Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Vast LWC]

[And as far as "being constrained by the Constitution" is concerned, that's the reason he's been doing all those things you disagree with. He's trying to act within the boundaries of the constitution, rather than straying outside those boundaries, like some Vice Presidents I could mention.

You probably don't realize that you are merely babbling at this point. He'd doing WHAT he's DOING becaue he feels "constrained?"

Give us a couple of examples, why dontchya? What, specifically, in your estimation, has President Obama done that he has felt he was constrained to do by the Constitution? What things has he refrained from doing because the U.S. Constitution is a grant of limited authority and powers and thus President Obama has felt he was prohibited from doing? This oughta be amusing.

I'm not really sure what's so confusing about the point I made.

He's trying to impose Miranda rights and stop Torture in an attempt to abide by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

Is that unclear?

[But of course, you're going to keep on throwing pre-adolescent insults around instead of proving any of your points...

You don't seem to feel any contraint to back up a single thing you just spouted. There is a word for tools like you. That word is "hypocrite."

LOL. What was it Reagan said? "There you go again."

 

[Liability]

[And as far as "being constrained by the Constitution" is concerned, that's the reason he's been doing all those things you disagree with. He's trying to act within the boundaries of the constitution, rather than straying outside those boundaries, like some Vice Presidents I could mention.

You probably don't realize that you are merely babbling at this point. He'd doing WHAT he's DOING becaue he feels "constrained?"

Give us a couple of examples, why dontchya? What, specifically, in your estimation, has President Obama done that he has felt he was constrained to do by the Constitution? What things has he refrained from doing because the U.S. Constitution is a grant of limited authority and powers and thus President Obama has felt he was prohibited from doing? This oughta be amusing.

I'm not really sure what's so confusing about the point I made.

He's trying to impose Miranda rights and stop Torture in an attempt to abide by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

Is that unclear?

Of course. Your contention is that the President is somehow constrained BY the Constitution to give MIRANDA rights to captured enemy combatants in time of war whereby we normally advise mere criminals that THEY have a right to remain silent so that tehy will not be confronted with having the government use their words against them in a court of law for a criminal proceeding. In the procewss, we are telling the guys we want (arguably NEED) to question for military intelligence purposes (involving issues of national security) that they don't "have" to speak to us?

There is NO SUCH constraint to be found ANYWHERE in the Constitution. The notion itself is beyond absurd. It is dangerously stupid. A great little snippet of legal wisdom can be paraphrased as: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

But your bombastic and completely baseless contention would say that it is.

You are making shit up. President Obama is submitting to absolutely NO defensible view of the Constitution, much less anything it actually commands, in ordering that our troops or intelligence officers give MIRANDA warnings to captured enemy combatants in time of war. It's insane.

You don't seem to feel any contraint to back up a single thing you just spouted. There is a word for tools like you. That word is "hypocrite."

LOL. What was it Reagan said? "There you go again."

And yet, your post and follow-up proved me right.

 

[CMike]

It's pretty comedic people like liability flip flop and ignore facts only to accuse others of:

(posted by Liability)
"Your stupidity alone is of no major concern. But your dishonesty is amazing. No wonder you are unable to debate intelligently. You are the lowest kind of troll."


Yet he runs away every time he has the chance to debate an issue. It's just funny!

Are you aware that Curve is a movie star

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKpQ9yLAT4[/ame]

 

[CMike]

It's pretty comedic people like liability flip flop and ignore facts only to accuse others of:

(posted by Liability)
"Your stupidity alone is of no major concern. But your dishonesty is amazing. No wonder you are unable to debate intelligently. You are the lowest kind of troll."


Yet he runs away every time he has the chance to debate an issue. It's just funny!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZzNOkcEgM[/ame]

 

[Liability]

It's pretty comedic people like liability flip flop and ignore facts only to accuse others of:

(posted by Liability)
"Your stupidity alone is of no major concern. But your dishonesty is amazing. No wonder you are unable to debate intelligently. You are the lowest kind of troll."


Yet he runs away every time he has the chance to debate an issue. It's just funny!

Not only have I not "run away" from you at all, I am still here and still dismantling all of your endless lying efforts to engage in what is laughably called "debate" in your dishonest parlance.

What you are doing is not funny. It is a sign of mental illness. Have you ever sought-out professional help? You need it. No joke.

 

[CMike]

Good grief this Vastly Ignorant is the one who should just shut the fuck up. The Bush Adminsitration was FAR FAR from the incompetent failure that IS the Obama Adminsitration.

Period.

In the interim, you can go blow a donkey, for your grasp on reality isn't worth jack shit.

You make shit up and post it as fact. Even your most generalized opinions are retarded.

Newsflash, you fucking idiot. We ARE at war and the moron-in-chief SHOULD start acting accordingly.

Oh, and NEWSFLASH, you lost the election. Obama gets to try to do things his way now. And the way I see it things couldn't possibly turn out any worse than they did from the Cheney/Bush method.

Newflash, he was elected president not god.

 

[CMike]

[And as far as "being constrained by the Constitution" is concerned, that's the reason he's been doing all those things you disagree with. He's trying to act within the boundaries of the constitution, rather than straying outside those boundaries, like some Vice Presidents I could mention.

You probably don't realize that you are merely babbling at this point. He'd doing WHAT he's DOING becaue he feels "constrained?"

