..
Banana says we should note that Bobby was on his way to give another radio
interview, when he was "abducted."

In my opinion, even though the U.S. government may be incompetent, it
nevertheless would not have patiently waited until now to nab Fischer, if the
issue was just his radio interviews. Just count those interviews for yourself.
There are way too many ranting, raving-lunatic interviews to think that one
more was going to do any significant further harm.

No, my current theory is that the bungling U.S. government simply revoked
Fischer's passport because he is a fugitive, and this just happenned to catch
up to Bobby at the airport in Japan -- just as he described -- while he was
filling out some form and there was a shift change.

Like Banana, I will have you "note" that the CIA, Interpol, the KGB, etc..,
were *not* at the airport, awaiting the great Fischer's arrival, but instead,
the perplexed passport- checker had to call his superior, to find out what to
do.

Bobby was simply caught in a mating net, made up of red tape, beaurocracy,
and of course, he contributed mightily by frequently travelling under a U.S.
passport -- knowing full well that he was a fugitive of that same country.
This merely proves that he really is an idiot-savant.

..
over a thousand or more people for two.....and you ask what war....Look,
I'll make it real simple. It is a war on terrorisim. And I don't give a
rat's ass what some fools think on here....."WE", the US, is not going to
put up with that crap.


"Reading is the basics of all learning." --Dubya Bush


"We...is not going to put up with that crap!"


If there is proof that these guys are terrorists, why are
they not put on trial?
If the prisoners are being held for no legal reason (and that
seems to be the case, as they are not being prosecuted), then
Guantanomo is a concentration camp.


Why not get a binch of the countries who are highly critical of the "evil"
United States together, and vote to kick the U.S. out of the United Nations?
You know, to make a statement. All the whining is tiresome, and its high time
somebody actually *did something,* for a change.




Negative, ghost-writer. They are POWs.


Which brings us nack to The War on error....

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
ink.net...
What war was declared???!!!!
Er.....lessee....they tried to destroy the Pentagon for one, they killed
over a thousand or more people for two.....and you ask what war

Yes, I do ask. Only the Congress can declare war. The media office to the
president can't. Are the detainees at Guantanamo prisoners of war or
detainess? This is a different question than if they /should/ be detained.
Okay?

They do not enjoy the privileges of POWs under Geneva. Additionally their
rights of habeas corpus are dismissed. When I wrote to Matt below, it was to
say that these people are detainees and not POWs as he had said. Okay? Since
these people have committed no crime under our laws, the point at issue is
that they are detained for being accused of a crime, and detained with less
status than a POW.

Obviously we can't discuss anything if we don't agree on some basic terms to
describe the situation. For anybody reading this, the point is to agree with
the above before arguing its necessity or otherwise. Then we are all on the
same page.

The War on Drugs, like the War on Terrorism, are not declared wars by the US
Congress, AND drugs and terrorism are very serious problems all countries
have to face, and indeed, to confront with determined actions.

But POWs, no.

Phil Innes

....Look,
I'll make it real simple. It is a war on terrorisim. And I don't give a
rat's ass what some fools think on here....."WE", the US, is not going to
put up with that crap.
"Chess One" wrote in message
news:Yg5Oc.5207$NV3.4009@trndny01...

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:BkNNc.185209$JR4.33458@attbi_s54...
"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..
I was not aware that any of the guests of the US government at
Guantanamo
were caught in the US. Neither was I aware that any of them had been
involved in terrorist activities in the US. If there is proof that
these
guys are terrorists, why are they not put on trial?
If the prisoners are being held for no legal reason (and that seems
to
be
the case, as they are not being prosecuted), then Guantanomo is a
concentration camp.
Hans J.

Negative, ghost-writer. They are POWs.

Not actually POWs under the Geneva convention, Matt. What war was
declared?
The US Consitution says that only the Congress can declare a war. How
many
internees are at Guantanamo as the result of a declared war? How many
are
there otherwise? Is Fischer a war criminal? Or didn't he pay his tax
bill?
I'm confused. Phil

Regards,

Matt

On 30 Jul 2004 19:48:18 GMT, Chris Nellist
wrote:

Perhaps.....in a perfect world we could judge every man according to
his own beliefs and motivations. However, in a conflict such as this
-- where covert operations and suicide bombers are the norm -- we
don't have the luxury of considering every captive individually if we
wish to preserve the safety of our nation and her people.

Since when was not invading foreign countries a luxury?

The answer to your question provides a good introduction to the way
the real world works.

One might call it a luxury if, like in Afghanistan, the government of
said country is actively supporting terrorist operations against us,
and we can execute the invasion with minimal casualties to ourselves.
Now, if you take the case of El Salvador versus the U.S. a couple of
decades ago, not invading the U.S. was a *necessity*, not a luxury.

