Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
from our Thai patent associated firm:

• Dear Clients & Friends,
  We are writing to report on the current political situation in Thailand. Today has been declared an official public holiday by the Administrative Reform Council. This newly established Council which is comprised of the Chiefs of the Royal Thai Navy, Army and Air Force and the Chief of National Police Bureau has dissolved Parliament and has assigned the permanent secretary of each government Ministry to act as the head of the ministry under the order of the Administrative Reform Council. Except for the Constitutional Court, all courts under the judiciary system and public administrative and military systems shall continue to maintain their normal function. The Council plans that both public and private sectors should resume normal operations tomorrow.
  
  The head of the Administrative Reform Council, General Sonthi Boonyarataglin announced that Thailand’s democratic system will be re-established as soon as possible and requests the cooperation from the Thai people. Gen Sonthi said the Council has no intention to rule the country. Power will be returned to Thai people as soon as possible. The action taken by the Council was needed to resolve conflicts, and bring back normality, and unity among Thais. The reasons given for the Council taking control was due to the corruption, confrontation, civil disorder and lack of public confidence in the Caretaker government which has caused a decline in the stability and economic growth of the country. Prior to the public announcement, the Council requested an audience with His Majesty the King at midnight September 19, 2006 in order to assure His Royal Highness of their peaceful intentions to restore public confidence and to defuse mass confrontation and business interference within the Kingdom.
  
  In view of the situation we anticipate some delays in doing business but a normal recovery in the last quarter of the year should be in the plans after the formation of the new national government which should take place in approximately two weeks. Once a new Prime Minister and members of the legislation receive His Royal Highness’s royal endorsement, business should resume as normal.
  
  We will update you on the situation as soon as we have further information.
  
  Dej-Udom & Associates

What about the hookers?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
from our Thai patent associated firm:

• Dear Clients & Friends,
  We are writing to report on the current political situation in Thailand. Today has been declared an official public holiday by the Administrative Reform Council. This newly established Council which is comprised of the Chiefs of the Royal Thai Navy, Army and Air Force and the Chief of National Police Bureau has dissolved Parliament and has assigned the permanent secretary of each government Ministry to act as the head of the ministry under the order of the Administrative Reform Council. Except for the Constitutional Court, all courts under the judiciary system and public administrative and military systems shall continue to maintain their normal function. The Council plans that both public and private sectors should resume normal operations tomorrow.
  
  The head of the Administrative Reform Council, General Sonthi Boonyarataglin announced that Thailand’s democratic system will be re-established as soon as possible and requests the cooperation from the Thai people. Gen Sonthi said the Council has no intention to rule the country. Power will be returned to Thai people as soon as possible. The action taken by the Council was needed to resolve conflicts, and bring back normality, and unity among Thais. The reasons given for the Council taking control was due to the corruption, confrontation, civil disorder and lack of public confidence in the Caretaker government which has caused a decline in the stability and economic growth of the country. Prior to the public announcement, the Council requested an audience with His Majesty the King at midnight September 19, 2006 in order to assure His Royal Highness of their peaceful intentions to restore public confidence and to defuse mass confrontation and business interference within the Kingdom.
  
  In view of the situation we anticipate some delays in doing business but a normal recovery in the last quarter of the year should be in the plans after the formation of the new national government which should take place in approximately two weeks. Once a new Prime Minister and members of the legislation receive His Royal Highness’s royal endorsement, business should resume as normal.
  
  We will update you on the situation as soon as we have further information.
  
  Dej-Udom & Associates

Thank you for the update. It appears that the junta is only a temporary thing, or at least their stated intention is to be temporary. I thought I understood from the reports I read yesterday that the Parliament had already been disbanded by the former Prime Minister. Is that inaccurate?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't really know what I can say that is more specific than "torture and physical abuse are wrong." You either get it or you don't.

Actually that was what I was interested in. So your belief is that using physical abuse on anyone at any time is wrong. What about sleep deprivation or that water fall thingy?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, it doesn't end anything. It simply represents more disinformation.

Quirin dealt with spies. Soldiers out of uniform are spies and subject to execution. That simple. The detainees at Gitmo and in the other prisons are not all soldiers out of uniform. We have swept up too many people that we aren't sure are combatants or not.

I am not sure this is true. Weren't most them part of the Taliban army that we fought (and are fighting) in Afghanistan? As far as I know, the Taliban army didn't issue uniforms.

Originally posted by taxwonk If they are combatants, in the sense of being hostile enemy soldiers out of uniform, then we should execute them. If they are merely people who we suspect may or may not have information concerning the identity or whereabouts of terrorists, then they are not combatants, and Quirin doesn't apply.

If they are hostile enemy soldiers out of uniform, and they have valuable information that we could use, shouldn't we try and get that information before we execute them?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(b) Well, that is the rub, isn't it? Even placing morality aside -- which I don't -- does adherence to the Geneva Conventions, which as ratified treaties are the Supreme law of our land up there next to the Constitution actually harm efficiency of interrogations or put us in any risk?

These guys aren't covered by the Geneva convention. They weren't wearing uniforms and they were not part of any army of a nation (the United States never recognized the Taliban).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually that was what I was interested in. So you belief is that using physical abuse on anyone at any time is wrong. What sleep deprivation or that water fall thingy?

Waterboarding: wrong.

Sleep Deprivation: not wrong unless it's forced standing or stress position.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk

You have nothing but shock value, and that has lost its effectiveness through yours and Penkse's abuse.

Like Hank, I have quit this board. the rhetoric posted by some is what is destroying America. I hope the collaborationists and appeasers are happy with their radical Islamofacist overlourds. Surely a better alternative than W.

That said, more importantly, I think it's sad that you would post the above, a typical shitstained politics of personal destruction attack, when I wasn't posting, and had not in almost a week.

Sad, and dishonourable. Like much of the left.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not sure this is true. Weren't most them part of the Taliban army that we fought (and are fighting) in Afghanistan? As far as I know, the Taliban army didn't issue uniforms.

No. The military conducted fairly large sweeps. Virtually any male who was in an area known to be under Taliban control was considered subject to detention.

If they are hostile enemy soldiers out of uniform, and they have valuable information that we could use, shouldn't we try and get that information before we execute them?

If my moemory is correct, accoring to the traditional rules of war, spies are executed. If the captor chooses to place them in confinement, then the operative treaties and conventions apply.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
These guys aren't covered by the Geneva convention. They weren't wearing uniforms and they were not part of any army of a nation (the United States never recognized the Taliban).

Ahh, but you see, that creates a problem. If they aren't part of any army, then they can't be enemy combatants. They're criminals. And the US military doesn't have police power in Afghanistan; it has the power afforded it as a military combatant.

You can't have it both ways. In tax law, this is called a whipsaw, and neither the government nor the taxpayer are allowed to whipsaw.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Like Hank, I have quit this board. the rhetoric posted by some is what is destroying America. I hope the collaborationists and appeasers are happy with their radical Islamofacist overlourds. Surely a better alternative than W.

That said, more importantly, I think it's sad that you would post the above, a typical shitstained politics of personal destruction attack, when I wasn't posting, and had not in almost a week.

Sad, and dishonourable. Like much of the left.

I wasn't talking about this week. I was talking about the last five years. You can't seriously claim that you haven't posted that picture time and time again for the shock value.

You reap what you sow.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Ahh, but you see, that creates a problem. If they aren't part of any army, then they can't be enemy combatants. They're criminals. And the US military doesn't have police power in Afghanistan; it has the power afforded it as a military combatant.

You can't have it both ways. In tax law, this is called a whipsaw, and neither the government nor the taxpayer are allowed to whipsaw.

Isn't an enemy combatant someone who is not in an organized army?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't an enemy combatant someone who is not in an organized army?

Not according to the Supreme Court in Quirin:

• The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war

I'm not sure of the exact number of "belligerents who have come through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property," but I know that most of them are dead.

ETA incidentally, Quirin came before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeus corpus.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't talking about this week. I was talking about the last five years. You can't seriously claim that you haven't posted that picture time and time again for the shock value.

You reap what you sow.

No. I posted for the discussion value. Or in memoriam for the patriots who fell in battle. You dishonour it by your puerile attacks of personal vitriol and hate. Our fallen comrades must be sick in the afterlife at those who would so casually ignore their sacrifice.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't an enemy combatant someone who is not in an organized army?

Depends on which definition you use. The Administration sort of defined/redefined the term in that fashion sometime around 2002 -- when they began worrying about how to handle the many Afghani and other prisoners.

Historically, the term had just been used to refer to enemy soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

S_A_M

P.S. I don't think that the U.S.' failure to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan can have any effect on whether or not Taliban fighters are covered by the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise any country can define/redefine the categories for themselves.

As a practical matter, they were solidiers in the Army of the entity that governed 90% of the territory for over a decade. I don't think that there is any dispute, however, that the Conventions don't really apply to Al Qaeda fighters. The question is more -- do we adhere to those standards anyway?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No. I posted for the discussion value. Or in memoriam for the patriots who fell in battle. You dishonour it by your puerile attacks of personal vitriol and hate. Our fallen comrades must be sick in the afterlife at those who would so casually ignore their sacrifice.

In the first place, I call bullshit. You posted to quell discussion or to disrupt it by inflaming passions.

Next, the victims of the attacks on 9/11 were not, largely patriots. They were poor individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Exceptions are the firefighters and other first responders who lost their lives trying to rescue the victims. A significant number of them were not even Americans.

It's your exploitation of their memory that dishonors them and you.