OT Survival instinct starts early

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_824506.html (link originally posted to
misc.survival) but I thought you'd be interested.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_824506.html (link originally
posted to misc.survival) but I thought you'd be interested.
Thanks for posting this Alan.

What kind of stupid bi**h leaves a two year old alone in an apartment
*period*? Another thing i'm wondering, is why the father didn't stop by
sooner than that to see his child.

that's one lucky little girl.. lots of purrrs going out to her that this
experience doesn't scar her for life.

Kristy
--
"As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." - Arthur Carlson

JHBennett wrote:
understanding (as I think the case with ACLU)--the goverment's detainment of
these people is completely legal and justified. The justification,

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal and the
Supreme Court was happy to uphold it. That doesn't mean slavery was right.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal and the
Supreme Court was happy to uphold it. That doesn't mean slavery was right.

Well said Victor!

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

"Victor M. Martinez" wrote in message
...
JHBennett wrote:
understanding (as I think the case with ACLU)--the goverment's detainment
of
these people is completely legal and justified. The justification,

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal and the
Supreme Court was happy to uphold it. That doesn't mean slavery was right.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv
Hehehehehehe........ and simply because you don't accept that it is legal,
justified, and the right thing to be doing, does not mean it's wrong.
Frankly, and I really mean no offence to you, it sounds as though you have
not researched the subject. Were you to do so, you might be able to make a
stronger case for your views. On the other hand, you might discover you
actually support the (gasp) government's position. Al Qaida are actually
terrorists, you know. Do you advocate turning them loose on the streets?
Cheers,
Jack

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" wrote in message
...
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal and
the
Supreme Court was happy to uphold it. That doesn't mean slavery was
right.

Well said Victor!

Cheers, helen s

Helen, please understand, I'm not particularly buying or selling. However,
I do think a very large number of people are being critical of the
government's actions because their frame of reference is to the criminal and
civil provisions of the Constitution, as pertains to us as citizens. Thus,
the detainment of people without charge or trial strikes us as very wrong,
and completely foreign to the principles of fair play this country was
founded upon. That about it? However, one of the basic responsibilities of
government is to protect its population from harm, whether the threat arises
from within a nation or outside. The ability and role of protecting us,
which we clamor for, is contained in the war powers of the Constitution, and
a completely different kettle of fish than what we, as citizens, expect.
Frankly, it's a matter of national survival, and not allowing the enemy to
benefit because your country follows the rules, while they do not.
Cheers,
Jack

Helen, please understand, I'm not particularly buying or selling. However,
I do think a very large number of people are being critical of the
government's actions because their frame of reference is to the criminal and
civil provisions of the Constitution, as pertains to us as citizens. Thus,
the detainment of people without charge or trial strikes us as very wrong,
and completely foreign to the principles of fair play this country was
founded upon. That about it? However, one of the basic responsibilities of
government is to protect its population from harm, whether the threat arises
from within a nation or outside. The ability and role of protecting us,
which we clamor for, is contained in the war powers of the Constitution, and
a completely different kettle of fish than what we, as citizens, expect.
Frankly, it's a matter of national survival, and not allowing the enemy to
benefit because your country follows the rules, while they do not.
Cheers,
Jack

I think the problem that a lot of folks have with the idea of the
military being able to detain non-combatants is the complete lack of
accountability. With all the deceit we've seen coming out of the White
House, it's hard to be comfortable with the idea of any branch of
government being able to arrest and detain whoever they feel like,
without anyone to oversee what they're doing. Makes folks like me wonder
"if I was to really tick off someone in a position of responsibility and
I got stuck in the compound at Gitmo, who would know about it and how
would they do anything about it?". If the administration was a little
more trustworthy it might not be such an issue.

Dan

JHBennett wrote:
Hehehehehehe........ and simply because you don't accept that it is legal,
justified, and the right thing to be doing, does not mean it's wrong.

Trust me, a majority of people in the world think it's wrong. Not that
majority creates morality, but it's a nice indicator.

Frankly, and I really mean no offence to you, it sounds as though you have
not researched the subject. Were you to do so, you might be able to make a
stronger case for your views. On the other hand, you might discover you

How do you know that? A "stronger case" for *my* views? I don't need to
justify my views to you or anybody else, now do I?

actually support the (gasp) government's position. Al Qaida are actually
terrorists, you know. Do you advocate turning them loose on the streets?

I advocate folks being tried for the crimes they are being accused of. I
advocate folks getting a fair chance to defend themselves. I advocate folks
being treated like human beings. I advocate accountability to those of us
who pay the bills.


--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

"Dan and Nancy Mahoney" wrote in message
...
Helen, please understand, I'm not particularly buying or selling.
However,
I do think a very large number of people are being critical of the
government's actions because their frame of reference is to the criminal
and
civil provisions of the Constitution, as pertains to us as citizens.
Thus,
the detainment of people without charge or trial strikes us as very
wrong,
and completely foreign to the principles of fair play this country was
founded upon. That about it? However, one of the basic
responsibilities of
government is to protect its population from harm, whether the threat
arises
from within a nation or outside. The ability and role of protecting us,
which we clamor for, is contained in the war powers of the Constitution,
and
a completely different kettle of fish than what we, as citizens, expect.
Frankly, it's a matter of national survival, and not allowing the enemy
to
benefit because your country follows the rules, while they do not.
Cheers,
Jack

I think the problem that a lot of folks have with the idea of the
military being able to detain non-combatants is the complete lack of
accountability. With all the deceit we've seen coming out of the White
House, it's hard to be comfortable with the idea of any branch of
government being able to arrest and detain whoever they feel like,
without anyone to oversee what they're doing. Makes folks like me wonder
"if I was to really tick off someone in a position of responsibility and
I got stuck in the compound at Gitmo, who would know about it and how
would they do anything about it?". If the administration was a little
more trustworthy it might not be such an issue.

