At 12:08 AM -0500 5/2/02, D. Simmons wrote:

>  The Taliban and Al Queda prisoners being held in Cuba are receiving three
>nutritious meals a day, are provided with personal toiletry items, are
>provided with the opportunity to bath regularly, are provided with a a towel
>solely to be used as a prayer mat, provided with individual copies of the
>Q'ran, are allowed visits from an Islamic clergyman,  are provided with
>medical treatment whenever needed, have been visited by the Red Cross, and
>are being held in their wire enclosures only until completion of a permanent
>facility.

My dog does better than that. He has a half acre paddock to run around in, though I don't let him run around the town or go hunting wallabies whenever he chooses, so he has to be considered a prisoner of sorts. But I provide him food and water and all the other stuff he needs.

I've even permitted visits from the equivalent of the Red Cross, the RSPCA. Who had no complaints either.

Thing is, he's just a dog. Maybe I'm a bit funny, but I thought human rights were supposed to be somewhat of a higher standard than the rights required to be afforded to animals. But of course, that principle has never been accepted by nazis. Used to be accepted by yanks, before they decided to become nazis.

>  These are not soldiers of some nation-state that upon discharge from
>service will peacefully return to "tending their farms" while perhaps every
>10 years or so getting together for a reunion at which they will swap old
>Jihad stories. The Al Queda prisoners are voluntary members of an
>organization whose goal is the killing of Americans -- indeed even fellow
>Arab Muslims who are not religiously 'pure' enough. If released, there is no
>reason to think that they will not regroup and continue their Jihad.

It has not been established that they are Al Queda. In fact no facts or guilt whatsoever has been established, because the little detail of a trial has been skipped. You've heard of the concept of a trial I take it? Part of the old-fashioned process of rule of law. As opposed to people just being imprisoned without trial, without charges, without anything. Like they used to do in the 17th century.

I notice that the captive American who was accused of being Taliban (not Al Queda, Taliban) is to be afforded a trial. So apparently the US government still remembers what trials are, just don't reckon the 'feelthy foreigners' deserve one I guess. Same as dogs, you wouldn't put a mad dog on trial either, would you?

>The Taliban prisoners picked the wrong crowd to hang out with.

Oh, so now they are "Taliban"! A second ago you referred to them as "Al Queda". I guess it doesn't really matter what the facts are though, does it? They aren't going to get the opportunity to defend themselves or refute any allegations, so it doesn't matter what they are accused of. Doesn't even matter if you can't keep your story straight for (literally) ten seconds.

> I assume that
>if it is decided that they are no longer a threat or of intelligence value,
>they will be shipped back to the sewer they came from.  However, the members
>of Al Queda voluntarilly chose their path of Jihad against Americans and
>should now expect to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Christ! They are "Al Queda" again! Are they putting something in your water over there?

>  You mean future American POWs should no longer expect the kind of
>"civilized" treatment they received in Japanese POW camps? North Korean POW
>camps? North Vietnamese POW camps? A rather specious argument, at best
>(Somehow I suspect that the treatment of an American POW is not very high on
>your list of concerns).

I don't give a flying fuck about yank prisoners of war to be entirely honest. When you yanks start respecting the human rights of others, I'll start demanding human rights for you. But in the meantime I'm outraged that many other people stand to suffer as a result of the new low in standards, set by the US.

Unfortunately, the only way this standard can be expected for citizens of civilised nations, is if everyone respects them. That means the rights of American prisoners of war have to be respected as well as Americans respecting the rights of others.

My late father was a prisoner of war in WW2. Luckily for him he was an allied prisoner in Europe, rather than in Asia. So higher standards applied. But its funny you should mention the Japanese POWs. That's about the standard your country is living up to and you should be ashamed to be an American.

>A selective "outrage" to be sure. With neither rancor nor malice, go diddle
>yourself, Mate.

You want rancour? You can't even spell rancour.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas