Sheehan in Havana [Archive]

n2ize

01-08-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Jan. 08 2007,13:23)]If she is traveling on a US pass Port simply CANCEL the pass port and let her stay in Cuba. Of course her checks from Geo. Soros will have to be forwarded but she can cash it in the Cuban Banks.Castro may even let her keep some of the money!! However in Cuba you don't need money,the state supplies all that you need to survive !!
Quote[/b] ]
If she is traveling on a US pass Port simply CANCEL the pass port and let her stay in Cuba.

Not so simple. Even people who flagrantly violate the US passport restriction generally don't have their passports cancelled and are denied entry. It is particularly difficult if the person is a US citizen. Generally they are allowed back in and may face charges later. It also depends on a variety of factors. Then, as I pointed out above, there are various legal exemptions. It may even be deemed that her trip to Cuba is not illegal.

Of course if they did deny her re-entry into the country it would open up a huge can of worms and be a landmark case. It would probably generate incredible publicity for Sheehan and ultimately work in her favor. Imagine, a group of nonviolent peace protesters who are US citizens are DENIED entry back into their own country. I don't think that is the kind of publicity the administrations wants or needs right now.

Quote[/b] ]
Of course her checks from Geo. Soros will have to be forwarded but she can cash it in the Cuban Banks

Really ?? You know that George Soros is paying her ? Of course, he must be. Nobody could take up a cause they beleive in on their own.
I guess by the same token members of the Bush administration must be getting pay from the big oil companies. They couldn't be doing such a "great" job on their own.

k0ews

01-08-2007, 09:45 PM

Who cares, really. She's whacked out of her mind. I feel sorry for her the same way I feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith, Kevin Federline, Nicole Ritchie, etc...let her have her fun in Cuba I say.
One word....irrelevant.

n2ize

01-08-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote[/b] (k0ews @ Jan. 08 2007,14:45)]Who cares, really. She's whacked out of her mind. I feel sorry for her the same way I feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith, Kevin Federline, Nicole Ritchie, etc...let her have her fun in Cuba I say.
One word....irrelevant.
She is out of her mind because she is speaking out against a war that is wrong ? Iraq is the Vietnam of the new millennium. In years to come many of us will probably look back at ourselves and realize we were out of our minds for allowing such an atrocity to continue for so long, and not speaking out. Sadly, In the meantime people continue to die.

KA7RRA

01-08-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 08 2007,12:53)]Simple solution: Don't let her back in. Solves all the problems in one, simple step.
Or giver a cuban cigar and maybe it well shut her pie hole up!!!

k0ews

01-08-2007, 11:00 PM

No, out of her mind because of the extremes of which she takes things, and of the way in which she is letting herself be used. She is not only protesting the war, but openly wanting this nation to lose.
Iraq is a bad situation, but it is not Vietnam. Vietnam was Vietnam, Iraq is Iraq. Both bad for sure, but I wish people would give up the comparisons between the two. They don't compare. If you want to compare the Vietnam War to anything even remotely close, compare it to the American Revolution. 2 colonial countries occupied by bigger, more imperialistic nations who were among the most wealthy, most powerful economic and militarily in history. Both were brought to political defeat, but rarely a military defeat. Iraq compares to that mess they had in former Yugoslavia if anything.
Atrocity? That's a pretty big word. If what we have done to anyone in Abu-Graib and Gitmo are atrocities, then what in the HELL does that make what the other side does?
For the record, no I don't like the war either, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there and listen to some out of her mind kook wacko nut-job tell me that my country is evil and that we should lose. I simply disagree. Sheehan is expressing her opinion as guaranteed by our Constitution. So am I. Just how much dissenting "opinion" do you think she would be allowed to express is she were a Cuban citizen? Just how many rights do you think that the people she's openly rooting for to win in Iraq give to women, not to mention dissenting opinion there?
Vietnam was 40 years ago. Looking through the glass of history, I don't see the anti-war protesters as having been vindicated. If so, then why in the hell did Jane Fonda feel she needed to apologize?

The woman's a sad person who went off the deep end, plain and simple. The minute she took up for the other side is when she destroyed any credibility with me.

w5lda

01-08-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,09:12)]

Really ?? You know that George Soros is paying her ? Of #course, he must be. Nobody could take up a cause they beleive in on their own.
I guess by the same token members of the Bush administration must be getting pay from the big oil #companies. They couldn't be doing such a "great" job on their own.[/QUOTE]
Now thats funny!

W0MT

01-08-2007, 11:21 PM

Whether or not you agree with what she is doing, where the H*** does the US government get off telling any US citizen that they cannot travel anywhere? What if the dim lights in Washington decided you could not travel to one of the US states? I find it amasing that any one would accept the US government telling them where they could or could not travel. Whatever happened to "land of the free?"

k4kyv

01-08-2007, 11:29 PM

I don't conceed that the government has any authority to tell you where you can and cannot travel. Once you exit US soil, you are beyond US jurisdiction. I agree the gov't has jurisdiction over who ENTERS the country, but to ban travel outside the country is to deny one of the freedoms the old Soviet Union and other "Iron Curtain" countries long denied their subjects, which was one of the justifications the "West" used for pursuing the Cold War.

Of course, once you enter a country like Cuba (or Iran, North Korea, etc), you are on your own. I agree also that the US gov't does not owe you an iota of protection whilst you are there.

This is the same principle as the gov't being able to control radio RECEPTION. Granted, they have the right to regulate transmission of radio signals, but now, per the EPCA, they have ASSUMED jurisdiction over what you can legally tune on a receiver.

Two unrelated issues, but same principle.

WA2DYA

01-08-2007, 11:45 PM

Havana; Jan 8 (YP) A reliable source in the Casto administration has revealed that Fidel Castro has proposed marriage to Cindy Sheehan. The was no report concerning her response.

A White House aide reports the State Department is investigating using back channel connections. When President Bush was informed, he responded that as President, he would perform the ceremony and wish the happy couple well. Air Force One is on standby for the flight to Havana.

wz9o

01-08-2007, 11:50 PM

Jimmie Carter always wanted to marry Fidel Castro.

He will be heart broken.

AC0H

01-09-2007, 12:08 AM

Quote[/b] ]And, that #makes this okay ?
As long as they are accorded all of the rights under the Geneva convention, you bet!

They are prisoners of war. Their living conditions are a whole lot better than our POW's during WWII and Vietnam.

I have an idea, how about if we start treating enemy combatants like we are treated? That means SHOT ON SIGHT! No quarter given.

They and their governments have to learn that if you're going to attack the US, or support those that do, you're going to pay a heavy price.

The US shouldn't keep Flicka from leaving the country, but we sure as hell can keep her from getting back in.

KC2ESD

01-09-2007, 12:19 AM

Everybody tune your radios this week to Radio Havana 6000Khz and see if Cindy gets interviewed by the station.

