may
indeed have participated in the torture..."
--Henry Porter (10 September 2003)

Any discussion with asshole Nemmers is a waste of time, although, I admit, its
lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be countered. Of course you
are an adult and should (will, I know) make your own choices of disputants.

I respect my friends who have served in the United States Armed Forces, and
their records of service tend not to influence our personal relationships.
Notwithstanding our differences on some issues, Matt Nemmers and I have been
able to communicate with each other in civil language, which I do appreciate.

'I am naturally civil when I am civilly used.'
--Tobias Smollett (Peregrine Pickle)

--Nick

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

Thanks for the leads to valuable information and opinion. It certainly is good
to know that many in both the United States and the United Kingdom object to
our invasions of the East of the Arab World.

[I demonstrated against the U. S. invasion of Iraq, in my home town, yesterday
afternoon and early evening. When I do this, I count the perceived reactions
("thumbs up", as opposed to middle fingers up; smiles as opposed to frowns;
friendly horn beeps, as opposed to continuous horn blares; etc.) of those who
drive by our group of two to four demonstraters at a very busy intersection of
White Plains vehicular traffic. Between 1645 hours and 1800 hours last night,
I counted 49 "favorable" to 8 "unfavorable" reactions to my sign: "U. S.
INVADERS OUT OF IRAQ". (I was the only one to carry such a "militant" sign.
The other three carried: "LEADERS LIE, SOLDIERS DIE", "HONK FOR THE TRUTH" and
"GIVE PEACE A CHANCE".)]

I was arrested last week (15 October) for refusing to move from the corner by
the (Westchester) County Center. The four of us were ordered to do so, even
though the "Department of Public Safety" "permit" specifically listed "County
Center" on the "Event location" line. The other three demonstrators moved,
but, with the permission of my "group leader", I stood my ground. Because I
was a member of a demonstration organized by the Westchester People's Action
Coalition, I am assured of legal representation in the "criminal" trial, but,
once again, if any of the readers of this bbs knows an attorney who is willing
to try a suit of false arrest, on a contingency basis, I would appreciate the
contact.

You may be interested in the following extracts from my report to the "group
leader" on the following day.
************************************************** ************************
************************
Firstly, if you recall, you asked me whether I would join the group about ...
ten yards away from where I was standing or would prefer to remain where I was,
after Ms. (Miss, Mrs?) Snyder, the officious apparent representative of the
County Center, spoke to you. I told you that I preferred to stay at the corner
and you accepted my choice.

Secondly, Snyder approached me some time later and told me to move because I
was on "County property". I told her to show me a map, proving that I was on
"County property." She refused to show me such a map, so I told her to go
away. During this dialogue, she said she would call the "police" if I didn't
move and I told her to call the "police."

Thirdly, when the member of the Army of Occupation, John Peters, came up to me
and told me to move, because I was on "County property", I asked him to show me
a map, proving that I was on County property. He didn't show me a map
either. Instead, he said something like, "I'm trying to be nice. If you don't
move, I'll arrest you for refusing to obey a legal order." (How interesting.
I've never been arrested for "refusing to obey a legal order"; usually, it's
"DISCON". Now that it's over, I still haven't been charged with "refusing to
obey a legal order". The "APPEARANCE TICKET" -- No. 20556 -- charges me with
"DISORDERLY CONDUCT", DAMMITTOHELL! So, on top of everything else, Peters lied
to me about the name of the "crime".) When I stood my ground, he arrested me.
....

.... we had demonstrated on the site I was occupying since 2 September ...

Anyway, I think I have some good news. While I was in the jail, I overheard
Peters ask Snyder (at 1851 hours, by my watch), during a telephone
conversation, "Do you have anything over there that shows where the county
property ends and begins?" Apparently, her answer was not good enough, because
he told her she had to provide it. (I'm sorry I can't give you a verbatim
quote of that, but I was writing in longhand and had very little available
paper.) It may be that County property does not extend to our preferred
demonstration site. It is certain that neither Snyder nor Peters, last night,
could prove that we were demonstrating on County property.