Chris

"Matt Nemmers" :
Perhaps.....in a perfect world we could judge every man according to his
own
beliefs and motivations. However, in a conflict such as this -- where
covert operations and suicide bombers are the norm -- we don't have the
luxury of considering every captive individually if we wish to preserve
the
safety of our nation and her people.

And the nazis could not afford the luxury of considering every jew
individually, so better catch (and kill) them all to preserve the safety of
the german nation and its people.
A nation with standards like these may not be worth preserving at all. I
sincerely hope that they are not shared by the majority of your fellow
americans.
Hans J.

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..

And the nazis could not afford the luxury of considering every jew
individually, so better catch (and kill) them all to preserve the safety
of
the german nation and its people.

I declare this thread ended pursuant to the Hitler convention.

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Nemmers" :
Perhaps.....in a perfect world we could judge every man according to his
own
beliefs and motivations. However, in a conflict such as this -- where
covert operations and suicide bombers are the norm -- we don't have the
luxury of considering every captive individually if we wish to preserve
the
safety of our nation and her people.

And the nazis could not afford the luxury of considering every jew
individually, so better catch (and kill) them all to preserve the safety
of
the german nation and its people.
A nation with standards like these may not be worth preserving at all. I
sincerely hope that they are not shared by the majority of your fellow
americans.
Hans J.

Ah....the old "Americans=Nazis" argument. A favorite with liberal
Europeans.

Not worth preserving? Who's gonna stop it?? The world's jealous of the
influence and sheer power of the United States and you guys think that
somehow I should be ashamed of that. I'm not. And people can bitch and
moan about it all they want, but it won't change the fact that we ARE the
greatest nation on the planet.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful; hate me because I'm right.

Regards,

Matt

PS. And I'm anticipating the "arrogant American asshole" flame that will
undoubtedly accompany any replies to me on this thread, so if your next
scathing remark is going to be to comment on my perceived ignorance or lack
of education, feel free to save your breath.

"Matt Nemmers" :
Perhaps.....in a perfect world we could judge every man according to
his
own
beliefs and motivations. However, in a conflict such as this -- where
covert operations and suicide bombers are the norm -- we don't have
the
luxury of considering every captive individually if we wish to
preserve
the
safety of our nation and her people.

Another comparison springs to mind: terrorists do no discriminate between
victims. They kill people wether they are - from their point of view -
guilty or not guilty. Being an american or staying in America at times is
enough to get killed by terrorists.
Matt and his compatriots do not discriminate either. Whether the prisoners
at Guantanamo are guilty or not, no big deal. These guys were apprehended in
or in the vicinity of Afghanistan, so just lock them up and throw away the
key!
This similarity between the way terrorists think and act and the way the
american government thinks and acts is deeply disturbing.
Hans J.

Not worth preserving? Who's gonna stop it?? The world's jealous of the
influence and sheer power of the United States and you guys think that
somehow I should be ashamed of that. I'm not. And people can bitch and
moan about it all they want, but it won't change the fact that we ARE the
greatest nation on the planet.

Dear Matt,
If you are proud of belonging to a nation that has the world's largest
arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction and proud for that reason, well, I
guess thats your problem. The discussion wasnt really about the number of
guns, but about how they are being used. Still, maybe one could find
something else to be proud of, as an american. I mean, like treating people,
even those suspected to be criminals, with some degree of decency, a thing
that was once part of the american legal system. Like Miranda: "You have the
right ..."

And I'm anticipating the "arrogant American asshole" flame that will
undoubtedly accompany any replies to me on this thread, so if your next
scathing remark is going to be to comment on my perceived ignorance or
lack
of education, feel free to save your breath.

And if you feel like an arrogant american asshole, I wont dispute that point
with you. Thats your problem too. I dont think I ever in my long life called
anyone an asshole. I prefer more polite ways of insulting people.

Best wishes,
Hans J

Mike Murray wrote in
:

On 30 Jul 2004 19:48:18 GMT, Chris Nellist
wrote:

Perhaps.....in a perfect world we could judge every man according to
his own beliefs and motivations. However, in a conflict such as this
-- where covert operations and suicide bombers are the norm -- we
don't have the luxury of considering every captive individually if we
wish to preserve the safety of our nation and her people.

Since when was not invading foreign countries a luxury?

The answer to your question provides a good introduction to the way
the real world works.

One might call it a luxury if, like in Afghanistan, the government of
said country is actively supporting terrorist operations against us,

One might not if it isn't.

and we can execute the invasion with minimal casualties to ourselves.
Now, if you take the case of El Salvador versus the U.S. a couple of
decades ago, not invading the U.S. was a *necessity*, not a luxury.