Peter F

Finished 'The Road to Stalingrad' by prof. John Erickson http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Stalingrad-Stalin%60s-Germany/dp/0300078129/ref=pd_sim_b_1 A fascinating book. The detail about the operations of the Soviet High Command and soviet operations during those first two years of the war is almost non-existant in my experience. Very enlightening and surprisingly fresh for a book written in the 70's. The author actually did his research in Russia and was given extraordinary access to Soviet archives. Every other history of the Eastern Front has now become 2nd rate pap. Maps would be nice, it is not easy trying to figure out the flow of operations working from a modern atlas. This fault makes the book very hard to follow. The author died in 2002 - from his obituary (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1384537/Professor-John-Erickson.html) ...and I have never heard of this guy...

I don't think so. Never heard of such things happening with any regularity. Mr. Li's case seems pretty exceptional. Your point being what?

Beats me. I have no gold to sell, so I can only guess: The raging stock market? or perhaps some nations are dumping gold to raise hard currency.?

Sounds like the gold bubble is bursting

Well, it certainly deserves better than what you are providing. Since, by your logic, the state has usurped a certain part of your labour through taxes, the state can therefore demand a tax-paying woman to become pregnant. In fact they could order you, as a male employee of the governent, to inseminate thier femaile employees. You clearly do not understand the relationship between the employer and the employee - which is not Master/Slave - never mind that you are unable to see the difference between taxation and employment.

aw jeez Teach, will there be a make-up exam?

Exactly - no matter the reason they have the right to end the pregnancy.

To be clear...Yes - no restrictions whatsoever.

There is only one response: you have no idea why any woman gets an abortion; Not a shred of a clue. Niether do I. And her reasons are entirely irrelevant. She wants to end her pregnancy. She gets to end her pregnancy in a medically safe manner.

So what is your point? The "progressives" aren't expressing outrage therefore the progressives are ...? In regards to meaningful debate, Canada too had meaningfull debate - all throughout the sixties and seventies and into the eighties. That meaningfull debate resulted in the same laws that you referenced that most other civilized countries have. Then Morgantaler came along and some juries decided the law was an ass, followed by the Supreme court striking down those laws because they weren't applied equally across the land. You see? Canada has a very different history regarding abortion law. And thats why your civilized nations are the way they are and we are not. And that, I don't mind saying, is a good thing.

hmmmm. the White House Statements and Releases has no mention of the story. http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases yet has statements about other matters from 22 April the most closely related statement being etc. of course, the transcripts of todays press briefing arnt up yet...could have been Mr Carnys answer to a question that is the source

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant," Carney told reporters at a briefing. "We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions." http://www.cnbc.com/id/100661412

Actually I have done myself the favour of googling Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the MCA of 2006. And you are correct that Peter F could be determined to be an enemy combatant if the authorities saw fit to do so. Actually thats applies to every American in America and many others too. Perhaps you should read the decision also. Perhaps then you would understand what the case was about and what the decision meant. Wiki sums it up nicely by stating: HAMDI VS RUMSFELD http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html Quote from majority decision "Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict." Endquote so you see that the learned judges were using the Authorization for Use of Military Force as thier basis to determine who was or could be a 'combatant' The government of the day took that decision to heart and established the CSRT's. Which even defined an enemy combatant ORDER ESTABLISHING COMBAT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL http://www.defense.gov/news/jul2004/d20040707review.pdf Quote: For the purpose of this order, the term 'enemy combatant' shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or Alqueda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalation partners. This includes any person who has committed a beligerent act or who has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces. Each detainee subject to this order has been determined to be an enemy combatant through multiple levels of review by officers of the department of defence. Endquote So I think the necessary link to Alqueda/Taliban is still absolutely necessary for detention as a combatant (legal or otherwise). However, it turns out that the combatant status has been rendered moot by the Obama administration. It seems now the US government is simply referring to combatants - specifically illegal combatants - as detainees. Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees ttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html particularly the link at the bottom of that page : Memo Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Which states: Quote The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces. Unquote and again, a link must be shown that the detained is detained because of the detaineds' link to AlQueda/Taliban. And that is the required condition for detention as a combatant.

well, ok. I suppose the CinC can declare anyone he wishes to be a combatant and I suppose every court in the land will have to abide by that declaration.

President Bush can declare war all he wants. Johnston declared war against poverty. Nevertheless, despite thier declarations, there aint no wars without congressional authorization. And the only war that congress authorized was that declared in the authorization for the use of military force 2001. So for enemy combatant status a link must be shown between the bombers and the september 11 2001 attacks. Maybe there is one? I don't know. Should be easy to do if one starts with Kevin Bacon...

no ma'am. The war is against Alqueda and no one else. An yes I have no idea what cause/s they have or have not taken up.

There is only one way to be a 'combatant' in the USA: Be associated with Alqueda or the Taliban. Without that association there is no way the bomber can be declared an enemy combatant. Despite all the rhetoric about war against terrorism the USA is not at war with anybody except Alqueda and the Taliban. The USofA is not at war with Chechen terrorist groups or any other terrorist organizations except Alqueda and the Taliban. Two crackpots taking up the Chechen cause in Boston does not a war make. Derek raised the possibility that perhaps they were under some sort of marching orders from the Chechen terrorists because the older brother visited Chechnya some time ago. The FBI questioned the fellow at the request of the Ruski's for that trip. The FBI was so concerned with the result of the questioning and with the intelligence provided by the Ruski's that they let him go free. Of course that was the Big Brother bomber not the surviviing little brother who never went back to chechyna. While it is possible that the bombers were part of some larger non-alqueda/non-taliban organization with plots to attack the USofA, there isnt a shred of revealed evidence to support Dereks contention. And the fact that after questioning by the FBI they let Big Brother go free shows that there isnt a shred of secret evidence to support Dereks contention either. So it seems Big Brother took a trip to chechyna for the same reasons many immigrants take trips to the old country. There fool will be tried in massachusetts in a civil court and executed (maybe - if found guilty).

Nope. No military trial unless it can be shown that he was a member of alqueda or the taliban. Without such evidence there is no 'combatant' status and no Military trial and no gitmo and no shipping off to Russia. The rule of law applies to Americans committing crimes on American soil.

So the authorities provided these photo's to you personally?

so who provided the first set of pictures?

Im stocking up on backpacks !

Hmmmm....I count three guys with backpacks in the first picture....

Indeed, it is a disgusting situation. It is the existence of places like Gosnell's clinic that made three juries in Canada refuse to find Morgantaler guilty, and ultimately, why Canada has no abortion laws. In Pennsylvania it is illegal to abort a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks gestation. It is that illegality and (more iimportantly) the complete lack of regulatory oversight that leads to the butcheries and deaths reported here. We could argue the morality of abortions from now until doomsday, but for pregnant women who do not want to be pregnant anymore, our morality on the issue is entirely meaningless. Such women will find their abortion. In Pennsylvania they seek backstreet dumps like Gosnell's clinic due to the Illegality of thier actions. To quote The American Prospect: "women kept going to Gosnell's clinic'because they felt they had no alternative.' That alternative is clinics where even poor women can obtain safe first-trimester abortions in a timely manner, without having to navigate a blizzard of regulatory impediments with the sole purpose of inhibiting access to abortion." http://prospect.org/article/five-lessons-we-should-learn-gosnell-case#13660387032951&action=collapse_widget&id=9341749 To sum up...another quote from the above linked article: "The Gosnell case certainly represents a failure by the state of Pennsylvania to protect women. Enacting more regulations that make safe, pre-viability abortions more scarce would be precisely the wrong lesson to take from it, and would mean more Gosnells, not fewer. Making abortion safe, legal, and accessible for all women is more important than ever." Couldn't have said it better myself. and for the record, I am not a religious person either - though I believe in God. and a parent too.

American Woman: You didn't until you said that Israels apology doesn't absolve the Flottila of guilt. I think It is reasonable to assume that you beleive that the flottilla participants carry some guilt for what happened and that that guilt could somehow-someway be 'absolved'. And I also assume that such absolution of guilt could be accomplished without any regard to what Israel does or does not do. And tho you didn't actually say those on the flotilla were guilty you most certainly implied it. post 10 of this thread: post 12 post 14 post 16 post 18 Based upon the above, I think its pretty obvious you think the Flottila participants are guilty of something. As for me, If you infact hold the beleif that I think you do, I agree! The whole purpose of the Flottila was designed to confront the Israeli blockade and trigger an excessive response which the Israeli's fell for hook-line-and-sinker. They knowingly sailed into the Israeli blockade with sky-high hopes. The flottila participants are responsible for thier actions , would you not agree? That they in fact carry some guilt for the outcome? I think thats a fair statement. And, like you, I think they should apologize for thier part - but they havn't and maybe will never admit thier responsibility. But, wether the flottila folks ever admit thier guilt or not has absolutely nothing to do with Israels responsibility in the affair. Hell thier own internal post-op investigation determined they over-reacted. Israel has a can to carry to. That Netenyahu issued an apology backed up with paying compensation recognizing thier own responsibility(guilt) in what transpired is actually a good thing. Why taking the high-road by Israel should be denied and discounted is beyond me.

I think you are running a double-standard here. If, as you say, the so-called apology and compensation are not admissions of guilt, then what is the need for paticipants in the flottilla to be 'absolved' of guilt? I don't recall any flottilla participants claiming any guilt - yet you say they have guilt anyways despite the non-admission of guilt. You have imposed some level of guilt upon the flottilla participants without them ever admitting to it. But Israel is not guilty for anything because for Israel an admission of guilt is necessary.,