KA7RRA

01-09-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Jan. 08 2007,17:19)]Everybody tune your radios this week to Radio Havana 6000Khz and see if Cindy gets interviewed by the station.
WHAT UTC TIME?

n2ize

01-09-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote[/b] (k0ews @ Jan. 08 2007,16:00)]No, out of her mind because of the extremes of which she takes things, and of the way in which she is letting herself be used. She is not only protesting the war, but openly wanting this nation to lose.
Iraq is a bad situation, but it is not Vietnam. Vietnam was Vietnam, Iraq is Iraq. Both bad for sure, but I wish people would give up the comparisons between the two. They don't compare. If you want to compare the Vietnam War to anything even remotely close, compare it to the American Revolution. 2 colonial countries occupied by bigger, more imperialistic nations who were among the most wealthy, most powerful economic and militarily in history. Both were brought to political defeat, but rarely a military defeat. Iraq compares to that mess they had in former Yugoslavia if anything.
Atrocity? That's a pretty big word. If what we have done to anyone in Abu-Graib and Gitmo are atrocities, then what in the HELL does that make what the other side does?
For the record, no I don't like the war either, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there and listen to some out of her mind kook wacko nut-job tell me that my country is evil and that we should lose. I simply disagree. Sheehan is expressing her opinion as guaranteed by our Constitution. So am I. Just how much dissenting "opinion" do you think she would be allowed to express is she were a Cuban citizen? Just how many rights do you think that the people she's openly rooting for to win in Iraq give to women, not to mention dissenting opinion there?
Vietnam was 40 years ago. Looking through the glass of history, I don't see the anti-war protesters as having been vindicated. If so, then why in the hell did Jane Fonda feel she needed to apologize?

The woman's a sad person who went off the deep end, plain and simple. The minute she took up for the other side is when she destroyed any credibility with me.
Quote[/b] ]
No, out of her mind because of the extremes of which she takes things

Why, because she is willing to take up a cause she believes in and follow it though passionately ? The same can be said about anyone who is passionate about something and devotes their time and life to it.
[/quote]

Quote[/b] ]
and of the way in which she is letting herself be used.

How is she letting herself be used ? The president told us that Saddam had WMD's and ties to Al Queda. mean while it has been proven over and over that none of these existed and the administration was well aware of those facts. Sheehan asked a simple question. "Explain the justification for the continued fighting and death in Iraq". Thus far neither the president nor any member of his cabinet can provide her an answer. So, she continues searching for an answer and struggling for peace. Seems to me those who are being "used" are those of us who keep listening to the lies and doing and saying nothing.

Quote[/b] ]
She is not only protesting the war, but openly wanting this nation to lose.

Thus far under Bush we have already lost.

Quote[/b] ]
Iraq is a bad situation, but it is not Vietnam.

Iraq is very much like Vietnam. True, we didn't inherit Iraq from the French but we are in a similar quagmire. Loosing good brave American lives over half truths, discrepancies and lies perpetrated by war profiteers. Diofferent place but same thing pretty much.

Quote[/b] ]
hat's a pretty big word. If what we have done to anyone in Abu-Graib and Gitmo are atrocities, then what in the HELL does that make what the other side does?

So ?? The other side does bad thing ? Does that give justification ? Do we stoop to their level ?

Quote[/b] ]
For the record, no I don't like the war either, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there and listen to some out of her mind kook wacko nut-job tell me that my country is evil and that we should lose

She didn't say the country is evil. She said the war is evil and the perpetrators of the war have taken a course that is bad. As far as loosing or winning goes what constitutes loss or win in this war ? What are the goals. What is the noble cause we are fighting for ? Thatis the very question she is asking.

Quote[/b] ]
ust how much dissenting "opinion" do you think she would be allowed to express is she were a Cuban citizen?

That's a strawman. We are here in America in the here and now. How much do you get away with today that you wouldn't get away with if you lived in Burma ? Same strawman.

Quote[/b] ]
Just how many rights do you think that the people she's openly rooting for to win in Iraq give to women, not to mention dissenting opinion there?

well, it looks like Bush war in Iraq is turning the country into an Islamic republic. Soooo... figure it will be run by Islamic clergy assuming a Bush "victory". So, I doubt that women will have much in the way of rights by the time the administration declares Iraq a win.

Quote[/b] ]
Vietnam was 40 years ago. Looking through the glass of history, I don't see the anti-war protesters as having been vindicated. If so, then why in the hell did Jane Fonda feel she needed to apologize?

Jane Fonda made it perfectly clear that she did not aplogize for protesting against the war. She apologized to the soldiers for certain things she said during her visit to Hanoi. Jane Fonda does not represent the majority of people who protested against the war, most of whom never met or knew Jane. Jane Fonda is not a spokesperson for the anti Vietnam war movement. Jane is only a spokesperson for herself. The majority of Vietnam war protesters did what they felt was right. They are not seeking vindication for their actions.

Quote[/b] ]
The woman's a sad person who went off the deep end, plain and simple. The minute she took up for the other side is when she destroyed any credibility with me.

Where did she take up for the other side ? Does that mean anyone who disagrees with Bush is on the other side ?

n2ize

01-09-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 08 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] ]And, that makes this okay ?
As long as they are accorded all of the rights under the Geneva convention, you bet!

They are prisoners of war. Their living conditions are a whole lot better than our POW's during WWII and Vietnam.

I have an idea, how about if we start treating enemy combatants like we are treated? That means SHOT ON SIGHT! No quarter given.

They and their governments have to learn that if you're going to attack the US, or support those that do, you're going to pay a heavy price.

The US shouldn't keep Flicka from leaving the country, but we sure as hell can keep her from getting back in.
Quote[/b] ]
have an idea, how about if we start treating enemy combatants like we are treated? That means SHOT ON SIGHT! No quarter given.

Since when are the people at Gitmo "enemy combatants"?? How can they be "enemy combatants" if they haven't been charged with anything ? If they were "enemy combatants" how come the Bush adminstration just recently released a whole slew of them ?

Quote[/b] ]
The US shouldn't keep Flicka from leaving the country, but we sure as hell can keep her from getting back in.

No they can't for reasons that are viable but you refuse to acknowledge or understand.

k0ews

01-09-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote[/b] ]Why, because she is willing to take up a cause she believes in and follow it though passionately ? The same can be said about anyone who is passionate about something and devotes their time and life to it
No, not exactly. There's a difference between following something passionately and what this person has done. She has that right. 99 percent of the time I pretty much ignore her. The only reason I even knew about her being in Cuba is because of this message board. She doesn't really exist in my universe. She's a nut.

