From: "Gary Britt" 

Its called collateral damage Rich.  It happens in war.  Them's the breaks.
At least he's walking around still breathing collateral damage.  He could
be DEAD collateral damage which would be a tad worse.

Gary
\
"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:4524530c{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's mainly about those who authorized the CIA interrogators to use
> torture and you also understand that.
>
> I've definitely got a problem with a President who mouths off that we do
> not use torture while he knowingly sends off captives to be tortured by a
> third party (Syria)
>
> And before you ramble about shipping the enemy to locations of torture -
> how about when we ship the innocent?  While  Arar was initially screwed by
> the Canadian RMCP, it was our government that took him off an
> international flight and sent him to Syria. It's amazing that everyone is
> now denying responsibility for a torture that occurred in Syria. I reckon
> it's the Syrians fault for letting the 'rendition'  flights to land?
>
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/canadian_man_tortu
red_by_lack_1.html
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:452438a5{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Its about the CIA interrogators and you know it.
>>
>> I've got know problem with shipping the enemy off to other locations for
>> additional questioning.  I'm sure Syria is a party to the Geneva
>> conventions and the anti-torture treaties.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:452405c4{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> This has nothing to do with service prsonnel and you know it. It's about
>>> Bush, Cheney and their flunkies who authorized the torture. Bushie
>>> logic - Hey Syria is our enemy but they really tortue well - let's just
>>> send a few of the people we don't like to them
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>> news:452402ff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Because the language being dealt with is so vague as to be
subject to
>>>> interpretation by others in ridiculous ways.  So congress defines
>>>> what's covered so our service men and women can't be bound by some
>>>> eurotrash idiot prosecutor's decision that a woman questioning a
>>>> terrorist is an affront to his personal dignity and is
therefore a war
>>>> crime violation of common article 3.  It was needed because of the
>>>> recent, previously unprecedented decision in the Hamdan
case.  Surely
>>>> you know all of this so stop pretending to be unaware of the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:4523317b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> So why the need for a retroactive pardon?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:452328b9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>I don't recall anyone authorizing torture Rich,
though I realize it's
>>>>>>popular on the left to call it the "torture bill."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4522f101$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> My mistake on the prior to 9/11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When has there ever been any legislation in our country
>>>>>>> retroactively protecting anyone from war
crimes? Also I very much
>>>>>>> doubt that this portion of the legislation was
written to protect
>>>>>>> the service men/women. This was written to
protect Bush, Cheney and
>>>>>>> their appointees who authorized torture
ignoring international law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4522ea05$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>> Cafferty is an ass of the first order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prior to 9/11?  Shouldn't that be after 9/11??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The legislation is needed to protect our
service men and women and
>>>>>>>> CIA personnel from being hauled into court
by some eurotrash idiot
>>>>>>>> like Phil or Adam in the job of local
prosecutor or judge.  You
>>>>>>>> know sort of like what has happened to Tom
Delay and the local
>>>>>>>> idiot prosecutor from Travis County, Austin, Texas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4522e1bb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> Deep inside the legislation is a
provision to pardon Bush and his
>>>>>>>>> administration for any crimes (
torture etc )  to detainees prior
>>>>>>>>> to 9/11/2001. But if Bush says there
was no torture then why did
>>>>>>>>> he need this retroactive immunity for
possible war crimes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CNN Cafferty report at
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ&eurl=
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5