Xah Lee's Unixism

[jmfbahciv at aol.com]

In article <87pt4r771o.fsf at p4.internal>,
   Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv  <jmfbahciv at aol.com> writes:
>[...]
>    jmf> Would rather he do like Italy?  They are letting them go.
>    jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
>    bm> Why are those the only two choices?  Do you think people turn
>    bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?
>
>    jmf> Oh, sigh!  [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
>    jmf> it feels better]
>
>I didn't mean to upset you.  But sigh indeed.

<GRIN>  I'm about to sigh back at you.

> ..  Offtopic in all groups 
>too.  

I don't know where you are so I can't trim newsgroups.  I'm in a.f.c.

> ..Maybe we should get jailed?  Who knows _what else_ we might be 
>up to?  Can't be too cautious these days.  What color was that alert 
>now?  Better call the authorities.
>
>    bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
>    bm> much as we fear, yet.
>
>    jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.
>
>Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
>There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused.  That's
>the whole point of a separate status, no?  I thought the 'enemy
>combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law, 

Sigh!  US law doesn't apply in Afghanistan nor any other country.

> ...and
>the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs. 

What people are not getting treated using the Geneva Convetion
terms?

> ... As for the _US_ doing it, 
>yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it.  Indeed the 
>whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought 
>that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear 
>to stay within certain boundaries.  Maybe they needen't have bothered?  
> 
>    >> ...  But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
>    >> is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
>    >> oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]
>
>    jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?
> 
>Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
>where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:
>
>http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207

I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one.  Just
mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
with a BS filter.  ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
become completely inconsist these days.
>
>;) 
>
>cheers,
>
>BM
>
>
>    >> I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might
>    >> be believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and
>    >> trying to get rid of the said freedoms in the hope that it will
>    >> appease the terrorists.
>
>    jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
>    jmf> think you did.
>
>Let's hear it. 

The ACLU types that you're listening to are giving away our 
(the US) freedoms to people who don't want us to have them. 
IOW, these liberal types are working in concert with these
militants.

<snip...I hate the way your software prefixes these posts>

/BAH