Quote[/b] ]How is she letting herself be used ?
Who is paying for her to move about the country and the world like this? Someone is paying for her to get her "message" out.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is very much like Vietnam. True, we didn't inherit Iraq from the French but we are in a similar quagmire. Loosing good brave American lives over half truths, discrepancies and lies perpetrated by war profiteers. Diofferent place but same thing pretty much.
You mean no exit stragegy. In this, we agree. That's where the comparisons stop. Was there lying about going to war with Iraq? We don't know. Was it a bad idea in hindsight? Yes. It's not the first time it's happened however. Also, where is the other side? Vietnam was a proxy war, with their weapons being supplied by North Vietnam, China and USSR.
Quote[/b] ]So ?? The other side does bad thing ? Does that give justification ? Do we stoop to their level ?
Only if we start beheading people at Gitmo.
Quote[/b] ]She didn't say the country is evil. She said the war is evil and the perpetrators of the war have taken a course that is bad. As far as loosing or winning goes what constitutes loss or win in this war ? What are the goals. What is the noble cause we are fighting for ? Thatis the very question she is asking.
She has numerous times referred to our troops in the region as terrorists and Al Quaida in Iraq as freedom fighters. She's appeared supporting Chavez in Venezuela. That's just for starters.
Quote[/b] ]well, it looks like Bush war in Iraq is turning the country into an Islamic republic. Soooo... figure it will be run by Islamic clergy assuming a Bush "victory". So, I doubt that women will have much in the way of rights by the time the administration declares Iraq a win.

It will definitely be an Islamic republic not long after we withdraw.
Quote[/b] ] Jane Fonda does not represent the majority of people who protested against the war, most of whom never met or knew Jane. Jane Fonda is not a spokesperson for the anti Vietnam war movement. Jane is only a spokesperson for herself. The majority of Vietnam war protesters did what they felt was right.
So that majority of them that spit on GIs returning home and called them baby-killers still feels good about that too? God, I hope not.

Look, I don't see Sheehan as a symbol of the anti-war movement in the U.S. I don't give her that amount of credit. She's nothing but a sad lady who lost her son and her family all around the same time. I really feel rather sorry for her. She's turned into a professional protester. She'll end up like Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin did in the 80s. Doing their "protest" thing at campuses on the lecture circuit for lots of money. (I remember when they came to my school.)
I stick to my original post. She's nuts. I really do feel sorry for her, but I also think that her little act really jumped the shark about a year ago now. Irrelevant.

KC4HGH

01-09-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,14:51)]Quote[/b] (k0ews @ Jan. 08 2007,14:45)]Who cares, really. #She's whacked out of her mind. #I feel sorry for her the same way I feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith, Kevin Federline, Nicole Ritchie, etc...let her have her fun in Cuba I say.
One word....irrelevant.
She is out of her mind because she is speaking out against a war that is wrong ? Iraq is the Vietnam of the new millennium. In years to come many of us will probably look back at ourselves and realize we were out of our minds for allowing such an atrocity to continue for so long, and not speaking out. Sadly, In the meantime people continue to die.
John, I honestly wonder about her state of mind since she originally thanked & praised President Bush re: her son's volunteering for military service, then getting KIA and the Pres' honoring her son, THEN she turned 180 degrees & went wacko....

Strange woman, but it takes all kinds....

N0CTO

01-09-2007, 01:39 AM

I like how some on here are so concerned about the "innocence" of people caught on the battlefield trying to kill our troops but I have no doubt that you all were ready to string up our troops involved with Abu Ghriab and Haditha without a trial.

Try worrying more about Americans than those who are killing our troops.

I do agree that Gitmo's prison shouldn't be around. If we just executed them on the battlefield like they did a lot of prisoners in WWII then it wouldn't be an issue.

w4wtf

01-09-2007, 01:52 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,12:25)]As far as their visit to Cuba I say more power to them. #The struggle for world peace is a long and hard one and where people are #being held in captivity for years upon years without charge without trial should not be taken lightly. Already #numerous Guantanamo prisoners have been released after being held for years with no charges or trial. Attention needs to be brought to the reality that more people are still being held who may not be guilty of any terror or wrongdoing. I think it is a noble thing that these people went over their to raise this awareness.
Was your father/grandfather marching around the POW camps in the USA during WWII because those poor prisoners of war had not had trials. Hell, we even had prisonors doing unpaid labor building infrastructure at our bases and woring in local farms. The horrors!

This is war, we don't have to have a trial for every prisoner. This country has seriously lost its backbone along with any idea of what it means to fight a war. In a war prisoners are routinely held for the duration.

Yeah, releasing these guys is a great idea! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52670-2004Oct21?language=printer)

w4wtf

01-09-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,17:47)]Since when are the people at Gitmo "enemy combatants"?? How can they be "enemy combatants" if they haven't been charged with anything ? If they were "enemy combatants" how come the Bush adminstration just recently released a whole slew of them ?
Never in the history of warfare has every person captured been "charged". If you are fighting for the enemy and get captured you are held, and interrogated if they feel you need to be, and possibly released should your captors feel if a good idea.

It was like that in our first battles in 1776, right on through WWII, and still today.

As I said, we have really lost any idea as a nation of what fighting a war means.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,18:56)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,17:47)]Since when are the people at Gitmo "enemy combatants"?? How can they be "enemy combatants" if they haven't been charged with anything ? If they were "enemy combatants" how come the Bush adminstration just recently released a whole slew of them ?
Never in the history of warfare has every person captured been "charged". If you are fighting for the enemy and get captured you are held, and interrogated if they feel you need to be, and possibly released should your captors feel if a good idea.

It was like that in our first battles in 1776, right on through WWII, and still today.

As I said, we have really lost any idea as a nation of what fighting a war means.
There is no proof tha t all these people were fighting for an enemy. Besides they have been held for 5+ years. It's time they are either charged with a crime ,prosecuted and punished if guilty or released.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Jan. 08 2007,18:16)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,14:51)]Quote[/b] (k0ews @ Jan. 08 2007,14:45)]Who cares, really. She's whacked out of her mind. I feel sorry for her the same way I feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith, Kevin Federline, Nicole Ritchie, etc...let her have her fun in Cuba I say.
One word....irrelevant.
She is out of her mind because she is speaking out against a war that is wrong ? Iraq is the Vietnam of the new millennium. In years to come many of us will probably look back at ourselves and realize we were out of our minds for allowing such an atrocity to continue for so long, and not speaking out. Sadly, In the meantime people continue to die.
John, I honestly wonder about her state of mind since she originally thanked & praised President Bush re: her son's volunteering for military service, then getting KIA and the Pres' honoring her son, THEN she turned 180 degrees & went wacko....

Strange woman, but it takes all kinds....
So are you saying it would be more sane to allow a corrrupt war to continue and say nothing ? Excersizing your rights and duty as an American is wacko ?

kc7jty

01-09-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 08 2007,12:53)]Simple solution: Don't let her back in. Solves all the problems in one, simple step.
Don't get 'er mad unc. She might fill Fidel's shoes and make him look like minny mouse.

w4wtf

01-09-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,19:09)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,18:56)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,17:47)]Since when are the people at Gitmo "enemy combatants"?? How can they be "enemy combatants" if they haven't been charged with anything ? If they were "enemy combatants" how come the Bush adminstration just recently released a whole slew of them ?
Never in the history of warfare has every person captured been "charged". If you are fighting for the enemy and get captured you are held, and interrogated if they feel you need to be, and possibly released should your captors feel if a good idea.

