YANK CHILD ABUSERS

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:

The operative word here is CRIMINAL...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

I wonder whether the difference between a criminal conspiracy
that gets the law and one that gets war isn't mostly size. Which
rules they get after capture seems to be something of a political
decision.

(Certainly the navy was needed to deal with pirate bases at times
in the past.)

And the militia was called out at Peter's Fields in Manchester, and the US
Army was used against the Bonus Marchers and the modern RN seems to operate
against drug smugglers with some success..

The military is often called out to aid the civil power.

Pirates were hanged at execution dock, but they were tried before a
civilian court.

However arresting them was often a bloody business, it doesn't stop them
being criminals, and, probably more to the point, it didn't stop ship's
captains holding 'Letters of Marque' being treated as prisoners of war.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message
...
In message , "William Black" wrote:

The rules were changed to stop people like the Nazis shooting
resistance
fighters out of hand.

Now if the polkadot head dress was a distinctive one...

Hmmm, would one have to treat S.P.E.C.T.R.E under the rules and laws of
war?
They *were* uniformed, but in an otherwise stateless "army." Al Qaeda
basically being the same. In a way, "land" pirates.

Same way you treat pirates or any other criminal conspiracy that wear a
uniform (Hell Angles seem to fit as well)

The operative word here is CRIMINAL...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was normally
hanging from the highest Yard-arm.

Jim

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:30:27 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:

The operative word here is CRIMINAL...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

I wonder whether the difference between a criminal conspiracy
that gets the law and one that gets war isn't mostly size. Which
rules they get after capture seems to be something of a political
decision.

(Certainly the navy was needed to deal with pirate bases at times
in the past.)

And the militia was called out at Peter's Fields in Manchester, and the US
Army was used against the Bonus Marchers and the modern RN seems to operate
against drug smugglers with some success..

In other words, big problems get the military, we're together so
far.

The military is often called out to aid the civil power.

Pirates were hanged at execution dock, but they were tried before a
civilian court.

Or an Admiralty court, depending IRRC.

However arresting them was often a bloody business, it doesn't stop them
being criminals, and, probably more to the point, it didn't stop ship's
captains holding 'Letters of Marque' being treated as prisoners of war.

Or as pirates, also depending on the political situation.

It's a little hard to think of Hitler and his gang of merry
assasins, murderers, theives, & rapists as anything but a
criminal conspiracy though and they got war.

Then there are revolutionaries. The founding fathers might have
been thought of as a criminal conspiracy, except that they won.
Many failed revolutionaries have been, but the American
Confederacy was not.

Other lovely people like our fiends AQ who aren't really a
country, although they control terrotory and have political
agendas.

The situations don't really fit the laws exactly. In many cases,
laws, in the broad sense of the word, are written to deal with
the situations.
____

Peter Skelton

"Jim" wrote in message ...
You're just another right wing hypocrite asshole.


As opposed to a Left wing nut.

Yes. (Dumber than a doorknob, too.)



Jim

"Jim" wrote in message ...
You mean the Supreme Court that turned the 14th amendment on its
head (their reasoning was that my neighbor's vote shouldn't
be counted because it "dilutes" my vote -- well, yes, as it should
in a democracy) in order to select George Bush as president?


No I am talking about the Supream court that stoped the Fla Supream court
from changing the rules after the election when there boy lost.

I'll let the internal evidence speak for itself as to which of us
is more likely to have this right.

I will also note severial liberial news agencies (NY times,CNN etc)
counted the chads and it was a non-issue as even counting the chads Gore
still lost Fla.

Not true; see, for instance

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~k...h/ballots.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2058603

It's curious that people continue to call the New York Times
"liberal" when it did everything it could to get Bush elected,
and then misrepresented the facts to claim that he won
legitimately when he didn't.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
You're just another right wing hypocrite asshole.


As opposed to a Left wing nut.

Yes. (Dumber than a doorknob, too.)



Jim

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was
normally
hanging from the highest Yard-arm.

I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:56:35 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
wrote:

It's a little hard to think of Hitler and his gang of merry
assasins, murderers, theives, & rapists as anything but a
criminal conspiracy though and they got war.

That's true, however they were also the legal government of Germany,
repugnant as the idea is...

The world is not tidy.

Then there are revolutionaries. The founding fathers might have
been thought of as a criminal conspiracy, except that they won.

'Treason cannot prosper, for with prosperity it ceases to be treason'.

Precisely

If the Taliban had thrashed the US out of sight they'd be taking their seat
in the UN right now. Nobody seriously wants South Vietnam back either...

With victory comes legitimacy

True, the PLO is well on its way.

Many failed revolutionaries have been, but the American
Confederacy was not.

I'm not aware that the leaders of the Confederacy were ever put on trial,
and I'll bet someone somewhere considered it.

Certainly, and a politican decision was made not to.

However, civil wars are odd.

Other lovely people like our fiends AQ who aren't really a
country, although they control terrotory and have political
agendas.

They don't control territory any more than any 'non-governmental
organisation' does. The government doesn't have the right of entry onto
your property either

The government may not have the right, but they do have the
ability. People hold property at the governments pleasure (they
govern at the people's, so that's fair...)

At one point AQ ceontrolled areas whatever the government wanted.
There have been large areas in other countries where other
organizations have had

The situations don't really fit the laws exactly. In many cases,
laws, in the broad sense of the word, are written to deal with
the situations.

That's also true. However there's no doubt in my mind that the attack on
the twin towers was a criminal, act and not an act of war.

Agreed. I hope I didn't iomply differently. In the long run,
controlling these extra-governmental organizations and badly
behaved governments may require extending the rule of law to
cover them.

Treating these criminals as soldiers gives them a dignity they do not
deserve and legitimises them to an extent that is frightening.

If you are talking about the perpetrators on 9-11, I agree.
There's a fairly lengthy liast of others too.
____

Peter Skelton

--
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing
ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It
is for hunting politicians like in Grozney and in 1776, when they take
your independence away".

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

You don't go to war against criminals, you arrest them and put them
on
trial, and if found guilty you punish them...

Countries have gone to war against pirates, and the punishment was
normally
hanging from the highest Yard-arm.

I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.


Was there a trail when they were firing broadsides as well...
Was there a trail when the marines stormed Tripoli?
Jim

"Jim" wrote in message ...

I think there's usually a trial somewhere in there.


Was there a trail when they were firing broadsides as well...
Was there a trail when the marines stormed Tripoli?

Leroy! That boy's using your computer again...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three