«

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:10:03 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Howard C.
Berkowitz" <> in
<hcb-> wrote:

[snip]

>I believe it's useful to differentiate among a citizen's private attempt
>to overthrow the government (e.g., Burr), a true civil war with
>competing governments, and an attempt to assist a clear foreign enemy.
>Things are never clear, especially in revolutions, in which Burr was not
>but Arnold was.

If the British had won Arnold would be the hero.

>The rise of non-national combatants makes the legal framework even
>messier.

They have been with us forever.


--
Matt Silberstein

I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.

Raymond Chandler

In article <>, Matt
Silberstein <> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:10:03 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Howard C.
> Berkowitz" <> in
> <hcb-> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I believe it's useful to differentiate among a citizen's private attempt
> >to overthrow the government (e.g., Burr), a true civil war with
> >competing governments, and an attempt to assist a clear foreign enemy.
> >Things are never clear, especially in revolutions, in which Burr was not
> >but Arnold was.
>
> If the British had won Arnold would be the hero.
>
> >The rise of non-national combatants makes the legal framework even
> >messier.
>
> They have been with us forever.

At some level, yes. It is more recent, however, where technology can
make them serious players in asymmetrical warfare. That is a real
threat and there is need to have international conventions to deal with
it.

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
news:hcb-...
> In article <>, Matt
> Silberstein <> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:10:03 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Howard C.
> > Berkowitz" <> in
> > <hcb-> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >I believe it's useful to differentiate among a citizen's private
attempt
> > >to overthrow the government (e.g., Burr), a true civil war with
> > >competing governments, and an attempt to assist a clear foreign enemy.
> > >Things are never clear, especially in revolutions, in which Burr was
not
> > >but Arnold was.
> >
> > If the British had won Arnold would be the hero.

Arnold was a hero, then he took a different path for the sake of a
woman. Hardly unique in the annals of history...

Dan



--

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely
clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause
permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities,
just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. "

Scalia, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 03-1693
McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETITIONERS
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually
come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the
State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military
consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to
use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy
of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."

-- Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister, Third Reich

"Rudy Canoza" <> wrote in message
news:rpEAe.21387$ link.net...
> wrote:
>
>> Can they force you to lose the weight like that fat guy in Full Metal
>> Jacket?
>
> Just tell 'em you're homo.

How tall are you? 5ft 2" ? Be careful, in that case they'd just use you as
a bomb.....

In article <>,
on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:11:24 GMT,
Gunner attempted to say .....

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:57:11 GMT, "La N" <>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike P" <> wrote in message
> >news:ebFAe.15247$F96.1500@trnddc08...
> > > You had to look it up to see if it was true or not? I take it you have
> >> never been in the Service as well. I was in VietNam, and heard her speechs
> >> on the Radio after I returned to the States and not believing it at first.
> >> You see a few years before she was voted Miss Army, and posed for pin ups
> >> for the Soldiers. I tore mine up, but if you can't find one it was also
> >> printed in the PM Mag. for Army Equipment
> >
> >Mebbe you need some new eye candy. Entertainer Jessica Simpson
> >has just returned from Iraq, and she's considered to be the new
> >pin-up girl:
> >
> >http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/...tm?POE=LIFISVA
> >
>
> Gee... I wonder why Nazi Pelosi and Hillary havent done similar pinups
> for the troops?
>
> Anyone see the picture that goes around occasionally..of Republican
> women and Democrat women?
>
> Bela Abzug in a Vargas pose....


Please some of us just had lunch....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:46:23 GMT, Gunner <>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:23:10 GMT, "Rick" <> wrote:
>
>>"Matt Silberstein" <> wrote in message news:...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:08:39 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Gunner
>>> >Aid and comfort to the enemy? (actually the protesters provided that)
>>>
>>> And now you take that step. You have accused millions of Americans of
>>> treason. A very dangerous step.
>>
>>Indeed. One of the last giant steps toward a fascist state.
>>
>
>Or a communist or socialist state. Which would likely make you happy
>as a pig in ****.
>
>>"Treason doth never prosper: what is the reason?
>>For if it prosper, no one dare call it treason."
>>
>Gunner
>
> The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
> exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
> failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection

He might have added those who engage in "dirty tricks" in an
attempt to subvert elections.

> and silences those who protest;

Standard practice nowadays. Just like Arnold the other day at
the bridge ceremony, where he had the press shepherded o a special
area "for security purposes", thereby effectively denying access to
protestors.

> where courts have lost the
> courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
> However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
> facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make
> only once." Judge Kozinski

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:15:42 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<> wrote:

>
>When 40% or more of the country is guilty of treason then there is
>something seriously wrong. Do you think that they should have used
>more violence to express their will?