Dan

Hmmmmm........ Dan, this might sound like the party line, but I can't do
much about that, sorry. Fact is I spent my career as a civilian employee of
DoD. As such I've seen the inner workings of how these things go and, most
assuredly, the government moves with great deliberation on all momentus
matters, and especially something like this. I do not share your fears for
a moment and, if you will notice, there is a great difference in the way
combatants captured abroad are dealt with and those taken into custody here.
This is especially true of the few US citizens, who have had access to the
courts, in every instance. Most of the people detained in the continental
US have been charged with criminal acts, or are awaiting some legal process,
such as a deportation hearing.
Incidentally, detention outside the US may be by the military. You will
not see that within the country, where the civil law enforcement
authorities, usually US Marshals, have jurisdiction. Also, having
associated with members of the uniform services, for many years, I can
assure you there is absolutely no chance of the military ever assisting some
despot in high office. Those people, after all, are citizens like you and
me and are completely unwilling to violate their oath to protect and defend
the Constitution.
You, and doubtless many others, might be surprised to know the
government is actually acting with great restraint, compared to what it
could be doing. Recall the flap about the internment of Japanese Americans,
during WWII? Contrary to what is held in popular belief, that action was
completely Constitutional. During times of national emergency, such as has
been declared by our Congress, the Constitution provides for the suspension
of Habeas Corpus. Chilling thought, isn't it?
John Dean wrote an interesting piece about the emergency powers of the
President, noting, in effect, that the man becomes a dictator. As an
example, he cited a letter FDR sent to Congress, stating the need for
certain legislation to conduct the war. Roosevelt ended the letter with the
words, "if the Congress fails to act, I will."
As for what protections you and I still have at such times, the
Constitution still exists, the Congress is still in business, and the
Supreme Court is still the final authority. Should anything get out of
hand, I think we can count on those time honored institutions setting things
right, just as they always have in the past. For the ultimate example,
suppose the Congress impeaches the President, and removes him from office.
Where is your tyrant now?
Cheers,
Jack

"Victor M. Martinez" wrote in message
...
JHBennett wrote:
Hehehehehehe........ and simply because you don't accept that it is
legal,
justified, and the right thing to be doing, does not mean it's wrong.

Trust me, a majority of people in the world think it's wrong.

Cite please. In point of fact, my experience is to the contrary, once
people learn the facts or knew them all along. Which I think you do
not. --JB

Not that
majority creates morality, but it's a nice indicator.

A statement without substance. Essentially hot air with no meaning or
bearing. --JB

Frankly, and I really mean no offence to you, it sounds as though you
have
not researched the subject. Were you to do so, you might be able to make
a
stronger case for your views. On the other hand, you might discover you

How do you know that? A "stronger case" for *my* views? I don't need to
justify my views to you or anybody else, now do I?

You're right, of course, I surmise you are ignorant of the facts because you
revert to emotional appeal, rather than rational arguments in support of
your position. A good place for you to start would be with the provisions
of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
Article 4, and explain how it is those terrorists and detainees are other
than *unlawful combatants* and, accordingly, entitled to the protections
afforded by that document. Interestingly enough, while outside the law,
they are actually being treated as though they were prisoners of war, for
all practical purposes. Absent, however, are such things as providing them
a cantina, recreational facilities, and other diversions/entertainments,
which enemy SOLDIERS would be entitled to.
Our Constitution, of course, does not apply as its reach stops at our
shores. However, were these people detained within the United States, the
provisions of the war powers would apply, not civil and criminal law, and
they could be detained just as legally as the soldiers of the states in
rebellion were, during the Civil War. --JB

actually support the (gasp) government's position. Al Qaida are actually
terrorists, you know. Do you advocate turning them loose on the streets?

I advocate folks being tried for the crimes they are being accused of.

It is not necessary to accuse an enemy of a crime to remove him from the
battle. I think your consideration of German prisoners, taken during WWII,
will indicate a legal charge, and trial are not a requirement at all. --JB

I
advocate folks getting a fair chance to defend themselves.

Precisely, the US governemnt is acting to give us a fair chance to defend
ourselves against terrorists, or doing the job for us, as we expect. That
isn't quite the point you were trying to make, is it?

I advocate
folks
being treated like human beings.

Excellent! Then you approve of the sanitary conditions, nutrition,
opportunity to practice their faith, medical care, and all the other
humanitarian efforts being extended to these terrorists. They're doing a
bit better than your countrymen at the former World Trade Center are, aren't
they.

I advocate accountability to those of us
who pay the bills.

Oh? Don't you vote, Victor?

Peace, Victor, take it easy a moment and consider again what I was saying
about arming yourself first with some facts, before arguing your position or
view. Now do you see what I was getting at? If you believe something, make
your best case.
Cheers,
Jack