It was like that in our first battles in 1776, right on through WWII, and still today.

As I said, we have really lost any idea as a nation of what fighting a war means.
There is no proof tha t all these people were fighting for an enemy. Besides they have been held for 5+ years. It's time they are either charged with a crime ,prosecuted and punished if guilty or released.
We held prisoners in WWI until it was over.

No proof they were fighting for the enemy? Lets see, do you think we just spent all this money on folks because we wanted to be mean?

My unit was involved in the detaining and capture of many, many people in Afghanistan.

90% were detained, interviewed, and released in 24 hours or turned over to the local police.

5.5% were held longer then released.

4% were detained at the facility in Bagram

That last .5% (it is probably smaller than that) got sent all the way to Gitmo, because a long vetting process that involved many stages said they should be there. We are not sending people there for no reason.... these are the enemy and thsi is a war.

Like I said, would you been marching outside the camps in GA in 1944 demanding those poor Germans be sent home or charged?

kc7jty

01-09-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,19:19)]these are the enemy and thsi is a war.
yes...and you failed to mention it is one we are losing.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 02:26 AM

What you did or what happened in the past is irrelevent. These prisoners are being denied the right to habeus corpus. This is a violation of international law. The Bush administration wanted to go so far as to try them in secret courts. Since, these people are, as you claim, enemies, then why are we refusing to allow them access to the courts after 5+ years. If they were so well screened and the case against them is so strong then it should be a simple matter to send them to trial and execution. Why did the Bush admin release a whole slow of these "enemy combatants" ?

w4wtf

01-09-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Jan. 08 2007,19:23)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,19:19)]these are the enemy and thsi is a war.
yes...and you failed to mention it is one we are losing.
Only to those too ignorant to pay attention.

Those prisoners are overwhelmingly form Afghanistan, a country that no longer allows terrorists to use it as a base, has had free elections for the first time, and is radidly assuming more and more responibility for its own security.

Only an idiot will claim we are losing there.

kc7jty

01-09-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,19:26)]Only an idiot will claim we are losing there.
I can wait.

w4wtf

01-09-2007, 02:33 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,19:26)]What you did or what happened in the past is irrelevent. These prisoners are being denied the right to habeus corpus. This is a violation of international law. The Bush administration wanted to go so far as to try them in secret courts. Since, these people are, as you claim, enemies, then why are we refusing to allow them access #to the courts after 5+ years. If they were so well screened and the case against them is so strong then it should be a simple matter to send them to trial and execution. Why did the Bush admin release a whole slow of these "enemy combatants" #?
Execution?

Now you are just being stupid because you are running out of arguements.

There is no legal reason to allow them access to courts. We never did in the past, and yes that is relevant because the laws are the same... prisoners of war do not have to be charged.

We never even had our war crimes trails until after the war had ended. At wars end we had over 425,000 prisoners on US soil... none had to be "charged" with anything. They were the enemy, they were captured, and that was that.

Why is the left pushing so hard to give special treatment to these guys that they do not have nay legal right to, when we are already giving them well above and beyond what the Geneva Accords call for? Why? Why do you want to?

wz9o

01-09-2007, 02:37 AM

Because they are liberals and they hate America and the military

K3XR

01-09-2007, 02:51 AM

Guess this poor sick woman will be heading to somalia next, to stand in front of a gunship.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

KI4PEQ

01-09-2007, 03:25 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,13:25)]Who said she #is "making money" by being a peace activist ? Nowhere in the article does it make that claim.

pro-fes-sional adj - engaged in an occupation as a paid job rather than a hobby.

The definition of a professional is straight out of the dictionary.

And here is a quote from that article:

"Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest."

Did you miss that part of the article? Who is paying them? Inquiring minds want to know!

wz9o

01-09-2007, 03:28 AM

The same ones who have been paying them all along...

The DNC !!!!

n2ize

01-09-2007, 03:38 AM

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ Jan. 08 2007,19:33)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,19:26)]What you did or what happened in the past is irrelevent. These prisoners are being denied the right to habeus corpus. This is a violation of international law. The Bush administration wanted to go so far as to try them in secret courts. Since, these people are, as you claim, enemies, then why are we refusing to allow them access to the courts after 5+ years. If they were so well screened and the case against them is so strong then it should be a simple matter to send them to trial and execution. Why did the Bush admin release a whole slow of these "enemy combatants" ?
Execution?

Now you are just being stupid because you are running out of arguements.

There is no legal reason to allow them access to courts. We never did in the past, and yes that is relevant because the laws are the same... prisoners of war do not have to be charged.

We never even had our war crimes trails until after the war had ended. At wars end we had over 425,000 prisoners on US soil... none had to be "charged" with anything. They were the enemy, they were captured, and that was that.

Why is the left pushing so hard to give special treatment to these guys that they do not have nay legal right to, when we are already giving them well above and beyond what the Geneva Accords call for? Why? Why do you want to?
No there is one fundimental argument. The prisoners at guantanamo are being held in violation of international law. Even the supreme court rules that they have the right to the courts. The Bush administration continues to violate the law. The solution is simple.If these people are enemy combatants as Bush claims then let them have their day in court. In addition there are numerous areas where the treatment of these prisoners have been treated in violation iof the Geneva convention. The solution is simple. Follow the rule of law and give them their day in court. Let the law take it's course. What is the administration hiding ? Why did it already release some of the detainees if the evedence against them is as solid as they claim.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 08 2007,20:25)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,13:25)]Who said she is "making money" by being a peace activist ? Nowhere in the article does it make that claim.

pro-fes-sional adj - engaged in an occupation as a paid job rather than a hobby.

The definition of a professional is straight out of the dictionary.

And here is a quote from that article:

"Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest."

Did you miss that part of the article? Who is paying them? Inquiring minds want to know!
Right but "professional" has other meanings... for example.

Quote[/b] ]
professional
<1> adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
3 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>

Pay particular attention to 1 and 3. make note that is is per definition that one can be a professional or act in professional capacity without being paid or gaining monetary compensation for ones actions. This ios clear from the defintion of the word and there are countless examples in reality.

Quote[/b] ]
Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest."

Yes, and like it or not that and the fact that they are attending such a conference may yield them viable exemption from prosecution.

Quote[/b] ]
Did you miss that part of the article? Who is paying them? Inquiring minds want to know!

No I read it loud and clear. There is no implication that anyone has hired them to do this.

KC2ESD

01-09-2007, 04:01 AM

I hope Bush Cuffs and Stuffs Cindy in Club Gitmo for her disruptions in Crawford TX. She can Kiss My.....

n2ize

01-09-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Jan. 08 2007,21:01)]I hope Bush Cuffs and Stuffs Cindy in Club Gitmo for her disruptions in Crawford TX. She can Kiss My.....
Thats rich. Brilliance at it's best.

N3ATS

01-09-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,01:26)]Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Jan. 08 2007,21:01)]I hope Bush Cuffs and Stuffs Cindy in Club Gitmo for her disruptions in Crawford TX. She can Kiss My.....
Thats rich. Brilliance at it's best.
No, it's just the brainwashing talking.

N3ATS

01-09-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 08 2007,18:21)]Whether or not you agree with what she is doing, where the H*** does the US government get off telling any US citizen that they cannot travel anywhere? What if the dim lights in Washington decided you could not travel to one of the US states? I find it amasing that any one would accept the US government telling them where they could or could not travel. Whatever happened to "land of the free?"
Amen to that.

AC0H

01-09-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote[/b] ]The solution is simple.If these people are enemy combatants as Bush claims then let them have their day in court.
How many former German POW's held here "had their day in court" while the war was still on?

Quote[/b] ]In addition there are numerous areas where the treatment of these prisoners have been treated in violation iof the Geneva convention.
Proof from a credible source?
Nobody whose been there has claimed these prisoners are being treated in violation of the geneva conventions. I have no doubt some whacked out anti-war group you may be a member of claims that, but the international red cross carries more sway than some stoned, flag burning panty waists.

K2WH

01-09-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,08:25)]Who said she #is "making money" by being a peace activist ? Nowhere in the article does it make that claim.

As far as the travel ban between the US and Cuba there are exemptions. The travel ban is part #of trade restrictions between the USA and Cuba. The US Govt. #still views Cuba as "the enemy" and trade (including the tourist trade) is restricted. However, that does not mean nobody from the USA is permitted to go to Cuba. There are exemptions granted for such things as diplomatic engagements, press/news coverage, #educational purposes, humanitarian, etc. #How this particular case would be judge I am not sure but it sounds like those that went there are pretty confident that they won't have much trouble.

As far as their visit to Cuba I say more power to them. #The struggle for world peace is a long and hard one and where people are #being held in captivity for years upon years without charge without trial should not be taken lightly. Already #numerous Guantanamo prisoners have been released after being held for years with no charges or trial. Attention needs to be brought to the reality that more people are still being held who may not be guilty of any terror or wrongdoing. I think it is a noble thing that these people went over their to raise this awareness.
Oh, you had to bring up Gitmo. I thought you were talking about the Cuban citizens when discussing the topic of prisoners and torture.

K2WH

K2WH

01-09-2007, 03:08 PM

IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. #My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. #After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. #She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH

KD6NIG

01-09-2007, 03:15 PM

Who cares?

By continuing to post anything about her, as well as the media latching onto her like a leech, she continues to get all of this spotlight on her.

If the media would ignore her, you wouldn't even know who she was in a year anymore.

She may be a nutbar, but she's getting her word out because there are plenty of people waiting with baited breath to hear about her latest adventures.

Well, not me, but apparrantly thats what the media believes, and so do some people on QRZ, or she would be a non issue, and thus not worthy of having a topic started about her.

I care about as much about what she is doing as I care about the neatness of my sock drawers. Which is to say that when I open it, as long as I have a pair of socks in there, I'm good! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

k4kyv

01-09-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,13:21)]How many former German POW's held here "had their day in court" while the war was still on?
The US officially declared war against Germany, therefore they could legally be held until hostilities were over.

The present-day detainees are not classified as "POW's" but are being held under a newly-contrived status as "enemy combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal)." There has been no official declaration of war. The enemy is described as "terrorism." That's not a country or even a polical movement, but a tactic. How do you declare war against a tactic?

And how do you define the end of hostilites? Terrorism has been used as a tactic of war and politics for thousands of years, and its use is not likely to cease during the lifetime of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of anyone alive on earth today. So do you hold someone in prison for the rest of his life, without ever pressing formal charges? I suppose so; they did just that in the Soviet Union. There are even rumours of American soldiers who happened to be captured in the wrong place at the wrong time, being secretly held in Siberian prisons for decades until they died. But do we want the USSR as our rôle model?

About 100 German POW's were held at the army base here, near where I live, during WW2. They were allowed (or ordered) to work local farms. Most of them reported being treated very well, and many, if not most, were glad to be here, doing farm work and details at the army base, rather than serving as cannon fodder in Europe. Some became lifelong friends with the local farmers they worked for. They were repatriated to Germany after the war, but several returned to the USA, made their home here and raised families in the town where they were held captive. There was an obit in the local newspaper recently as one of the last of the surviving German POW's died in his 80's after living here as a productive citizen for over 50 years.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 09 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,13:21)]How many former German POW's held here "had their day in court" while the war was still on?
The US officially declared war against Germany, therefore they could legally be held until hostilities were over.

The present-day detainees are not classified as "POW's" but are being held under a newly-contrived status as "enemy combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal)." There has been no official declaration of war. The enemy is described as "terrorism." That's not a country or even a polical movement, but a tactic. How do you declare war against a tactic?

And how do you define the end of hostilites? Terrorism has been used as a tactic of war and politics for thousands of years, and its use is not likely to cease during the lifetime of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of anyone alive on earth today. So do you hold someone in prison for the rest of his life, without ever pressing formal charges? I suppose so; they did just that in the Soviet Union. There are even rumours of American soldiers who happened to be captured in the wrong place at the wrong time, being secretly held in Siberian prisons for decades until they died. But do we want the USSR as our rôle model?

About 100 German POW's were held at the army base here, near where I live, during WW2. They were allowed (or ordered) to work local farms. Most of them reported being treated very well, and many, if not most, were glad to be here, doing farm work and details at the army base, rather than serving as cannon fodder in Europe. Some became lifelong friends with the local farmers they worked for. They were repatriated to Germany after the war, but several returned to the USA, made their home here and raised families in the town where they were held captive. There was an obit in the local newspaper recently as one of the last of the surviving German POW's died in his 80's after living here as a productive citizen for over 50 years.
Very intersting Don. Yes I have heard of German POW'sfinding a new life here in the states. Also emphasises the big difference between German POW's and the "enemy combatant" status of those held at Gitmo under Bush.

wz9o

01-09-2007, 05:31 PM

She suffers from Looney Lib Syndrome

KC4HGH

01-09-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Jan. 08 2007,18:16)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,14:51)]Quote[/b] (k0ews @ Jan. 08 2007,14:45)]Who cares, really. #She's whacked out of her mind. #I feel sorry for her the same way I feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith, Kevin Federline, Nicole Ritchie, etc...let her have her fun in Cuba I say.
One word....irrelevant.
She is out of her mind because she is speaking out against a war that is wrong ? Iraq is the Vietnam of the new millennium. In years to come many of us will probably look back at ourselves and realize we were out of our minds for allowing such an atrocity to continue for so long, and not speaking out. Sadly, In the meantime people continue to die.
John, I honestly wonder about her state of mind since she originally thanked & praised President Bush re: her son's volunteering for military service, then getting KIA and the Pres' honoring her son, THEN she turned 180 degrees & went wacko....

Strange woman, but it takes all kinds....
So are you saying it would be more sane to allow a corrrupt war to continue and say nothing ? Excersizing your rights and duty as an American is wacko ?
John, please re-read my post- I didn't say anything about war, etc.- I mentioned her state of mind. Losing a child must've had some negative impact on her, I'm sure.

Stop reading something into posts that wasn't there in the first place....

KC4HGH

01-09-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:24)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 09 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,13:21)]How many former German POW's held here "had their day in court" while the war was still on?
The US officially declared war against Germany, therefore they could legally be held until hostilities were over.

The present-day detainees are not classified as "POW's" but are being held under a newly-contrived status as "enemy combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal)." #There has been no official declaration of war. #The enemy is described as "terrorism." #That's not a country or even a polical movement, but a tactic. #How do you declare war against a tactic?

And how do you define the end of hostilites? #Terrorism has been used as a tactic of war and politics for thousands of years, and its use is not likely to cease during the lifetime of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of anyone alive on earth today. #So do you hold someone in prison for the rest of his life, without ever pressing formal charges? #I suppose so; they did just that in the Soviet Union. #There are even rumours of American soldiers who happened to be captured in the wrong place at the wrong time, being secretly held in Siberian prisons for decades until they died. But do we want the USSR as our rôle model?

About 100 German POW's were held at the army base here, near where I live, during WW2. #They were allowed (or ordered) to work local farms. #Most of them reported being treated very well, and many, if not most, were glad to be here, doing farm work and details at the army base, rather than serving as cannon fodder in Europe. #Some became lifelong friends with the local farmers they worked for. #They were repatriated to Germany after the war, but several returned to the USA, made their home here and raised families in the town where they were held captive. #There was an obit in the local newspaper recently as one of the last of the surviving German POW's died in his 80's after living here as a productive citizen for over 50 years.
Very intersting Don. Yes I have heard of German POW'sfinding a new life here in the states. Also emphasises the big difference between German POW's and the "enemy combatant" status of those held at Gitmo under Bush.
...and I'm sure they're getting better treatment at Gitmo than they're giving us when our soldiers & allies are captured. They are given Korans, proper food to their liking, prayer times undisturbed, everything they need for a comfortable existance. We get beatings, torture & beheadings from their side.

In talking with a recently retired veteran of the last two wars (yes, I call it "war"- that's what it is!), he mentioned that if the Gitmo POWs (I refuse to call them captives) could get their hands on our soldiers, they'd kill 'em. The POWs regularly throw food at them, spit at them and curse & threaten the soldiers every day- you think they appreciate our humane treatment of them? No way, according to my source- it's all a mindset, to kill, kill, KILL anyone who isn't of their religious zeal. When Osama bin Ladin started his indoctrination of followers, he mentioned, "All Christians must die, all Americans are Christians, so all Americans must die!" I forget what month that was in, but it was quoted in Readers Digest, two years before 9/11/2001 and was entitled, "This Man Wants You Dead". (I wish I'd never let go of my copy, I'd scan it & send it to every doubter & hater of the U.S.) And they'd stop at nothing to kill YOU if they had the chance.

Trials? Heck, yes, under military tribunal, NOT in a U.S. judicial system- but, unless anyone knows without a shadow of doubt what's going on at Gitmo, et. al. or in the military processes up to and that's been redefined after 9/11/2001, stop the Monday morning quarterbacking!

k5xit

01-09-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,12:25)]Who said she #is "making money" by being a peace activist ? Nowhere in the article does it make that claim.

As far as the travel ban between the US and Cuba there are exemptions. The travel ban is part #of trade restrictions between the USA and Cuba. The US Govt. #still views Cuba as "the enemy" and trade (including the tourist trade) is restricted. However, that does not mean nobody from the USA is permitted to go to Cuba. There are exemptions granted for such things as diplomatic engagements, press/news coverage, #educational purposes, humanitarian, etc. #How this particular case would be judge I am not sure but it sounds like those that went there are pretty confident that they won't have much trouble.

As far as their visit to Cuba I say more power to them. #The struggle for world peace is a long and hard one and where people are #being held in captivity for years upon years without charge without trial should not be taken lightly. Already #numerous Guantanamo prisoners have been released after being held for years with no charges or trial. Attention needs to be brought to the reality that more people are still being held who may not be guilty of any terror or wrongdoing. I think it is a noble thing that these people went over their to raise this awareness.
Oh right, the poor moslems that were just detained because they were planting IEDs and killing in any way they could. Sheehan should go to Iraq and convince them to change their ways. Get a life !

nx6d

01-09-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Jan. 09 2007,10:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:24)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 09 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,13:21)]How many former German POW's held here "had their day in court" while the war was still on?
The US officially declared war against Germany, therefore they could legally be held until hostilities were over.

The present-day detainees are not classified as "POW's" but are being held under a newly-contrived status as "enemy combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal)." #There has been no official declaration of war. #The enemy is described as "terrorism." #That's not a country or even a polical movement, but a tactic. #How do you declare war against a tactic?

And how do you define the end of hostilites? #Terrorism has been used as a tactic of war and politics for thousands of years, and its use is not likely to cease during the lifetime of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of anyone alive on earth today. #So do you hold someone in prison for the rest of his life, without ever pressing formal charges? #I suppose so; they did just that in the Soviet Union. #There are even rumours of American soldiers who happened to be captured in the wrong place at the wrong time, being secretly held in Siberian prisons for decades until they died. But do we want the USSR as our rôle model?

About 100 German POW's were held at the army base here, near where I live, during WW2. #They were allowed (or ordered) to work local farms. #Most of them reported being treated very well, and many, if not most, were glad to be here, doing farm work and details at the army base, rather than serving as cannon fodder in Europe. #Some became lifelong friends with the local farmers they worked for. #They were repatriated to Germany after the war, but several returned to the USA, made their home here and raised families in the town where they were held captive. #There was an obit in the local newspaper recently as one of the last of the surviving German POW's died in his 80's after living here as a productive citizen for over 50 years.
Very intersting Don. Yes I have heard of German POW'sfinding a new life here in the states. Also emphasises the big difference between German POW's and the "enemy combatant" status of those held at Gitmo under Bush.
...and I'm sure they're getting better treatment at Gitmo than they're giving us when our soldiers & allies are captured. #They are given Korans, proper food to their liking, prayer times undisturbed, everything they need for a comfortable existance. #We get beatings, torture & beheadings from their side.

In talking with a recently retired veteran of the last two wars (yes, I call it "war"- that's what it is!), he mentioned that if the Gitmo POWs (I refuse to call them captives) could get their hands on our soldiers, they'd kill 'em. #The POWs regularly throw food at them, spit at them and curse & threaten the soldiers every day- you think they appreciate our humane treatment of them? #No way, according to my source- it's all a mindset, to kill, kill, KILL anyone who isn't of their religious zeal. #When Osama bin Ladin started his indoctrination of followers, he mentioned, "All Christians must die, all Americans are Christians, so all Americans must die!" #I forget what month that was in, but it was quoted in Readers Digest, two years before 9/11/2001 and was entitled, "This Man Wants You Dead". #(I wish I'd never let go of my copy, I'd scan it & send it to every doubter & hater of the U.S.) #And they'd stop at nothing to kill YOU if they had the chance.

Trials? #Heck, yes, under military tribunal, NOT in a U.S. judicial system- but, unless anyone knows without a shadow of doubt what's going on at Gitmo, et. al. or in the military processes up to and that's been redefined after 9/11/2001, stop the Monday morning quarterbacking!
Quote[/b] ]...and I'm sure they're getting better treatment at Gitmo than they're giving us when our soldiers & allies are captured. #They are given Korans, proper food to their liking, prayer times undisturbed, everything they need for a comfortable existance. #We get beatings, torture & beheadings from their side.

Bad argument. As IZE stated before, you can't compare WWII with this stupidity. We just went out and grabbed of bunch of perceived "threats" and set up our own gulag. Sorry, but I'm not paranoid, like you appear to be about this "threat".

Quote[/b] ]In talking with a recently retired veteran of the last two wars (yes, I call it "war"- that's what it is!), he mentioned that if the Gitmo POWs (I refuse to call them captives) could get their hands on our soldiers, they'd kill 'em. #The POWs regularly throw food at them, spit at them and curse & threaten the soldiers every day- you think they appreciate our humane treatment of them? #No way, according to my source- it's all a mindset, to kill, kill, KILL anyone who isn't of their religious zeal.

Your source is one guy amongst thousands. Hardly credible. As for the kill, kill, KILL mindset, I've seen a large percentage of THAT right here on this very website directed at muslims.

Quote[/b] ]When Osama bin Ladin started his indoctrination of followers, he mentioned, "All Christians must die, all Americans are Christians, so all Americans must die!" #

Great, if Osama is such a threat, why does the President of the United States not seem to give a damn about catching him? More alarmist propaganda...

Quote[/b] ]I forget what month that was in, but it was quoted in Readers Digest, two years before 9/11/2001 and was entitled, "This Man Wants You Dead".

THERE's a credible source. Reader's Digest...Wow...

Quote[/b] ](I wish I'd never let go of my copy, I'd scan it & send it to every doubter & hater of the U.S.) #And they'd stop at nothing to kill YOU if they had the chance.

This line has just about every lame cliche used by the supporters of this stupid Iraq expedition. I especially love "hater of the US", which is code for if you don't agree with administration policy, you hate America. Bravo Sierra.

Quote[/b] ]Trials? #Heck, yes, under military tribunal, NOT in a U.S. judicial system- but, unless anyone knows without a shadow of doubt what's going on at Gitmo, et. al. or in the military processes up to and that's been redefined after 9/11/2001, stop the Monday morning quarterbacking!

You know the same about the arrest and detention of the Gitmo detainees as we do, which is just about exactly zero. I don't trust this administration to "do the right thing", they've lied to us continuously...

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

n2ize

01-09-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ Jan. 09 2007,15:16)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,12:25)]Who said she is "making money" by being a peace activist ? Nowhere in the article does it make that claim.

As far as the travel ban between the US and Cuba there are exemptions. The travel ban is part of trade restrictions between the USA and Cuba. The US Govt. still views Cuba as "the enemy" and trade (including the tourist trade) is restricted. However, that does not mean nobody from the USA is permitted to go to Cuba. There are exemptions granted for such things as diplomatic engagements, press/news coverage, educational purposes, humanitarian, etc. How this particular case would be judge I am not sure but it sounds like those that went there are pretty confident that they won't have much trouble.

As far as their visit to Cuba I say more power to them. The struggle for world peace is a long and hard one and where people are being held in captivity for years upon years without charge without trial should not be taken lightly. Already numerous Guantanamo prisoners have been released after being held for years with no charges or trial. Attention needs to be brought to the reality that more people are still being held who may not be guilty of any terror or wrongdoing. I think it is a noble thing that these people went over their to raise this awareness.
Oh right, the poor moslems that were just detained because they were planting IEDs and killing in any way they could. Sheehan should go to Iraq and convince them to change their ways. Get a life !
Apparently you know more about gtmo than the Department of defense knows. You are making some claims about the detainees that the DOD hasn't even made.

KI4PEQ

01-09-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Jan. 08 2007,22:01)]I hope Bush Cuffs and Stuffs Cindy in Club Gitmo for her disruptions in Crawford TX. She can Kiss My.....
http://www.asspirinacres.com/images/FireDanceJambalya.jpg http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

wz9o

01-10-2007, 12:56 AM

Sounds like the Looney Libs got loose again

wd0ct

01-10-2007, 12:58 AM

Screw Cindy. Suzanne Somer's house burnt down!

KC4HGH

01-10-2007, 04:29 AM

*SIGH* nx6d, apparently you believe we as U.S. citizens, and those of our military, have less rights to life and the ability to protect ourselves than the rest of the world. Rest easy tonight, knowing you have nothing to care about & everyone to hate that doesn't agree with your viewpoints.

I prefer to take the viewpoints of soldiers who have "been there" over that of someone who has NO idea what he/she is talking about...and I have talked with numerous soldiers- in fact, I work with one recently retired gentleman that spent LOTS of time "over there".

Your standard line is "he lied", "they lied", etc. and the second-guessing goes on & on. Paranoid? Not me- I try to get the FACTS from someone that was in the theater, NOT by reading some liberal rag/news website or listening to Air America....although I do catch the latter on AFRS sometimes, just to get Frankin's loony viewpoints....

KI4PEQ

01-10-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. #My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. #After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. #But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. #She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the #phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. #A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.
I'm sure that if you ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who is in Iraq, they will assure you, no, INSIST on telling you that there is nothing "phony" about a situation where good people, both military and civilian, are dying every day. And who is Cindy Sheehan to DEMAND answers from the commander-in-chief? NOBODY, that's who. She is nothing more than a publicity hound who whores herself out by being seen with every tinhorn dictator and ultra-left whacko to further her "cause".

Save your "phony" rhetoric for the editorial pages.

al2n

01-10-2007, 04:41 AM

How many of you are willing to take in some of these prisioners while they await transport home?

Hmm? Want to take in some Taliban fellas? I am sure they would love to get to know you and your family.

I thought so.

N9XR

01-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Jan. 09 2007,15:41)]How many of you are willing to take in some of these prisioners while they await transport home?

Hmm? #Want to take in some Taliban fellas? #I am sure they would love to get to know you and your family.

I thought so.
I dont understand why they would have to wait. They had no waiting period to get into the prision. They should have no problem moving back.

No. I would not mind having them shipped here to stay while waiting.

Jerry N9XR

Yamagata, Japan

kc7jty

01-10-2007, 05:27 PM

Jerry...you gonna take one of those communal baths over there in the buff? That's the pic I want to see.

N9XR

01-10-2007, 07:07 PM

Dude, That is a big thing here in this Yamagata hotel. Last evening, there were lots of guys unloading off the elevator in their robes and slippers heading to the public bath.

As far as the picture, I did not know you cared. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif FYI, the ladies side is off limits to us guys.

My sleep pattern is not real good yet. Better try to get back to sleep. ;)

wz9o

01-10-2007, 07:38 PM

[QUOTE]
Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

I could not have said it better myself.

n2ize

01-10-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 09 2007,21:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.
I'm sure that if you ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who is in Iraq, they will assure you, no, INSIST on telling you that there is nothing "phony" about a situation where good people, both military and civilian, are dying every day. And who is Cindy Sheehan to DEMAND answers from the commander-in-chief? NOBODY, that's who. She is nothing more than a publicity hound who whores herself out by being seen with every tinhorn dictator and ultra-left whacko to further her "cause".

Save your "phony" rhetoric for the editorial pages.
The only reason that she is considered to be "crazy" by some is because she represents the questions that we should ALL be asking of this administration. She also represents the sad reality that people are dying for no good or valid reason in a contrived war that should never have happened to begin with. That is understandably a tough and unpleasant pill to swallow.

K2WH

01-10-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 09 2007,21:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. #My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. #After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. #But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. #She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the #phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. #A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.
I'm sure that if you ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who is in Iraq, they will assure you, no, INSIST on telling you that there is nothing "phony" about a situation where good people, both military and civilian, are dying every day. And who is Cindy Sheehan to DEMAND answers from the commander-in-chief? NOBODY, that's who. She is nothing more than a publicity hound who whores herself out by being seen with every tinhorn dictator and ultra-left whacko to further her "cause".

Save your "phony" rhetoric for the editorial pages.
The only reason that she is considered to be "crazy" by #some is because she represents the questions that we should ALL be asking of this administration. #She also represents the sad reality #that people are #dying for no good or valid reason in a contrived war #that should never have happened to begin with. That is understandably a tough and unpleasant pill to swallow.
Question for IZE:

If Cindy is a SANE voice against this war, then I'm curious to know what you think of the parents of soldiers killed in the war that are proud of their sons commitment to country. #Proud of the USA and its President. #The parents who think the war is just.

If Sheehan is not insane, then are the other parents, the proud ones just misguided people? #Can't have it both ways.

K2WH

N9XR

01-10-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 10 2007,08:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 09 2007,21:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. #My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. #After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. #But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. #She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the #phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. #A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.
I'm sure that if you ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who is in Iraq, they will assure you, no, INSIST on telling you that there is nothing "phony" about a situation where good people, both military and civilian, are dying every day. And who is Cindy Sheehan to DEMAND answers from the commander-in-chief? NOBODY, that's who. She is nothing more than a publicity hound who whores herself out by being seen with every tinhorn dictator and ultra-left whacko to further her "cause".

Save your "phony" rhetoric for the editorial pages.
The only reason that she is considered to be "crazy" by #some is because she represents the questions that we should ALL be asking of this administration. #She also represents the sad reality #that people are #dying for no good or valid reason in a contrived war #that should never have happened to begin with. That is understandably a tough and unpleasant pill to swallow.
Question for IZE:

If Cindy is a SANE voice against this war, then I'm curious to know what you think of the parents of soldiers killed in the war that are proud of their sons commitment to country. #Proud of the USA and its President. #The parents who think the war is just.

If Sheehan is not insane, then are the other parents, the proud ones just misguided people? #Can't have it both ways.

K2WH
Many of them are ones who were seeking a very late term abortion.

Jerry N9XR

Yamagata, Japan

n2ize

01-10-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 10 2007,14:53)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 09 2007,21:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)]IZE:

Read most of your posting, point, counter-point. My GOD man when did you get to be such a flaming liberal?

Bottom line, the women is an embarrassment to the USA and should be excoriated and humiliated. After all, she has the right to be verbally abusive of the President, the USA and its citizens. But, we also have the absolute right to do the same to her. She is a nutbag, a shill for the left and possibly insane.

K2WH
She's not the embarrassment to the USA. The Bush admin is the embarrassment. She is bringing attention to the phony war perpetrated by the Bush admin. A war that was based on propaganda which even the administration admits to. The president can't even answer the simplistic question she has been asking from day one.
I'm sure that if you ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who is in Iraq, they will assure you, no, INSIST on telling you that there is nothing "phony" about a situation where good people, both military and civilian, are dying every day. And who is Cindy Sheehan to DEMAND answers from the commander-in-chief? NOBODY, that's who. She is nothing more than a publicity hound who whores herself out by being seen with every tinhorn dictator and ultra-left whacko to further her "cause".

Save your "phony" rhetoric for the editorial pages.
The only reason that she is considered to be "crazy" by some is because she represents the questions that we should ALL be asking of this administration. She also represents the sad reality that people are dying for no good or valid reason in a contrived war that should never have happened to begin with. That is understandably a tough and unpleasant pill to swallow.
Question for IZE:

If Cindy is a SANE voice against this war, then I'm curious to know what you think of the parents of soldiers killed in the war that are proud of their sons commitment to country. Proud of the USA and its President. The parents who think the war is just.

If Sheehan is not insane, then are the other parents, the proud ones just misguided people? Can't have it both ways.

K2WH
I think you covered your own question. That is precisely the reason so many people are upset with Cindy Sheehan. In this war what one wants "to be" is the antipode of "what is", the latter being what Sheehan represents. It is much easier to dismiss someone like her as "crazy", "insane", "not of sound mind", etc. than accept her for the latter.

Most of the facts and publicity and surrounding discussion regarding Sheehan come not from the so called "liberal left" but from the "far leaning right". On any typical day I learn more facts about Cindy Sheehan, her whereabouts, her latest protest, etc. not from liberal sources but from the very right wing sources that condemn her. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O' Reilly, the conservatives on this board, bring far more Sheehan publicity to my attention than do the liberal sources. Yet these are the same people who are declaring her insane. If they really believed that then why such scorn , animosity, and free PUBLICITY for a person they deem insane ? In most facets of society the insane are considered better unseen and unheard and are generally disregarded as their insanity implies an irrationality. Why debate and argue thoughts that are irrational to begin with ? In other words, if the right so strongly believes Cindy Sheehan is insane than why do they pay some much attention to her speech, whereabouts and actions ? It seems quite counterproductive.

If on the other hand they declare her insane as a means of discrediting the things she has to say, all the while they are fully aware that the woman is not insane, that she is both rational, and representing a truth about the war in which the conservatives themselves find validity yet prefer to discredit rather than admit.

w4wtf

01-11-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2007,15:49)]at #the woman is not insane, that she is both rational, and representing a truth about the war
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for the New American Century] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people... since we first stepped on this continent; we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls**t to my son, and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms this country is not worth dying for."

"Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs... gangsters who lust after fortunes and power, never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We've watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values... and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes... and that, by its very design, prohibits recounting the votes. Our loved ones have been buried in early graves even as these arrogant thugs parade themselves before the entire world, insisting that democracy is worth dying for, killing for, and destroying entire cities for... In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the dwindling multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

"My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004," Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. "You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny. ... You give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we'll put this war on trial."

"We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."

Why does Terri Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan?"

We must not have the same idea of "rational"