He probably thinks the government should have used more
violence to express its will.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:29:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza <> wrote:

>Gummer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:15:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:08:39 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Gummer
>>><> in
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:43:35 GMT, "Rick" <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not saying that I don't believe she committed reprehensible acts,
>>>>>>but I would suggest that your criticism should be directed to the
>>>>>>various Administrations' Justice Departments that chose not to indict
>>>>>>her. While she was very visible, there were others that I believe did
>>>>>>greater damage during that period.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes indeed. You want to talk about treason? How about
>>>>>Richard Nixon abusing his power of office, subverting the
>>>>>Constitution by illegal bombings of Laos and Cambodia,
>>>>>not to mention his 200+ other felonies? How much jail time
>>>>>did Nixon do?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Aid and comfort to the enemy?
>>>
>>>It was not treason, it was worse.
>>>
>>>And we have to be very careful with this "aid and comfort" concept
>>>because that can easily be used to claim that any talking against a
>>>war is "comforting" the enemy. I am not equating Fonda's action and
>>>protesting here at home, but it is a dangerous area and we need to
>>>walk carefully. I suspect that a "strict constructionist" would have
>>>to say that "aid and comfort" is things like giving them money or
>>>arms, actually working for them.
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>>>>Or Ohio's National Guard marching up a hill on a college
>>>>>campus, and murdering college kids in cold blood? Two of
>>>>>them weren't even protesting, they simply were walking by
>>>>>at the time. Tell us, who did jail time for that atrocity?
>>>>
>>>>Aid and comfort to the enemy? (actually the protesters provided that)
>>>
>>>And now you take that step. You have accused millions of Americans of
>>>treason. A very dangerous step.
>>
>>
>> Ayup. Facts is facts.
>
>Nope. Not facts. Failing to support the president in
>pursuit of a bad, misguided, dishonest policy is not
>treasonous, nor disloyal, nor unwise.
>
>I keep hearing the administration say that any
>suggestion that we withdraw from Iraq "before the job
>is done" only serves to "demoralize" the troops. I've
>even heard some of the crybaby troops say it
>themselves. But if they're pursuing a bad policy, I
>DON'T WANT them to be encouraged; I WANT them to be
>discouraged, and maybe stop pursuing it. If they
>develop a sense that the American public doesn't
>support what they're doing, which the public are
>entitled to do, then perhaps they'll become
>demoralized, and the bad policy will have to be ended.
>
>This crapola about "support our troops" is an extremely
>annoying bit of reactionary propaganda. It is code for
>supporting the MISSION of the troops. Well, **** -
>everyone supports the troops, to the extent we want
>them to stay safe and make it back home alive. But
>that does not extend to supporting what the troops are
>doing.

As has often been said, "Love the warrior; hate the war."

> Assholes who put these goddamned sappy yellow
>ribbons on their SUVs are too gutless to say what they
>really believe (not surprising). They don't simply
>(and trivially) support the troops; they support the
>mission the troops are there to carry out, but don't
>have the guts to say they support it.
>
>"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
>president, or that we are to stand by the president,
>right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
>but is morally treasonable to the American public.
>Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any
>one else. But it is even more important to tell the
>truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any
>one else." - Theodore Roosevelt (a great Republican)

Gideon wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> Can they force you to lose the weight like that fat
> guy in Full Metal Jacket?
>
> ===========
>
> Once you are actually in the military: Yes, they can do quite a bit to
> encourage you to lose weight and get in shape. They can make your
> life a living hell.
>
> However, nobody can stop you from gaining 300 pounds to avoid the
> draft. They can't force you to lose weight to meet draft requirements.
> And they can't draft you with the intention of making you lose the
> weight after you are in.
>
> My cousin did the opposite during the Vietnam War - he was already
> thin and he dropped quite a few pound in order to be below minimum
> weight for his height (about 6' 2"). He was required to go through the
> process every 6 months - basically going through the pre-induction
> physical twice a year.
>
> It's been 40 years, but I still refuse to talk to that cowardly little maggot.
>
>
****in fat ass

Mr. T wrote:
> Gideon wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> Can they force you to lose the weight like that fat
>> guy in Full Metal Jacket?
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> Once you are actually in the military: Yes, they can do quite a bit to
>> encourage you to lose weight and get in shape. They can make your
>> life a living hell.
>>
>> However, nobody can stop you from gaining 300 pounds to avoid the
>> draft. They can't force you to lose weight to meet draft requirements.
>> And they can't draft you with the intention of making you lose the
>> weight after you are in.
>>
>> My cousin did the opposite during the Vietnam War - he was already
>> thin and he dropped quite a few pound in order to be below minimum
>> weight for his height (about 6' 2"). He was required to go through the
>> process every 6 months - basically going through the pre-induction
>> physical twice a year.
>>
>> It's been 40 years, but I still refuse to talk to that cowardly little
>> maggot.
>>
>>
> ****in fat ass

On the ship they didn't bother us. But on the beach we had to have a
"calethenics card" and it had to be signed off properly. I've been out
30 years last month, so I don't know how it is today.

Michael