A Nuremberg Lesson
Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'
by SCOTT HORTON

"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United
States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on
terror.

In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft.
Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking
military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of
Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few
"rotten apples" - not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to
blame.

Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
orders of his superiors [i.e., "just doing my job"]. This defense
was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi
war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled
American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of
the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others
acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger
Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest
punishment. [A no win situation (Catch 22)]

Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the
president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote
that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on
terror [History repeating itself (see below), thus stating, "anything
goes in love and war."]. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were
not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill
suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal
Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical
arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers
fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a
remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an
aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty.
Keitel was executed in 1946.

Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared
by German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served
by adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
echoing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military
lawyers, sent Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.

Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of
the Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo
Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan - misconduct that has produced at least 30
deaths in detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques.
But the Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.

T H I S I S A M E R I C A T O D A Y

At Nuremberg, [Federal courts and all entities thereunder] U.S.
prosecutors held German officials accountable for the consequences of
their policy decisions without offering proof that these decisions were
implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The existence of
the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in them
occurred was taken as proof enough.

There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be
held to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles
the U.S. proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the
administration and the military who seem most culpable for the tragedy
not only escape punishment but in some cases are slated for promotion?

Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a
few "rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a
courageous assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the
United States, which can still act to salvage its tradition and its
honor.

National Judicial Review

WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL*

*not available in all areas.

Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
road signs: "George Bush's CIA". Nixon is spinning in his grave
wondering what Bush has to do to be impeached.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
fascism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Horton is a New York attorney and a lecturer in
international humanitarian law at Columbia University.

From:	John Hunt
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:19:28 +1100

On 21 Jan 2005 02:19:54 -0800, morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:

}A Nuremberg Lesson
}Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'
}by SCOTT HORTON
}
}"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
}of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
}prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
}methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
}their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."
}
}Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
}officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
}history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
}Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United
}States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on
}terror.
}
}In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft.
}Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking
}military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of
}Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary
}Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few
}"rotten apples" - not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to
}blame.
}
}Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
}orders of his superiors [i.e., "just doing my job"]. This defense
}was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi
}war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled
}American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of
}the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others
}acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger
}Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest
}punishment. [A no win situation (Catch 22)]
}
}Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the
}president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote
}that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on
}terror [History repeating itself (see below), thus stating, "anything
}goes in love and war."]. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were
}not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill
}suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal
}Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical
}arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers
}fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a
}remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an
}aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty.
}Keitel was executed in 1946.
}
}Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared
}by German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
}soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served
}by adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
}echoing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military
}lawyers, sent Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.
}
}Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
}connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of
}the Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo
}Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan - misconduct that has produced at least 30
}deaths in detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques.
}But the Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.
}
}T H I S I S A M E R I C A T O D A Y
}
}At Nuremberg, [Federal courts and all entities thereunder] U.S.
}prosecutors held German officials accountable for the consequences of
}their policy decisions without offering proof that these decisions were
}implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The existence of
}the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in them
}occurred was taken as proof enough.
}
}There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be
}held to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles
}the U.S. proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the
}administration and the military who seem most culpable for the tragedy
}not only escape punishment but in some cases are slated for promotion?
}
}Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
}memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
}Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
}acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a
}few "rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a
}courageous assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the
}United States, which can still act to salvage its tradition and its
}honor.
}

Drawing a bit of long bow comparing Abu Ghraib and Aushwitz but then
that is the sort of intellectual dishonesty we have come to expect
from the left.

}National Judicial Review
}
}WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL*
}
}*not available in all areas.
}
}Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
}road signs: "George Bush's CIA". Nixon is spinning in his grave
}wondering what Bush has to do to be impeached.
}
}"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
}State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
}fascism.
}
}---------------------------------------------------------------------
}Scott Horton is a New York attorney and a lecturer in
}international humanitarian law at Columbia University.

Another lefty making a crust...

From:	morrisseybreen at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	23 Jan 2005 03:11:32 -0800

Somebody called Stan Pierce makes the fundamental error, for him, of
trying to be clever:

>
> You have learned the language of evasion very well. The trouble is
you see,
> the technique is easily observed.

And you would, I take it, be able to demonstrate how Israel is being
"evasive"?

From:	Nusrat Rizvi
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:50:15 -0500

morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:

