Letters

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

Democratic Party Chairman Brian Schatz's partisan letter in Tuesday's Star-Bulletin says he is surprised that the governor is not taking a position on rail, yet signed the petition to put rail on the ballot.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 50 of50
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jul 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Wait What wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read the charges? He's not on trial for picking up Osama's dry cleaning.
And he's classified as an "illegal (enemy) combatant" (as are all terrorists), not an "enemy combatant." Illegal combatants wear civilian clothes or don't otherwise "advertise" themselves as combatants when they pull the pin on the grenade, and are not considered POWs when captured. Enemy combatants wear uniforms when they fight and are granted POW status when captured.
It's nothing new. It's why in all the WWII movies where commandoes captured behind enemy lines dressed as civilians or disguised as solders of the other side were charged as "spies" and not detained as POWs.
But the issue is muddied further now in the "War on Terror" as a war against an action, not a nation. It's a war without end (no prisoner releases or swaps at the end of the war which resolved muddy cases in previous conflicts). And we have uniformed groups, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who have been declared terrorist groups. They fight in and out of uniform. So how would you treat them? According to what they were wearing at the time of capture? What they were wearing at the time of the act? What if they acted both in and out of uniform? Do you treat them as terrorists or soldiers?
The US Attorney General has been asking Congress to pass legislation clarifying these issues for some time now.
About 250 years ago there was a colony to the west of Britain that revolted. Some fought in and out of uniform. Many used guerilla tactics. They even shot at officers of the British Army.

What should they be classified as?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jul 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Alan Cummings wrote:
Yeah,
Don't waste your time. I think it's best if we try and ignore someone who shall remain nameless. Whatever you write, you'll always be wrong in his mind.
I should have listened to you earlier!:-)
Wait What

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jul 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
About 250 years ago there was a colony to the west of Britain that revolted. Some fought in and out of uniform. Many used guerilla tactics. They even shot at officers of the British Army.
What should they be classified as?
We're talking classification, not justification. From their perspective, the terrorists are absolutely in the right. From the administration's perspective, they're absolutely right.

But right now, from a legal perspective, there's not general agreement on how to classify modern terrorists acting on behalf of a cause, not a nation. The UN is staunchly anti-terrorism, yet they have no definition of a terrorist. They never will because many of the member states look at the definition proposed by the US and others and call them freedom fighters. They're defined by their cause, not their actions.

But that shouldn't stop the US from internally defining combatants in the amorphous war on terror in our own terms and behaving accordingly. I believe what's happening at Gitmo is quite un-American, but it's more a moral argument than a legal one because the laws on the books are not well-suited to the current situation.
and it continues

Wailuku, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jul 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

To John A. Broussard,

You seem to hate Bush and seem sympathetic towards Osama's cohorts. I had a friend that died in the World Trade Center attack.

Osama deserves no sympathy and your editorial is just plain stupid.
UdaFOol

Hayward, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jul 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Alan Cummings wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, that last time I looked Obama was still in the state senate in Illinois when 9/11 occurred and the HUGE majority of the WTC bombers(16 out of 19) were Saudi's. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of a country that was proven to have nothing to do with the attack?
Uhhhh, because Saudi Arabia the country didn't attack us? Hows that for an answer. Too hard for you?
Retardicant

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Jul 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What a sack of crap letter by Willis K. Lee. Of all people, the Governor should know that representatives are just that, a voice of the people. Now, having a voice isn't enough, they also want a vote. And as Barbara Marshall has already pointed out, it sets a bad precedent. Be prepared for every nut-job group out there overwhelming our elections with frivilous petitions to place everything to a vote.

The final irony of Lingle's position is that she didn't think the Super Ferry needed to put to a vote - did she? All along while she was illegaly trying to back-door the SF through.

She had my vote last go around. This go around, it's "anybody but Lingel".
Retardicant

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jul 26, 2008
 
UdaFOol wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhh, because Saudi Arabia the country didn't attack us? Hows that for an answer. Too hard for you?
The Saudis were a big player in the 911 attacks. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Al Queda. Iraq didn't attack us - fool! So what's your reasoning now? Why we're not going after Saudi Arabia is an excellent question. We all know why we went to Iraq, so the Junior could settle his daddy's war. Meanwhile, why haven't the Bush twins served yet?
UdaFOol

Hayward, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jul 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Retardicant wrote:
<quoted text>The Saudis were a big player in the 911 attacks. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Al Queda. Iraq didn't attack us - fool! So what's your reasoning now? Why we're not going after Saudi Arabia is an excellent question. yet?
We went after Iraq because they we needed to send a dagger of democracy into the heart of the Middle East, the source of the worlds worst organized radical religous terrorism and the source of the irrational hatred which fueled the 9-11 Muslim attackers.

I wonder what Osama is thinking about his decision now that we essentially own Iraq, Afghanistan and have bases all over the Middle East like in Saudi, Dubai, Kuwait etc.

You think he might be thinking, "damn, maybe I shouldn't have awakened the giant"
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Jul 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

UdaFOol wrote:
<quoted text>
We went after Iraq because they we needed to send a dagger of democracy into the heart of the Middle East, the source of the worlds worst organized radical religous terrorism and the source of the irrational hatred which fueled the 9-11 Muslim attackers.
I wonder what Osama is thinking about his decision now that we essentially own Iraq, Afghanistan and have bases all over the Middle East like in Saudi, Dubai, Kuwait etc.
You think he might be thinking, "damn, maybe I shouldn't have awakened the giant"
You can't answer a simple math question, but I think it's actually your strong suit. Your arguments have just entered the "Twilight Zone."
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jul 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Alan Cummings wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't slander a good TV show like the Twilight Zone. His arguments are more out of "Beavis and **** "(where he's more than likely the main character).
Sorry about that. I'll try and curb my temper :-)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 50 of50
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Kamuela Discussions

Search the Kamuela Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Review: Paka's Smoke Shop Jul 4 Nathan 1
Review: Club Korea & BBQ Jul 2 Scammed 2
pau pizza Jun 23 in love 1
Dive assault caught on film May '14 David B 1
Big Island kava bars (Dec '09) May '14 HEP C RISK 4
Dr. John Stover Cosmetic Surgeon/Dentist May '14 Potential Patient 3
Review: K Town Tattoo & Body Piercing (Apr '11) Apr '14 Danielle - Frank Hayward 42
•••
•••
•••
•••

Kamuela Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Kamuela People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Kamuela News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Kamuela
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••