In addition, we should question whether, with the City permit, we should not be
allowed to demonstrate on those few yards of "County property" anyway.
(Regardless, they should not have interfered with our demonstration last night,
because they could not prove that we were actually on County property.)
************************************************** ************************
************************
Since my arrest, WESPAC has learned that we were NOT on "County property", but
on "City property" AND I HAVE LEARNED THAT THE PERMIT LISTS THE COUNTY CENTER
("COUNTY PROPERTY") AS AN "EVENT LOCATION", so, even if we were on county
property, we were there with legal permission.

Concerning your respect for " ... my friends who have served in the United
States Armed Forces ... " and your statement that " ... their records of
service tend not to influence our personal relationships ... " I disagree
strongly. I, one of my children and one of my grandchildren have " ... served
in the United States Armed Forces ... " The first two were criminals, even
though I was a member of those armed forces during the Second Great European
War of the 20th Century and my son never fired a shot, or was fired at, in
anger. The second is a criminal, although, having "served his time" in the
invasion of Iraq, he now is back home (still in that execrable uniform). I do
not hate myself for my youthful mistake and consider myself lucky to have
learned from it. I LOVE both my (formerly U. S. Navy) son and my (currently U.
S. Navy) grandson, as I LOVE all my children and their children. However, the
facts are that we three were, and one still is a, criminal.

While I currently am participating (civilly) in an email tournament game with a
person whose address is ", he gets the respect of an email chess
opponent ONLY. When he leaves the U. S. Army -- for whatever reason -- he
deserves the respect of a decent human being.

(Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
Why grant asshole (enlistee in Uncle Samuel's murderous armed forces) his
lies? We can't settle such a wager -- because that would be in the control

of the most vicious anti-human government in the history of the human
species
-- BUT I'm willing to bet that NONE of the victims of the U. S. A.
currently
being held prisoner ar Guantanamo is a "terrorist" in the meaning of the
word
PUBLICY assigned by Dubya, Nemmers and their ilk. (Incidentally, Nemmers
either lies or is ignorant when he says, "These people come over here to
help
destroy our country ... " They were KIDNAPPED (by REAL TERRORISTS) and
transported to Guantanamo, AT THE VERY LEAST, in contravention of the
Geneva
conventions concerning treatment of prisoners of war.

Dear Mr. Bibuld:

Here are some articles about the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo:

"American Cant: The treatment of Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners by the
United States offends a sense of justice" by Peter Beaumont in
'The Observer' (13 January 2002):

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...631883,00.html

"So if the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are not criminals or combatants,
what are they? They are the examples that America feels it needs to make
before the world, condemned before the fact by their alleged membership of
a criminal association. They are triply damned, one suspects, by their
nationality, religion, and the colour of their skins."
--Peter Beaumont (13 January 2002)

"US Interrogators Turn to 'Torture Lite'" by Duncan Campbell in
'The Guardian' (25 January 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...881841,00.html

"The United States is condoning the torture and the illegal interrogation of
prisoners held in the wake of September 11, in defiance of international law
and its own constitution, according to lawyers, former US intelligence
officers,
and human rights groups."
--Duncan Campbell (25 January 2003)

"One Rule for Them: Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul.
What about Guantanamo Bay?" by George Monbiot in
'The Guardian' (25 March 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

"Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of
international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign
state;
it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run
the world..."
--George Monbiot (25 March 2003)

"America's Dirty Torture Secret" by Henry Porter in
'The Guardian' (10 September 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...038845,00.html

"Weeks go by without serious newspapers (in the United States) investigating
or commenting on human rights abuses by the American government....There is
evidence that the US authorities have encouraged the use of torture and may
indeed have participated in the torture..."
--Henry Porter (10 September 2003)

Any discussion with asshole Nemmers is a waste of time, although, I admit,
its
lies and stupidly parroted MISinformation should be countered. Of course
you
are an adult and should (will, I know) make your own choices of disputants.

I respect my friends who have served in the United States Armed Forces, and
their records of service tend not to influence our personal relationships.
Notwithstanding our differences on some issues, Matt Nemmers and I have been
able to communicate with each other in civil language, which I do appreciate.

'I am naturally civil when I am civilly used.'
--Tobias Smollett (Peregrine Pickle)

--Nick

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Allles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld