So can anyone suggest a good shoe for all-day crack climbing ala Indian Creek/Moab?

:wink:

...my mom always told me to wash my hands after I poop....

This may come as a disappointment to those of you who have worked so diligently to hijack this thread, but I got the answer to my question, in spite of the small turnout.

You got a lot of answers. You just ignored the ones you didn't like. For more interesting data, you should see the response to my poll. 60% of respondents think you should shut up.

Why don't you just get it over with and change your name from throne to troll.

There you go again dufus, failing to respond to my comments and getting off topic. It is as if you don't know how to debate. Go back and read my comments again, because I feel I have explained myself very well, and others have emailed me to tell me so. You must have missed it.

By dodging, it suggests to me that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to my charges. Which is as I expected. Further, I am disappointed by the fact that you would choose to engage in an ad hominem attack on thorne, as it shows you are a spineless simpleton, and an asshole to boot. Did I mention I am a hard climber? Shall I drop some names for you to drool on? Nevermind! You are not worth my time. You refuse to engage me, so I suggest you not respond further. I will waste no more of my time with your pointless drivel.

Sound familiar? :lol:

KC, what is your problem? You start this poll, which I answer, and was even in that 60% you keep bragging about. I’m one of the few people who would even argue on your side that he is guilty of crimes, yet you try to spurn me at ever turn, even when I’m trying to help (granted, you might not see it that way).

You haven’t been on this website for that long, and I only recently started posting again much at all. So you can not know much about me or about what I think, just as I couldn’t know much about you (and still don’t). You went to two colleges, great! That still tells me virtually nothing about you. More helpful would be something such as; my undergrad degree was in history/poli sci, and I have a Masters in museum studies. That at least tells me something about your background.

I’m willing to learn about the people I’m interacting with and not simply jump to a conclusion about them that is impervious to change. Anyone who wants to learn about this world, let alone change it with the help of others, has to be willing to do that.


Anyway. I'm going to go out and socialize with others in my little town tonight, and then I'm going to go climb in the Valley tomorrow. Peace, I hope you all have something good to do this weekened.

Go Irish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can go on an on, trying to justify your bad behavior, although nothing short of an admission that you stepped out of line will convince me that associating with you is worthy of my time.

blah blah blah....You have quite the flair for the dramatic....yadda yadda yadda....

Ok, whatever on the long history of disagreeable posts. Should Bush be impeached, yes. Will he be impeached, a very long shot. Are there grounds to impeach him, absolutely!!!! American Constitution at Article I, Section 9 states that: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”. Habeas Corpus is the principle that anyone imprisoning someone must by law produce this person and and present them in court to ensure that they are being held for valid reasons. There is no mention in the constitution of whether the person in question is an official US citizen or not. The Bush administration has ordered a large number of foreign nationals to be held without review and has refused to disclose their identities (even to their families). They are also holding foreign nationals and at least 1 US citizen in a US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay without the rights of Habeas Corpus, so that they can be tortured. The only reason to send these persons to Guantanamo is so that you can do something to them which wouldn't be legal is the country they cam from and also wouldn't be legal in the U.S. (however the Constitution is still law on our military bases). He is sending persons from this and other countries to countries (such as Saudi Arabia) to be tortured, again without the rights of Habeas Corpus. It has been documented and has been brought up on house floor that 9 billion dollars is missing from funds sent to Iraq for "reconstruction", was this stolen by Bush? Probably not but I am sure that whoever stole it donated generously to his campaign and is in line to give him a cushy job when his term is up. This is just scratching the surface of an administration known to be the most secretive in the history of the country. It seems to me that impeachment was originally intended to get rid of crooks like this. The only missing ingredient is political momentum (Republicans would get on board with enough pressure) and digging up a full and complete record of all of their crimes.

Jeremy

P.S. Impeach Cheney at the same time.

Rufus, I don’t know if you know, but when it comes to war, Presidents lie, they maneuver, and deceive the people. There are plenty of examples throughout American history (pick at random), and one could even argue that some of it is required by the rules of secrecy or they are assisted by that secrecy. We will not know the facts for at least 25 years, and even then we might not know everything. You will not get far on lying.

So can anyone suggest a good shoe for all-day crack climbing ala Indian Creek/Moab?

If you are holding someone and you have no right to hold them isn't it kidnapping or conspiracy to kidnap?? If not kidnapping then false imprisonment, entrapment, etc..?


Jeremy

Guantanamo Bay, the Executive and the Law

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are presently held in custody upon the order and direction of the US president, George W. Bush. They are not held according to any stated law, domestic or international. They are held, in the language of kingly rule “at his majesty’s pleasure”. No charges have been laid in two years, although apparently charges are being formulated by Pentagon lawyers in conjunction with Paul Wolfowitz.