> A Nuremberg Lesson
> Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'
> by SCOTT HORTON
>
> "This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
> of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
> prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
> methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
> their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."
>
> Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
> officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
> history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
> Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United
> States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on
> terror.
>
> In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft.
> Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking
> military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of
> Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary
> Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few
> "rotten apples" - not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to
> blame.
>
> Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
> orders of his superiors [i.e., "just doing my job"]. This defense
> was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi
> war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled
> American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of
> the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others
> acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger
> Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest
> punishment. [A no win situation (Catch 22)]
>
> Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the
> president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote
> that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on
> terror [History repeating itself (see below), thus stating, "anything
> goes in love and war."]. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were
> not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill
> suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal
> Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical
> arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers
> fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a
> remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an
> aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty.
> Keitel was executed in 1946.
>
> Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared
> by German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
> soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served
> by adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
> echoing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military
> lawyers, sent Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.
>
> Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
> connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of
> the Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo
> Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan - misconduct that has produced at least 30
> deaths in detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques.
> But the Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.
>
> T H I S I S A M E R I C A T O D A Y
>
> At Nuremberg, [Federal courts and all entities thereunder] U.S.
> prosecutors held German officials accountable for the consequences of
> their policy decisions without offering proof that these decisions were
> implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The existence of
> the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in them
> occurred was taken as proof enough.
>
> There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be
> held to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles
> the U.S. proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the
> administration and the military who seem most culpable for the tragedy
> not only escape punishment but in some cases are slated for promotion?
>
> Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
> memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
> Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
> acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a
> few "rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a
> courageous assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the
> United States, which can still act to salvage its tradition and its
> honor.
>

It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
Muslim fanatics as human beings.
If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer you
the curtisies you are now extending to them.

> National Judicial Review
>
> WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL*
>
> *not available in all areas.
>
> Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
> road signs: "George Bush's CIA". Nixon is spinning in his grave
> wondering what Bush has to do to be impeached.
>
> "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
> State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
> fascism.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scott Horton is a New York attorney and a lecturer in
> international humanitarian law at Columbia University.
>

From:	Gib Bogle
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:44:42 +1300

Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
>
> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
> Muslim fanatics as human beings.

You would be a Hindu, right? You've done us a favour in revealing the
mentality of fanatics from your side of the fence.

From:	Nusrat Rizvi
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:46:43 -0500

Gib Bogle wrote:

> Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
>>
>> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
>> Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>
>
> You would be a Hindu, right? You've done us a favour in revealing the
> mentality of fanatics from your side of the fence.

Actually I am a Muslim, son of a clergyman to boot.
Hope this answers your question.

From:	John Cawston
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:14:36 +1300

Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> Gib Bogle wrote:
>
>> Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
>>> Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>>
>>
>>
>> You would be a Hindu, right? You've done us a favour in revealing the
>> mentality of fanatics from your side of the fence.
>
>
> Actually I am a Muslim, son of a clergyman to boot.
> Hope this answers your question.

Ah, love it!

JC

From:	israel t
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:40:01 GMT

d-moss@adfa.edu.au writes:

> Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
> returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
> of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
> be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
> charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
> Australian. Where is the outrage?

The US are allowed to do anything to people from its
virtual colonies.

From:	John Hunt
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:24:20 +1100

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:50:15 -0500, Nusrat Rizvi
wrote:

}morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
}
}> A Nuremberg Lesson
}> Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'
}> by SCOTT HORTON
}>
}> "This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
}> of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
}> prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
}> methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
}> their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."
}>
}> Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
}> officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
}> history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
}> Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United
}> States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on
}> terror.
}>
}> In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft.
}> Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking
}> military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of
}> Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary
}> Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few
}> "rotten apples" - not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to
}> blame.
}>
}> Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
}> orders of his superiors [i.e., "just doing my job"]. This defense
}> was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi
}> war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled
}> American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of
}> the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others
}> acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger
}> Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest
}> punishment. [A no win situation (Catch 22)]
}>
}> Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the
}> president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote
}> that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on
}> terror [History repeating itself (see below), thus stating, "anything
}> goes in love and war."]. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were
}> not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill
}> suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal
}> Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical
}> arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers
}> fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a
}> remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an
}> aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty.
}> Keitel was executed in 1946.
}>
}> Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared
}> by German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
}> soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served
}> by adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
}> echoing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military
}> lawyers, sent Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.
}>
}> Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
}> connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of
}> the Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo
}> Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan - misconduct that has produced at least 30
}> deaths in detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques.
}> But the Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.
}>
}> T H I S I S A M E R I C A T O D A Y
}>
}> At Nuremberg, [Federal courts and all entities thereunder] U.S.
}> prosecutors held German officials accountable for the consequences of
}> their policy decisions without offering proof that these decisions were
}> implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The existence of
}> the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in them
}> occurred was taken as proof enough.
}>
}> There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be
}> held to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles
}> the U.S. proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the
}> administration and the military who seem most culpable for the tragedy
}> not only escape punishment but in some cases are slated for promotion?
}>
}> Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
}> memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
}> Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
}> acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a
}> few "rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a
}> courageous assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the
}> United States, which can still act to salvage its tradition and its
}> honor.
}>
}
}It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
}Muslim fanatics as human beings.
}If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer you
}the curtisies you are now extending to them.
}

True, But these morons believe that we need to engage in a more
"sensitive" war on terror - this against people who decapitate victims
with hunting knives. Only an idiot could belive that the Dudley
Do-Right approach is what's needed.

From:	Newsman
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:17:30 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:24:20 +1100, John Hunt
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:50:15 -0500, Nusrat Rizvi
> wrote:
>
>}morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
>}
>}> A Nuremberg Lesson
>}> Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.'
>}> by SCOTT HORTON
>}>
>}> "This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
>}> of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
>}> prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
>}> methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
>}> their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."
>}>
>}> Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior
>}> officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of
>}> history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at
>}> Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United
>}> States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on
>}> terror.
>}>
>}> In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft.
>}> Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking
>}> military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of
>}> Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary
>}> Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few
>}> "rotten apples" - not U.S. policy or those who created it - are to
>}> blame.
>}>
>}> Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" - arguing that he was acting on
>}> orders of his superiors [i.e., "just doing my job"]. This defense
>}> was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi
>}> war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled
>}> American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of
>}> the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others
>}> acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger
>}> Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest
>}> punishment. [A no win situation (Catch 22)]
>}>
>}> Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the
>}> president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote
>}> that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on
>}> terror [History repeating itself (see below), thus stating, "anything
>}> goes in love and war."]. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were
>}> not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill
>}> suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal
>}> Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical
>}> arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers
>}> fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a
>}> remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an
>}> aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty.
>}> Keitel was executed in 1946.
>}>
>}> Keitel's remarks were made in response to a valiant memorandum prepared
>}> by German military lawyers who argued that the interests of Germany's
>}> soldiers, and the interests of morale and good order, would be served
>}> by adhering to the Geneva treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
>}> echoing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military
>}> lawyers, sent Gonzales a letter that hit the same notes.
>}>
>}> Rumsfeld and the White House would have us believe that there is no
>}> connection between policy documents exploring torture and evasion of
>}> the Geneva Convention and the misconduct on the ground in Guantanamo
>}> Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan - misconduct that has produced at least 30
>}> deaths in detention associated with "extreme" interrogation techniques.
>}> But the Nuremberg tradition contradicts such a contention.
>}>
>}> T H I S I S A M E R I C A T O D A Y
>}>
>}> At Nuremberg, [Federal courts and all entities thereunder] U.S.
>}> prosecutors held German officials accountable for the consequences of
>}> their policy decisions without offering proof that these decisions were
>}> implemented with the knowledge of the policymakers. The existence of
>}> the policies and evidence that the conduct contemplated in them
>}> occurred was taken as proof enough.
>}>
>}> There is no doubt that individuals like Graner and England should be
>}> held to account. But where is justice - and where are the principles
>}> the U.S. proudly advanced at Nuremberg - if those in the
>}> administration and the military who seem most culpable for the tragedy
>}> not only escape punishment but in some cases are slated for promotion?
>}>
>}> Next week, the world will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. A
>}> memorial prayer for the death camp victims will be read at the United
>}> Nations. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will attend to
>}> acknowledge that the depravities at Auschwitz were not the work of a
>}> few "rotten apples" but the responsibility of a nation. Such a
>}> courageous assumption of responsibility should provide a model for the
>}> United States, which can still act to salvage its tradition and its
>}> honor.
>}>
>}
>}It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
>}Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>}If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer you
>}the curtisies you are now extending to them.
>}
>
>True, But these morons believe that we need to engage in a more
>"sensitive" war on terror - this against people who decapitate victims
>with hunting knives. Only an idiot could belive that the Dudley
>Do-Right approach is what's needed.

During the first Gulf war televison audiences were treated to images
gathered by TV cameras mounted on missiles.

Around the world the blameless, non-combatant *civilised* peoples
witnessed US bombs being so accurately targeted that they could be
directed unerringly down the ventilator shafts of various buildings,
blowing to bits those inside. We were even privileged to "ride" on the
nose of the bomb and thrill to the instantaneous mass annihilation of
those who were no less human than we, doubtless most of them
forcefully conscripted and just following orders, including the
non-combatant secretaries and tea ladies.

We, the civilised, were also treated to exactly the same kind of
images when, during the disgusting and inexcusable US turkey shoot
meted out to a decimated and fleeing Iraqi army on the Basra Road, we
rode the bomb right into the moment of the extinguishing of a
terrorised Iraqi conscript who, for one brief second, was seen through
the windscreen of his truck transfixed by his own mortality a
millisecond before his own eyes.

As far as any righteousness and morality where warfare is concerned,
the USA can claim none for itself. As a result of its overweening
militaristic preoccupations the USA has degenerated into an
eight-year-old's virtual world of computerised games of mutilation,
death and destruction (designed with Pentagon input, by the way) and
has a rising generation of those who now can't differentiate between
arcade fantasy and desert-boot reality. But America's true reality is
the terrorist diaspora and the fear and loathing that this has brought
upon a whole nation, all driven ruthlessly by a greedy corporatist
administration that now has its very own population by the balls,
Homeland Security Act and all.

The recent presidential election was fought and won on this one
predominant and tub-thumped theme - terror. But it was won on this
basis only because the American population has been sufficiently
dumbed down to fall for it.

