 | | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) But what you don't understand is that this is an asset. Unencumbered by world regard, we can do anything, anywhere. Who's going to stop us? Chris (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) ...meanwhile, the USA's reputation overseas nosedives. Scott A (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
I think it is time Oz re-joined the Empire. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Some quick research turns up that I am a little out of date - he's been (URL) charged> now. Its an interesting document. The rest of the summary seems pretty much spot on. (URL) seems to have been more or less the state of play before the (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) I don't think Bush'll be in trouble over this one. He can just smirk out of the TV at us and say that 'Merica was made safer for the three or four years that they were held illegally and that he was willing to do whatever it took. Many of my (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Gawd! If you're presenting an accurate view, that really is disgusting. They should have demanded their people back long ago. Chris (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Yup. Indeed, as I understand it Australia is one of the few (perhaps the only) country with nationals involved who has NOT asked for them back. Apparently at the time our dudes did whatever undisclosed thing that they may at some stage be (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Tony B.Liar may be up for re-election next year. His closeness to Bush has become a major electoral (URL). To mitigate this, he is trying show he is not 100% lapdog. As a result, the UK Attorney General noisily (and rightly) (URL) rejected> (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) I get the feeling Bush has painted himself into a corner with this one: If he releases these guys people will wonder why they were ever held to start with. If these guys do get their day in court, it is clear that the "evidence" will be (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) (URL) David Hicks to serve any sentence in Australia>, these questionable detentions seem to be heading in the right direction. Let's hope the Military Tribunals do not end up being (URL) show trials>. ROSCO (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
