willard

I already asked a similar question in this thread, but nobody addressed it. Ironically, the U.S. military is in the process of eliminating lead from it's ammunition. Somebody here who is familiar with the project maybe can provide more details?

Hmmm...let's see. Did I ever say I didn't accept your post as some kind of evidence, even if I consider it virtually worthless? No. You are correct, I did include rumors in my request and you provided such. And, being rumors, I give it the credit I feel it deserves. Like I said, even if everything he says is true it is still a far, far cry from the U.S. doing "most" of what SH was doing.

True. Prove ME wrong. I asked you first.

Not much in the way of smarts there, is he? The loaded ammo (if usable) is worth a lot more than the scrap brass. If the brass was reloadable it again was worth more than scrap. Shooting the ammo in a rifle is much more fun than smacking it with a hammer and stopping the bullets with your belly. (I would assume so).

I put about as much faith in Seymour Hersh as I do anyone else who would say anything to get their face on tv or in a paper, which happens to be none. I don't deny that there have been instances of bad shit done by some of our people over there, but those are rare cases and the exception, not the rule. Even if everything Hersh said was true that is still a tiny fraction of what SH was doing, not even close to "most".

folk are being held for no good reason.. True or False? False. Prove me wrong.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention? Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution? I'm still waiting. Questions don't count any more than opinions do. Hard evidence, Jakee, hard evidence. As far as I'm concerned my case is closed, unless you can show me that, in the eyes of the whitehouse, enemy combatants have rights under either the geneva convention or the US constitution. Your case is closed? You make accusations and tell people they are wrong yet you fail to provide any facts to support your claims other than your opinion. You made the claim that the term "enemy combatant" was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. I have asked for some evidence of this, you refuse to provide any. How freakin' hypocritical is THAT???

You stated that you (the specific you, willard, not the general you) would never be locked up unless you were actually a terrorist. I don't see how that statement can hold unless you have absolute faith in the ability of law enforcement to only arrest and hold without trial those who are terrorists. If you do not have absolute faith in that ability then could you please answer my original question. Please please please show me where I said that and I WILL answer your question!! Just copy and paste, it's not hard!

I bet he tripped on the slippers.

Nice.

I believe the word he used was "most", not "some". Big difference in people being held by our government and those Saddam took in. If you were taken into one of Saddam's prisons because you spoke out against him you would be executed and never seen again. If you were lucky they would leave your family alone, but usually they tortured and/or killed them as well. Show me where this has happened here in the U.S.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention? Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution? I'm still waiting. Questions don't count any more than opinions do. Hard evidence, Jakee, hard evidence.

Interesting. If you would share with us any evidence, even rumors, that the U.S. is torturing children in front of their parents, eliminating entire towns with poison gas, or committing genocide. I'd like very much to see it.

It is a fact of life that innocent people will fall under suspicion of grevious crimes and get arrested. It is a fact of life that the cases against these people will be so strong (innocent though they may be) that they go to trial where the case can be heard by a jury. Those arresting the enemy combatants will make mistakes also. For you to think that no-one will ever be arrested and detained for several years without access to legal council unless they were actually doing something wrong is incredibly naive. Wow. Two of a kind. First Kallend says I accused him of being against the second ammendment (which i did not) and now you are trying to claim I said innocent people will nevr get arrested. At least Kallend shut up when he couldn't find where I made the statement he claimed. Once again, this time read carefully so you can give an honest try at a respectable reply... "Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it." You made the claim about something I supposedly said, now it's time to quit evading and provide proof.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention? Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution? Eh eh eh! Quit dodging! Show me the evidence of your claim.

I'll worry about that when I'm dealing with known terrorists and plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people at once. How incredibly naive to think that law enforcement never makes mistakes. Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it.

Hinckley committed an actual crime, and was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. How do you compare that with this, where there was none and where the alledged super crimes all vanished? Actually, the reason we've seen no attacks is because I wear a necklace with a shark's tooth and a closing pin. Can you prove otherwise? I'm sure, at least so long as you aren't that guy. There is hard evidence against Padilla, ignore it if you want. Hinckley was never convicted of a crime....you seem to have forgotten that. Some doctors have testified that he is fit to rejoin society. The US government disagrees. Yeah, it's just a freaky coincidence that when the government started playing hardball with terrorists here all the attacks stopped. That must have been when you started wearing your majic shark tooth.

I'll worry about that when I'm dealing with known terrorists and plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people at once.

You are completely, utterly wrong. The term "enemy combatant" was specifically created to bypass both the Geneva convention and the US constitution. Enemy combatants are NOT POWs. You figured wrong. No, YOU'RE wrong. Unless, of course, you can provide hard evidence (opinions don't count) of the claim that the term was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. If you can I will gladly admitt I was wrong.

You mean like John Hinckley? More than a quarter century ago tried to murder the President and has been denied freedom by the secret service long after he would have been let go if his intended victim had been anyone else. Did you ever consider that the reason there has been no terrorist attacks on US homeland since 9/11 just may be because people who have been found plotting to build dirty bombs have been held in custody as a prisoner of war, or, as called today, an enemy combatant? Call me what you will, I feel no sorrow for the guy and am glad he has been kept off the streets. If it had been my choice I would have done the same thing. The same people who whine and cry "They violated his rights!" when people like him are held are the same ones who whine and cry "They blew up my office buliding!" when asshats are left to their ways.

Why is the burden on ME to find a replacement. Have YOU found a replacement for mustard gas, which has, quite appropriately, been banned? Because you are one of the folks bitching about it being used, that's why. I would have bitched about mustard gas too. I guess mustard gas is fine with you. I think DU should be banned, just like mustard gas. Last I checked the US wasn't using mustard gas in Iraq. Stay on topic...focus.

Enemy combatant is just another term for prisoner of war. Jeez, even I could figure that one out. POWs can be held without charges as long as the conflict is ongoing.

Why is the burden on ME to find a replacement. Have YOU found a replacement for mustard gas, which has, quite appropriately, been banned? Because you are one of the folks bitching about it being used, that's why.

The seriousness of his crimes is a matter for the judge and prosecutor to determine. You may feel they are wrong, that is your right. Padilla was held as an enemy combatant. Rules are different for enemy combatants and as such his rights were not violated no matter what you think.

My first reaction (which could be wrong) is that this situation could only reinforce the idea of the spports in the WTC towers to have reached a critical temp and collapsed. Points to consider: This was outdoors with plenty of room for the heat to escape. The heat from the tower fires was kept close to the supports. A relatively small amount of fuel came from the tanker, app. 8600 gallons. Jet fuel has a higher BTU content than gasoline. The bridge was not weakened in any way from an airliner slamming into it at 500+ mph. I'm gonna love seeing how the CTs try to explain this one away...lol!