And the likes of Osama bin Laden know this full well which is why for
the foreseeable future he and his kind will keep the American people
fearful, unknowing, politically suggestible and compliant. Worse, they
will also be burdened with an economy mired in massive indebtedness
through ever-increasing defence budgets.

For bin Laden it's all like falling off a log; he has the best
possible ally any terorist-minded thug or malcontent conspirator could
wish for:

George Bush.

From:	John Cawston
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:29:20 +1300

Newsman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:24:20 +1100, John Hunt
> wrote:

>>}It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to treat
>>}Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>>}If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer you
>>}the curtisies you are now extending to them.
>>}
>>
>>True, But these morons believe that we need to engage in a more
>>"sensitive" war on terror - this against people who decapitate victims
>>with hunting knives. Only an idiot could belive that the Dudley
>>Do-Right approach is what's needed.
>
>
> During the first Gulf war televison audiences were treated to images
> gathered by TV cameras mounted on missiles.
>
> Around the world the blameless, non-combatant *civilised* peoples
> witnessed US bombs being so accurately targeted that they could be
> directed unerringly down the ventilator shafts of various buildings,
> blowing to bits those inside. We were even privileged to "ride" on the
> nose of the bomb and thrill to the instantaneous mass annihilation of
> those who were no less human than we, doubtless most of them
> forcefully conscripted and just following orders, including the
> non-combatant secretaries and tea ladies.
>
> We, the civilised, were also treated to exactly the same kind of
> images when, during the disgusting and inexcusable US turkey shoot
> meted out to a decimated and fleeing Iraqi army on the Basra Road, we
> rode the bomb right into the moment of the extinguishing of a
> terrorised Iraqi conscript who, for one brief second, was seen through
> the windscreen of his truck transfixed by his own mortality a
> millisecond before his own eyes.
>
> As far as any righteousness and morality where warfare is concerned,
> the USA can claim none for itself. As a result of its overweening
> militaristic preoccupations the USA has degenerated into an
> eight-year-old's virtual world of computerised games of mutilation,
> death and destruction (designed with Pentagon input, by the way) and
> has a rising generation of those who now can't differentiate between
> arcade fantasy and desert-boot reality. But America's true reality is
> the terrorist diaspora and the fear and loathing that this has brought
> upon a whole nation, all driven ruthlessly by a greedy corporatist
> administration that now has its very own population by the balls,
> Homeland Security Act and all.
>
> The recent presidential election was fought and won on this one
> predominant and tub-thumped theme - terror. But it was won on this
> basis only because the American population has been sufficiently
> dumbed down to fall for it.
>
> And the likes of Osama bin Laden know this full well which is why for
> the foreseeable future he and his kind will keep the American people
> fearful, unknowing, politically suggestible and compliant. Worse, they
> will also be burdened with an economy mired in massive indebtedness
> through ever-increasing defence budgets.
>
> For bin Laden it's all like falling off a log; he has the best
> possible ally any terorist-minded thug or malcontent conspirator could
> wish for:
>
> George Bush.

Must be an election coming up in the Middle East to cause
this tanti.

JC

From:	Seppo Renfors
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:26:13 GMT

d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:
>
> Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> [cut]
> >
> > It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
> treat
> > Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>
> Not a logical thinker, are you?

Well, it doesn't have much to compete with in you, does it.
>
> 1) Only human beings form religions.
> 2) Islam is a religion.
> 3) Only human beings follow Islam.
> 4) Muslims are human beings.

My my...... Mossy needs a really convoluted argument to say humans are
humans! Apparently he has difficulty accepting that Muslims are humans
in any other way - he NEEDS this "justification" to believe it!

> Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but lets
> not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not human.

Oh well..... there you go, not even that worked for the poor bugger!
After all "human" is an adjective of, relating to, or characteristic
of humankind or people! So what is Mossy then...... a monkey?

> > If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer
> you
> > the curtisies you are now extending to them.

Well perhaps I'm right - or otherwise Mossy is really Dr Doolittle as
he is indeed speaking to an animal!

> It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
> defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and animals
> is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
> accordingly.

"Human" is merely another common term for Homo.sapien.sapien -
irrespective of how barbarian they are - I mean just look at the
YANKS!
>
> You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.

....... who is indeed not far behind most of the time to whatever
"primative" may be.... "primitive" or "primate"... well, doesn't
matter both are close enough :-)

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	22 Jan 2005 19:02:12 -0800

John Hunt wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2005 01:20:10 -0800, d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:
>
> }
> }Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> }[cut]
> }>
> }> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
> }treat
> }> Muslim fanatics as human beings.
> }
> }Not a logical thinker, are you?
> }
> }1) Only human beings form religions.
> }2) Islam is a religion.
> }3) Only human beings follow Islam.
> }4) Muslims are human beings.
> }
> }Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but lets
> }not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not
human.
> }
> }> If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never
offer
> }you
> }> the curtisies you are now extending to them.
> }
> }It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
> }defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and
animals
> }is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
> }accordingly.
> }
> }You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.
> }DM
> }personal opinion only
>
> Another idiot. All very nice when dealing with civilised people.

Whether dealing with civilised people, or less civilised people, my own
level of civilisation does not change. My expectations of their
behaviour may change, but my expectations of my own behaviour does not.

>What
> you propose here is that we lumber on playing by a code of rules that
> our enemies neither recognise or care about. In comparison to their
> actions and behaviour we are civilised.

Yes, I propose that we do not change our own morals and expectations of
our own behaviour in response to external stimulus. Wh should not
become less civilised simply because we meet someone less civilised
than ourselves.

I also suggest that we take ourselves as the accepted standard for
civilisation, not our enemies.

> I assume you're the sort of person who would watch his
> wife/sister/mother being raped in cool detachment while politely
> requesting the rapist to "please desist".

No. I'm the sort of person who runs a couple of kilometers before
breakfast wearing webbing and boots.

If someone behaves violently toward me, or people under my protection,
I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised I no
longer need to use force.

If I am responsible for prisoners, as I have been from time to time,
they are under my protection. I do not allow harm to come to prisoners
in my care, nor do I allow them to be subjected to degrading or
humiliating treatment. If I were a prisoner I would hope for similar
treatment but not count on it.

DM
personal opinion only

From:	Stan Pierce
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:04:45 GMT

wrote in message
news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
> I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised I no
> longer need to use force.
> DM

Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat* . Do
you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to counteract it.
Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden to say
and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they were
free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you think that
is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be trusted to
behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have them
legally neutered something you agree with.

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	22 Jan 2005 18:47:47 -0800

Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:
>
> > Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> > [cut]
> >
> >>It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
> > treat Muslim fanatics as human beings.
> >
> > Not a logical thinker, are you?
> >
> > 1) Only human beings form religions.
>
> So far so good.
>
> 2) Islam is a religion.
>
> Wrong Big Time. All religions offer one simple message namely love
and
> respect for your fellow men.

You don't get about much do you?

"Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly
defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and
the practices and institutions associated with such belief."
(Wikipedia)

Christianity, one of thousands of religions, majors on love and respect
for your fellow men, but this is missing from many religions. Some
religions major on eating human flesh, others on reducing karma through
multiple reincarnation. One even majors on mystic revealations through
marijuana usage. You name it an a rligion somewhere probably believes
it.

>Islam differentiates between Muslims and
> non Muslims it calls infidels or pagans both are unfit for this
world.
> Believers are encouraged to fight enslave and kill them. They are
> further instructed to take the wifes of slain infidels as their
property
> with the same rights as a slave, meaning none.

Oddly enough Islam also recognises Jesus Christ as a prophet and
encourages Muslims to treat Christians with respect. Like you many
Muslims pick and choose their holy scripture to suit their prejudice.

> > 3) Only human beings follow Islam.
>
> Seriously open to question.

I have dealt with your mistake regarding Islam being a religion. You
can either reject the original proposal that only human beings form
religions, or accept that Muslims are human.

> > 4) Muslims are human beings.
>
> Ask those infidels who have lived in a Muslim country.

I'd prefer to follow a logical argument.

Human beings have a far greater capacity for violence and cruelty than
animals. This is true in every society and by no means restricted to
Islamic societies.

> > Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but
lets
> > not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not
human.
> >
> >
> >>If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer
> > you the curtisies you are now extending to them.
>
> And which groups of humans has faired well under Muslims?
> Can we talk about Christians of Egypt, Hindus in Pakaistan or
Bengladesh.
> Non Muslims or Chinese in Indonesia, Bahis in Iran, why the list is
endless.

I note that Indigenous people are only a tiny fraction of the
population in enlightened Christian countries like the USA and
Australia. They are a minority in New Zealand too. How have
non-Christians fared in these countries?

> > It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
> > defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and
animals
> > is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
> > accordingly.
> >
> > You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.
> > DM
> > personal opinion only
>
> Wish it was possible to make you go and live with Muslims in Iran,
> Pakistan, Egypt etc, say for a month. I am willing to pay your air
fair.
> I will even make it first class if it is one way.

I will gladly accept an economy class return air fare to any of the
countries you list above. Particularly Egypt, which is still a very
popular tourist destination. Pakistan would be my next choice, even
though Australia is currently thrashing them at cricket. Let me know
how you would like to forward the tickets.

The most populous Muslim country on earth is Indonesia, just to our
north. If you want to cough up for a ticket to Indonesia I would
probably volunteer a month of my time to World Vision and help with
tsunami relief.

DM
personal opinion only

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	23 Jan 2005 00:28:51 -0800

Stan Pierce wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> (snipped)
> > I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised
I no
> > longer need to use force.
> > DM
>
> Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat*
..

I always have been so far.
If I notice an impending threat I make preparations to use the force
necessary for self defence, or the defence of people under my care. As
soon as someone makes an overt move I put the preparation into action
and respond accordingly.

On a personal level this might mean asking my wife to walk on the other
side of me for a while because I have noticed a threat further along
the street. It may also mean me saying: "I think we should go back and
try a different route" because I am not superman and sometimes the
percieved threat exceeds my capability to respond.

