jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
No, she will die over in Iraq because she got drafted.
Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, she will die over in Iraq because she got drafted.
They just did ...
-Justice Kennedy
Edit to add:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did rule that the commission system violated both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, which is what you asked me to show you ...
jreeves, what do you think GITMOs purpose is in the GWOT?
Look up the Downing Street memos retard. I love how you say, "the entire world".
Is that why Canada told us to fuck off when we asked them to help? Along with the rest of the world? The coalition of the willing? Who? Poland? England? Pahleez.
We had the world on our side after 9-11. Bush blew them all off so he could.......
oh yea, bush has since admitted that Iraq was about Oil. Not wmd's, not spreading democracy, not fighting terrorist, but about money. He said, "sometimes money trumps piece". That blows your lie right there.
And did you hear that tape of Bush at a fund raiser joking about WMD's? He looked under a table and said, "any wmd's here? NO, any over here? NO, and the rich neo con crowd was dying laughing.
I don't think that's funny. Millions died in Iraq. MILLIONS. Bush should be tried for murder.
You are so misguided it is sick.
Well I disagree with the SCOTUS, this ruling will allow terrorist to file Habeus Corpus and be released. Are you telling me, you want KSM to have the same Habeus Corpus rights as yourself?
The laws for Gitmo was passed by Congress.....
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1] was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]
To protect national security information from being disclosed in open court. Also to be able to debrief suspected terrorist without the limitations of US criminal laws.
Habeas corpus and be released? Eh? What makes you think that is the case?
You don't file habeas corpus and "get released." Habeas corpus is being able to produce a reason for them being held other than, "you are a terrorist because we say so." Sure some will be released ... the ones whom the US cannot produce any reason for which to hold them ... that's kinda ... you know ... against the law and such.
Kahlid Sheik Muhammad will be found to have just cause to be held if/when he has a has a habeas corpus hearing ... the man confessed to being behind 9/11. Pretty open and shut.
The problem I want to avoid is the U.S. setting a dangerous precedent by rounding up suspected "terrorists," labeling them as "enemy combatants," and then locking them up indefinitely with nothing other than, "because we say so," to justify it. Do you see what kind of an awful backlash such a policy can have on us? It would then allow other nations to round up American citizens and do the same ... and when the US comes a calling they will be met with "sorry, you can't have them, they wont be tried ... they are enemy combatants." Then what? Scream bloody murder for them and look like HUGE hypocrites in front of the world when you yourselves have hundreds locked up in a similar fashion?
I'd be willing to bet the farm that the same people here in the US who so vehemently disagree with the SCOTUS recent decision would the ones leading the campaign to wage war on "x" country that would dare do such a thing.
So basically to skirt the rule of law ...
That is why they are getting shot down every time GITMO gets to the SCOTUS ....
Umm...we didn't just state they were enemy combatants. A military tribunal made the judgement, if a detain was an enemy combatant. So as it stands after the SCOTUS ruling in order to be able to hold a combatant we must divulge national security information in open court. That sounds like a great way to gain even more intelligence on terrorist and future terror plots. Considering there was legal review for the detains prior to the decision, I don't see us setting any precendence for our troops. Are you saying that US troops should receive US legal review when they become a POW? That's simply not going to happen.
It was completely legal before SCOTUS issued new law from the bench. Remember, the military commissions act of 2006, the act was a way to provide judicial review for detains while protecting our national security interests.
The detainees at GITMO are not POWs. Doing so gives them privileged status and inherently makes them "legal combatants." That would make it even harder to eventually try these guys ...
And what kind of national security information are we concerned about? The details of the so-called plot the detainee was involved in and how it was foiled? So what? To me, that's a lame excuse.
And I'm not concerned about US troops in as it relates to this because US troops fall into all categories that would make them POWs should the become captured ... "terrorists" don't. We all know what the terrorists do in these situations ... they brutally murder them ... we both know that Geneva has a problem with that.
I'll repeat what my concern is: Other gov'ts in the future seizing American citizens and labeling them "illegal combatants" and holding them against their will with out representation or just cause being given to our gov't.
Sigh....such ignorance...I will only respond with facts
[/url]
Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???
They already do that, and they've figured out that the way to get around being killed for it is to refuse to wear uniforms, to blend in with non-combatants, and to use non-combatants as shields. Hence "illegal combatants". Otherwise, you can never catch them because they do not fit the description for POW.
Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.
Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.
Good god I hope we don't go to war with Iran.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us do something, to make sure they never get nukes, But and invasion would be a disaster. Sure we would take apart their military easy enough, but try occupying that land, and if you think 4 dollar gas is bad, you have a big shock coming if we have an all out war with Iran, Try 15 or 20 dollars a gallon.
I think even Bush is smart enough not to invade Iran, he may attack them, but it will be a limited air attack if anything at all. Not a full scale invasion. I hope at least.