E.O.C ... Enemies of Combatants

A.I would treat these detained prisoners as Enemies of Combatants; just so I would have to follow those obscene rules of the Geneva Accords.

B. There would be no potential long and short-term repercussions if any of these detainees are mistreated because we wouldn’t have to follow any of those rules.

Umm, More Like Word Mazes.

Tone of the U.S. Declaration of War:

• You mess with us, we’ll mess you up!

• ;) .. Bring it on.

• Let’s roll with the punches.

• No Backing down.

• Let’s Show off our GUNS …



In conclusion, we have nothing to fear and if you have the courage to step up to plate; look forward to the challenge of a lifetime.


Tone of the German to the U.S. Declaration of War:

• Umm … I not so sure about this anymore …

• :-? … 8^{ … Uh oh …

• Let’s make Peace.


Yeah what more can I say? Germany was not too thrilled about the competition we were bring to the plate.

WikiLeaks …

Dear, WikiLeaks Corp.





I honestly find what you guys do to be just unlawful!! Georgie BC says’” The Espionage Act also has two additional problems that receive relatively little attention but which are important in contemplating its use. The first is that it contains no limiting principle in its apparent criminalization of secondary transmissions of proscribed material. ...

By its terms, it criminalizes not merely the disclosure of national defense information by organizations such as Wikileaks, but also the reporting on that information by countless news organizations. It also criminalizes all casual discussions of such disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not authorized to receive them–in other words, all tweets sending around those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party conversations about their contents. Taken at its word, the Espionage Act makes felons of us all. As long as this deficiency remains, it will be a poor instrument against an outlet like Wikileaks, precisely because there will be no way in principle to distinguish between the prosecution of Assange and the prosecution of just about anyone else–from the New York Times to the guy on the street who reads the newspaper and talks about it. That will make Espionage Act prosecutions seem like far more of a menace to legitimate speech than would a prosecution under a better-drawn law. There are ways to fix this problem–an intent element and a clear limitation to material not already made public would be a start–but as long as it goes unfixed, I oppose any prosecutions under it for secondary transmissions.

The second problem is that the statute, by its clear terms, does not cover the overwhelming bulk of the material that Wikileaks disclosed. The Espionage Act is not a general bar against leaking or publishing classified information. It covers only material “relating to the national defense.”

Furthermore, Benjamin Wittes says the Problems with the Espionage Act Amid the proliferating cries for prosecuting Julian Assange and shutting down Wikileaks–an undertaking for which, I should note, I harbor no small sympathy–a few people have noted that the Espionage Act has, well, some problems as a legal instrument for the project. As Josh Gerstein’s story in the Politico notes, the First Amendment would have something–nobody is quite sure what–to say about a prosecution of something kind of like a media organization for the dissemination of something kind of like news. What’s more, the law is very old–World War I era–and very vague.

The law also has two additional problems that receive relatively little attention but which are important in contemplating its use. The first is that it contains no limiting principle in its apparent criminalization of secondary transmissions of proscribed material. The relevant section, 18 U.S.C. 793 (e), reads:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

In essence, many people my find this to be very helpful information –Wikileaks; but some things are just best kept unknown. Wikileaks will just throw peace in the backburner once again and chaos will continue to destroy.

Me: Hey, Just Txt me .. Solider: What?

I know from personal experiences, how it frustrates people in general to have to communicate through words. My sister for example has a boyfriend that is incarcerated and that is how they communicate, knowing she is anticipating his coming home she is very agitated with this form of communication because it leaves her with so many unanswered questions, after every letter.

Furthermore, yes I know it frustrates them because sometimes there’s miscommunication also unanswered questions. It's agitating, the patience you will have to contain is unbearable, and I know back then the literacy level is nowhere near where it's at now. So the not having the literacy capability to be able to know how to express themselves the correct way may have been one of the biggest frustrations of them all; because there was the possibilty of the whole letter coming off the wrong way.

Oh Snap, It's about to be a ... What??!! A Dogfight!!!

THE THOUGHTS OF PLIOT:

-Shoot first ...

-Win first!!

-Get behind him!!

-Stay above him!!

-Stay focused.

-Remeber Fun-Da-Mentals .. Have fun handling the job!!

-Mind over matter!! -It's all mental.

-Result = Domination!!

Black Ops … More like Blacks Drop

Call of Duty, a game I have played before, matter of fact several times before. I found enjoyment in it for one reason and one reason only. Relation – it is a bandwagon; everyone is playing some type of Call of Duty if it's not Black Ops, its Modern Warfare 2, if it's not Modern Warfare 2 then its Modern Warfare, and so forth. Many students at Celebration High School either own or play Call of Duty; and witness the viscous violence that goes on throughout the game; which is why I think this violent video game that portrays war should not be allowed. The reasons I am against Call of Duty is One it's expensive, two it motivates kids in the negative way, lastly the studies that have been done, frighten me and the life of families all around the world; with kids that are playing this game on a daily basis.

Video games can be quite addicting. It is incredibly sad to see so many young people these days hooked on them. Not only are they expensive to buy, but if you buy them, you are basically paying to sit around and rot your brain.

Many video games encourage violence. To make it even worse, the games make these things seem like fun! Kids think nothing of turning on a video game and blowing some guy's head off or shooting one of their own men in a war game. We become little killing machines. When they are that used to killing in video games, it can make "real" death not seem so serious. Not only are the children getting excellent training in violence through the video games, but they are learning to not show compassion for human life. They also don't fear for their lives as much because when you die in a video game, you can restart it. You can't restart your real life, and for younger children, this concept may be harder to understand.

Criminal acts are often thrown into video games. That killing is accepted and encouraged. What does this teach us- the youth? It teaches them that it is cool or funny to shoot and kill people. It is no wonder that the world has become so violent these days. How we think that violence is wrong when we let them sit around and play extremely violent games? I think we should be taught right from wrong and should know that there are consequences in real life for these sorts of actions.Things that would get you into trouble in real life are accepted in video games. You can rob a bank or shoot innocent people without getting into trouble. A 10 year old boy can play a video game, pick up a prostitute, have sex with her on the video game, and then beat her up and steal her money. It's sickening, isn't it? There are no consequences for these actions. Children just see these things as normal.

Not all video games are bad, but most of them nowadays are not good. They are filled with sex, violence, and horrible values. Children should be outside playing and using their imaginations- not rewiring their brains to think like convicts or snipers. If video games continue to get worse, our country could suffer greatly.