I do not attack people because I think they are thinking of attacking
me.
Thay would be silly because sometimes I would be attacking people out
of pure paranoia. As it is now obvious the USA did over Iraq's WMD.

A much smarter US President than the incumbent said "talk quietly but
carry a big stick". Thats my motto too.

> Do
> you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to
counteract it.

There are many ways to counter a threat without using direct force.
This is true on a personal as well as an international level.

> Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden
to say
> and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they
were
> free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you
think that
> is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be
trusted to
> behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have
them
> legally neutered something you agree with.

My view on political censorship is that everyone should be free to
write and say whatever they choose, it is then up to people who
disagree to mount a counter-argument.

When either side is prevented from speaking freely a biased version of
the issue is the only one available. People are then unable to make an
informed decision.

At present the news we recieve from Iraq and about the war on terror is
being censored by a compliant media.

When I heard Mr Habib was to be released without trial from Cuba I
went to the ABC website and ran a search. No mention of it after
several days. Yet the Fairfax news had a feature article the same day.

Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
Australian. Where is the outrage?

It is not necessary to have draconian laws in order to impose political
censorship. The media knows on which side the bread is buttered and
self censorship is far more effective than the enforced variety.

Next century perhaps they will read the truth about the Iraq war.
We certainly have to look well below the surface for a hint of truth in
this one.

DM
personal opinion only

From:	Stan Pierce
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:54:48 GMT

wrote in message
news:1106468931.687508.216480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stan Pierce wrote:
>> wrote in message
>> news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> (snipped)
>> > I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised
> I no
>> > longer need to use force.
>> > DM
>>
>> Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat*
> .
>
> I always have been so far.
> If I notice an impending threat I make preparations to use the force
> necessary for self defence, or the defence of people under my care. As
> soon as someone makes an overt move I put the preparation into action
> and respond accordingly.
>
> On a personal level this might mean asking my wife to walk on the other
> side of me for a while because I have noticed a threat further along
> the street. It may also mean me saying: "I think we should go back and
> try a different route" because I am not superman and sometimes the
> percieved threat exceeds my capability to respond.
>
> I do not attack people because I think they are thinking of attacking
> me.
> Thay would be silly because sometimes I would be attacking people out
> of pure paranoia. As it is now obvious the USA did over Iraq's WMD.
>
> A much smarter US President than the incumbent said "talk quietly but
> carry a big stick". Thats my motto too.
>
>> Do
>> you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to
> counteract it.
>
> There are many ways to counter a threat without using direct force.
> This is true on a personal as well as an international level.
>
>> Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden
> to say
>> and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they
> were
>> free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you
> think that
>> is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be
> trusted to
>> behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have
> them
>> legally neutered something you agree with.
>
> My view on political censorship is that everyone should be free to
> write and say whatever they choose, it is then up to people who
> disagree to mount a counter-argument.
>
> When either side is prevented from speaking freely a biased version of
> the issue is the only one available. People are then unable to make an
> informed decision.
>
> At present the news we recieve from Iraq and about the war on terror is
> being censored by a compliant media.
>
> When I heard Mr Habib was to be released without trial from Cuba I
> went to the ABC website and ran a search. No mention of it after
> several days. Yet the Fairfax news had a feature article the same day.
>
> Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
> returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
> of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
> be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
> charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
> Australian. Where is the outrage?
>
> It is not necessary to have draconian laws in order to impose political
> censorship. The media knows on which side the bread is buttered and
> self censorship is far more effective than the enforced variety.
>
> Next century perhaps they will read the truth about the Iraq war.
> We certainly have to look well below the surface for a hint of truth in
> this one.
>
> DM
> personal opinion only

You have learned the language of evasion very well. The trouble is you see,
the technique is easily observed.

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	23 Jan 2005 02:11:12 -0800

Stan Pierce wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> (snipped)
> > I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised
I no
> > longer need to use force.
> > DM
>
> Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat*
..

I always have been so far.
If I notice an impending threat I make preparations to use the force
necessary for self defence, or the defence of people under my care. As
soon as someone makes an overt move I put the preparation into action
and respond accordingly.

On a personal level this might mean asking my wife to walk on the other
side of me for a while because I have noticed a threat further along
the street. It may also mean me saying: "I think we should go back and
try a different route" because I am not superman and sometimes the
threat exceeds my capability to respond.

I do not attack people because I think they are thinking of attacking.
Thay would be silly because sometimes I would be attacking people out
of pure paranoia. As it is now obvious the USA did over Iraq's WMD.

A much smarter US President than the incumbent said "talk quietly but
carry a big stick". Thats my motto too.

> Do
> you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to
counteract it.

There are many, many ways to counter a threat without using direct
force. This is true on a personal as well as an international level.

> Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden
to say
> and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they
were
> free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you
think that
> is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be
trusted to
> behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have
them
> legally neutered something you agree with.