The US administration has decreed that the prisoners are not “prisoners of war” and therefore not entitled to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. If that is so, then they are subject to no legal process apart from arbitrary direction of the executive. That would take us back to the dark ages, to the period prior to the Magna Carta.

Whilst the Taliban militia may not have constituted a formal army of a sovereign state in a classical sense, a reasoned interpretation of the Geneva laws of war would plainly extend its application to the Guantanamo detainees. Alternatively, other international law would apply. The US administration is completely isolated in its interpretation of the legal position and all eminent international law jurists have insisted on the application of the Geneva Protocols or general international law (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

Putting the issue of the application of international law aside, the fundamental question remains—are these prisoners subject to law or to the whim of the executive? There is a lot at stake in this issue—principally the question of whether the democratic or the authoritarian principle will be ascendant in social relations today.

The freedom of the individual from arbitrary imprisonment was established as a principle of law binding the king by the Magna Carta in 1215. That law is still the law in the English-speaking world today and is embodied doctrinally in the ancient writ of “habeas corpus” based on principles of Roman law—which means, literally, “to have the body”—that is; to be free.

Several cases have been mounted based on the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of several of the Guantanamo detainees. In the case of Shafiq Rasul, et al. v. George W. Bush, et al. the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia dismissed the applications that they be dealt with under US law and released on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners have appealed to the US Supreme Court and they have been granted leave to have those appeals considered in 2004.

At the time of writing this article, the California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered that the Guantanamo Bay detainees be provided access to civilian lawyers. This represents a significant breach in the Bush administration’s position—but is still far short of obtaining full due process according to law and release of the detainees. Nevertheless, the order inherently concedes some application of law—at least the right to counsel—to the petitioners. In an extraordinary and brazen display of reaction the administration has announced that it will appeal the decision granting access to civilian lawyers!

In the United Kingdom applications for release based on habeas corpus writs have been brought in the case of Abbasi v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. In this case brought in the English courts on behalf of a British national captured by US forces in Afghanistan, the prisoner sought an order to compel the United Kingdom Secretaries of State to make representations on his behalf to the United States government. The claim was based on the contention that his “fundamental human right” not to be arbitrarily detained had been infringed because he had been denied access to a court of law. The US District Court for the District of Columbia having dismissed Abbasi’s habeas corpus application in Rasul et al. v. Bush, his submission was that in these circumstances, the Secretaries of State owed him a duty under English law to take steps to redress the position. The English court agreed with him. But the US government has not heeded any requests made by the British government.

In the case, the English Court of Appeal held that the denial of access to a court to Abassi was in conflict with the fundamental principles of English law and of public international law. In its judgment the English Court of Appeal said:

“What appears to us to be objectionable is that Mr Abassi should be the subject of indefinite detention in territory over which the United States has exclusive control with no opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of his detention before any court or tribunal.... It is important to record that the position may change when the appellate courts in the United States consider the matter.... We do not find it possible to approach this claim for judicial review other than on the basis that, in apparent contravention of fundamental principles recognised by both jurisdictions and by international law, Mr Abassi is at present arbitrarily detained in a legal black hole”.

Elsewhere the Court of Appeal said:

“The position of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to be considered further by the appellate courts in the United States. It may be that the anxiety we have expressed will be drawn to their attention. We wish to make it clear that we are only expressing an anxiety that we believe was felt by the court in Rasul. As is clear from our judgement, we believe the United States courts have the same respect for human rights as our own.”

The English Law Lords may be mistaken.

If you are holding someone and you have no right to hold them isn't it kidnapping or conspiracy to kidnap?? If not kidnapping then false imprisonment, entrapment, etc..?


Jeremy

...Don't be lulled into thinking that your behavior in these forums doesn't leave a sour impression on people. Au Contraire!! Many of you have attached your signatures to your adolescent behavior, and people are watching. The fact is that I know and know of many of the people in here, and experience has shown me that the ones with actual accountability in the real world don't behave as you do. People like Matt Samet, John Matthews, Bob D'Antonio, and a few others have managed to agree and disagree with the opinions of others, without resorting to puerile antics....

I'll look out for you at the crags, so that I do not make the mistake of tying into the same rope.

KC

Au contraire? I should have known you are French--

Rufus Wrote:

I'll look out for you at the crags, so that I do not make the mistake of tying into the same rope.

If this thread is any indicator, I doubt you can construct a proper knot

Yup - SLC - the land of ultra leftie liberals