My view on political censorship is that everyone should be free to
write and say whatever they choose, it is then up to people who
disagree to mount a counter-argument.

When either side is prevented from speaking freely a biased version of
the issue is the only one available. People are then unable to make an
informed decision.

At present the news we recieve from Iraq and about the war on terror is
being censored by a compliant media.

When I heard Mr Habib was to be released without trial from Cuba I
went to the ABC website and ran a search. No mention of it after
several days. Yet the Fairfax news had a feature article the same day.

Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
Australian. Where is the outrage?

It is not necessary to have draconian laws in order to impose political
censorship. The media knows on which side the bread is buttered and
self censorship is far more effective than the enforced variety.

Next century perhaps they will read the truth about the Iraq war.
We certainly have to look well below the surface for a hint of truth in
this one.

DM
personal opinion only

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	22 Jan 2005 01:20:10 -0800

Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
[cut]
>
> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
treat
> Muslim fanatics as human beings.

Not a logical thinker, are you?

1) Only human beings form religions.
2) Islam is a religion.
3) Only human beings follow Islam.
4) Muslims are human beings.

Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but lets
not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not human.

> If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer
you
> the curtisies you are now extending to them.

It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and animals
is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
accordingly.

You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.
DM
personal opinion only

From:	John Hunt
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:33:34 +1100

On 22 Jan 2005 01:20:10 -0800, d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:

}
}Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
}[cut]
}>
}> It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
}treat
}> Muslim fanatics as human beings.
}
}Not a logical thinker, are you?
}
}1) Only human beings form religions.
}2) Islam is a religion.
}3) Only human beings follow Islam.
}4) Muslims are human beings.
}
}Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but lets
}not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not human.
}
}> If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer
}you
}> the curtisies you are now extending to them.
}
}It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
}defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and animals
}is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
}accordingly.
}
}You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.
}DM
}personal opinion only

Another idiot. All very nice when dealing with civilised people. What
you propose here is that we lumber on playing by a code of rules that
our enemies neither recognise or care about. In comparison to their
actions and behaviour we are civilised.

I assume you're the sort of person who would watch his
wife/sister/mother being raped in cool detachment while politely
requesting the rapist to "please desist".

From:	Nusrat Rizvi
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:22:10 -0500

d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:

> Nusrat Rizvi wrote:
> [cut]
>
>>It would be a mistake of enormous and unimaginable proportions to
> treat Muslim fanatics as human beings.
>
> Not a logical thinker, are you?
>
> 1) Only human beings form religions.

So far so good.

2) Islam is a religion.

Wrong Big Time. All religions offer one simple message namely love and
respect for your fellow men. Islam differentiates between Muslims and
non Muslims it calls infidels or pagans both are unfit for this world.
Believers are encouraged to fight enslave and kill them. They are
further instructed to take the wifes of slain infidels as their property
with the same rights as a slave, meaning none.

> 3) Only human beings follow Islam.

Seriously open to question.

> 4) Muslims are human beings.

Ask those infidels who have lived in a Muslim country.

> Now it is up to each of us how we treat other human beings, but lets
> not kid ourselves Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists) are not human.
>
>
>>If the rules were reversed the animals in question will never offer
> you the curtisies you are now extending to them.

And which groups of humans has faired well under Muslims?
Can we talk about Christians of Egypt, Hindus in Pakaistan or Bengladesh.
Non Muslims or Chinese in Indonesia, Bahis in Iran, why the list is endless.

> It is how we treat other humans, or animals for that matter, that
> defines our level of civilisation. How others treat humans and animals
> is their own business, and we place them on the scale of humanity
> accordingly.
>
> You appear to be closer to the primative than I in this regard.
> DM
> personal opinion only

Wish it was possible to make you go and live with Muslims in Iran,
Pakistan, Egypt etc, say for a month. I am willing to pay your air fair.
I will even make it first class if it is one way.

From:	d-moss at adfa.edu.au
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	23 Jan 2005 02:23:53 -0800

Stan Pierce wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> (snipped)
> > I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised
I no
> > longer need to use force.
> > DM
>
> Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat*
..

I always have been so far.
If I notice an impending threat I make preparations to use the force
necessary for self defence, or the defence of people under my care. As
soon as someone makes an overt move I put the preparation into action
and respond accordingly.

On a personal level this might mean asking my wife to walk on the other
side of me for a while because I have noticed a threat further along
the street. It may also mean me saying: "I think we should go back and
try a different route" because I am not superman and sometimes the
threat exceeds my capability to respond.

I do not attack people because I think they are thinking of attacking.
Thay would be silly because sometimes I would be attacking people out
of pure paranoia. As it is now obvious the USA did over Iraq's WMD.

A much smarter US President than the incumbent said "talk quietly but
carry a big stick". Thats my motto too.

> Do
> you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to
counteract it.

There are many, many ways to counter a threat without using direct
force. This is true on a personal as well as an international level.

> Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden
to say
> and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they
were
> free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you
think that
> is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be
trusted to
> behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have
them
> legally neutered something you agree with.

My view on political censorship is that everyone should be free to
write and say whatever they choose, it is then up to people who
disagree to mount a counter-argument.

When either side is prevented from speaking freely a biased version of
the issue is the only one available. People are then unable to make an
informed decision.

At present the news we recieve from Iraq and about the war on terror is
being censored by a compliant media.

When I heard Mr Habib was to be released without trial from Cuba I
went to the ABC website and ran a search. No mention of it after
several days. Yet the Fairfax news had a feature article the same day.

Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
Australian. Where is the outrage?

It is not necessary to have draconian laws in order to impose political
censorship. The media knows on which side the bread is buttered and
self censorship is far more effective than the enforced variety.

Next century perhaps they will read the truth about the Iraq war.
We certainly have to look well below the surface for a hint of truth in
this one.

DM
personal opinion only

From:	Seppo Renfors
Subject:	Re: A Nuremberg Lesson
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:49:37 GMT

d-moss@adfa.edu.au wrote:
>
> Stan Pierce wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > news:1106446798.724887.317210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > (snipped)
> > > I use force as necessary. When the immediate threat is neutralised
> I no
> > > longer need to use force.
> > > DM
> >
> > Are you capable then of making a judgement about * impending threat*
> .
>
> I always have been so far.
> If I notice an impending threat I make preparations to use the force
> necessary for self defence, or the defence of people under my care. As
> soon as someone makes an overt move I put the preparation into action
> and respond accordingly.
>
> On a personal level this might mean asking my wife to walk on the other
> side of me for a while because I have noticed a threat further along
> the street. It may also mean me saying: "I think we should go back and
> try a different route" because I am not superman and sometimes the
> percieved threat exceeds my capability to respond.
>
> I do not attack people because I think they are thinking of attacking
> me.
> Thay would be silly because sometimes I would be attacking people out
> of pure paranoia. As it is now obvious the USA did over Iraq's WMD.
>
> A much smarter US President than the incumbent said "talk quietly but
> carry a big stick". Thats my motto too.
>
> > Do
> > you see signals that you are under threat and make effort to
> counteract it.
>
> There are many ways to counter a threat without using direct force.
> This is true on a personal as well as an international level.
>
> > Also, after Germany was defeated, again, the people were forbidden
> to say
> > and publish positive things about themselves as they were when they
> were
> > free of occupation...and are still forbidden to this day. Do you
> think that
> > is a assessment of the Germans as a people...that they cannot be
> trusted to
> > behave. Is the need to regard them as potential killers and have
> them
> > legally neutered something you agree with.
>
> My view on political censorship is that everyone should be free to
> write and say whatever they choose, it is then up to people who
> disagree to mount a counter-argument.
>
> When either side is prevented from speaking freely a biased version of
> the issue is the only one available. People are then unable to make an
> informed decision.
>
> At present the news we recieve from Iraq and about the war on terror is
> being censored by a compliant media.
>
> When I heard Mr Habib was to be released without trial from Cuba I
> went to the ABC website and ran a search. No mention of it after
> several days. Yet the Fairfax news had a feature article the same day.
>
> Now the Courier Mail has an article about the USA insisting Habib is
> returned in chains. Our Foreign Minister mumbled that this was not part
> of the plan, but it was up to the aircraft captain whether Habib would
> be restrained. We are talking about a man who has been held without
> charge for 3 years and then released without charge. An innocent
> Australian. Where is the outrage?

It has to do with people like YOU - YOUR party that you have been
agitating for over the years ABANDONED an Australian Citizen to the
torturers and have been defending the Concentration camp (much for the
reason they built their own camps too) and all that goes on in it.
Don't think that has something to do with it? Where was your "outrage"
when a Aussie citizen was KIDNAPPED by the YANKS - sent by them to
Egypt to be tortured, was further systematically tortured in the Yank
concentration camp?

> It is not necessary to have draconian laws in order to impose political
> censorship. The media knows on which side the bread is buttered and
> self censorship is far more effective than the enforced variety.

Typical Mossy - deflect the blame from his beloved redneck party, the
GUILTY party. The Party the PM belongs to, the same PM that stated "We
don't want kind here", referring to Muslim people.

> Next century perhaps they will read the truth about the Iraq war.

We know that already. It was for Yank domestic policy - the purpose
was to transfer wealth from the people of Iraq (and USA) to US
corporations. It was to bolster the failing US economy, and to finish
the job his old man cut and ran from - sending masses of Marsh Arabs
to their death for supporting the old man!

> We certainly have to look well below the surface for a hint of truth in
> this one.

Yank prime policy is "Do nothing unless it will benefit USA" it is as
simple as that. In other words, they wouldn't have lifted a finger
UNLESS it is to their own benefit - Hussein could have killed as many
as he liked of his own people until the Yanks saw a need to make a $$
from Iraq. I point to Rwanda and Zimbabwe - Yanks are NOT interested
and never were - no money in it for them.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------