Give us a couple of examples, why dontchya? What, specifically, in your estimation, has President Obama done that he has felt he was constrained to do by the Constitution? What things has he refrained from doing because the U.S. Constitution is a grant of limited authority and powers and thus President Obama has felt he was prohibited from doing? This oughta be amusing.

I'm not really sure what's so confusing about the point I made.

He's trying to impose Miranda rights and stop Torture in an attempt to abide by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

Is that unclear?

[But of course, you're going to keep on throwing pre-adolescent insults around instead of proving any of your points...

You don't seem to feel any contraint to back up a single thing you just spouted. There is a word for tools like you. That word is "hypocrite."

LOL. What was it Reagan said? "There you go again."

Al Qaida terrorist are illegal combatans and have no miranda rights or any other rights.

And this treating Al Qaida terrorist like american criminals is going to get americans killed because we need the information that these terrorists and have, and we don't get them, more terrorist attacks are going to occur in the US.

Obama is a reckless, naive, idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

Look, here's the problem:

There is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant".

If a man kills someone, they are either:

Lawful Combatants, which are covered by the Geneva Convention,

Or they are Criminals.

"Unlawful Combatants" are CRIMINALS. That's all they are.

So you can either prosecute them under criminal law, whether it be US or international criminal law, or you can legitimatize them and give them rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

What you CAN'T do is mix and match the rules to whatever suits your liking.

Now, can anyone argue that the above is not true?

 

[Vast LWC]

Al Qaida terrorist are illegal combatans and have no miranda rights or any other rights.

And this treating Al Qaida terrorist like american criminals is going to get americans killed because we need the information that these terrorists and have, and we don't get them, more terrorist attacks are going to occur in the US.

Obama is a reckless, naive, idiot.

If they are combatants, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention, and Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes.

If they are criminals then Bush and Cheney are not guilty of war crimes, but they must be tried as criminals.

 

[Liability]

Al Qaida terrorist are illegal combatans and have no miranda rights or any other rights.

And this treating Al Qaida terrorist like american criminals is going to get americans killed because we need the information that these terrorists and have, and we don't get them, more terrorist attacks are going to occur in the US.

Obama is a reckless, naive, idiot.

If they are combatants, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention, and Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes.

If they are criminals then Bush and Cheney are not guilty of war crimes, but they must be tried as criminals.

They are combatants and are absolutely NOT covered by the Geneva Accords under its own terms. And there is not a hint of honesty in your bogus claim that former President Bush or former Vice President Cheney are guilty of any crimes.

They are not "criminals" in the ordinary sense of that term and it's beyond stupid to try to put them in that category. This explains why you try.

 

[Liability]

Look, here's the problem:

There is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant".

If a man kills someone, they are either:

Lawful Combatants, which are covered by the Geneva Convention,

Or they are Criminals.

"Unlawful Combatants" are CRIMINALS. That's all they are.

So you can either prosecute them under criminal law, whether it be US or international criminal law, or you can legitimatize them and give them rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

What you CAN'T do is mix and match the rules to whatever suits your liking.

Now, can anyone argue that the above is not true?

False.

If one is a uniformed combatant of a nation's military engaged in war against a uniformed enemy of another nation, and assuming that the laws and rules of war are properly adhered to, then one is a lawful combatnat.

IF one is a NON uniformed enemy combatant who wilfully and deliberately and savagely violates the rules and laws of war, then one is an UNlawful combatant which is NOT at all the same thing as a mere "criminal."

Lying will never help you, you dishonest fucking idiot, because there are too many people more than happy to exposed your contempt of the truth.

 

[CMike]

Look, here's the problem:

There is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant".

If a man kills someone, they are either:

Lawful Combatants, which are covered by the Geneva Convention,

Or they are Criminals.

"Unlawful Combatants" are CRIMINALS. That's all they are.

So you can either prosecute them under criminal law, whether it be US or international criminal law, or you can legitimatize them and give them rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

What you CAN'T do is mix and match the rules to whatever suits your liking.

Now, can anyone argue that the above is not true?

False.

If one is a uniformed combatant of a nation's military engaged in war against a uniformed enemy of another nation, and assuming that the laws and rules of war are properly adhered to, then one is a lawful combatnat.

IF one is a NON uniformed enemy combatant who wilfully and deliberately and savagely violates the rules and laws of war, then one is an UNlawful combatant which is NOT at all the same thing as a mere "criminal."

Lying will never help you, you dishonest fucking idiot, because there are too many people more than happy to exposed your contempt of the truth.

Exactly right

 

[CMike]

Look, here's the problem:

There is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant".

If a man kills someone, they are either:

Lawful Combatants, which are covered by the Geneva Convention,

Or they are Criminals.

"Unlawful Combatants" are CRIMINALS. That's all they are.

So you can either prosecute them under criminal law, whether it be US or international criminal law, or you can legitimatize them and give them rights as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

What you CAN'T do is mix and match the rules to whatever suits your liking.

Now, can anyone argue that the above is not true?

Prove it.

 

[Vast LWC]

They are combatants and are absolutely NOT covered by the Geneva Accords under its own terms. And there is not a hint of honesty in your bogus claim that former President Bush or former Vice President Cheney are guilty of any crimes.

They are not "criminals" in the ordinary sense of that term and it's beyond stupid to try to put them in that category. This explains why you try.

If they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, then they are criminals, not combatants.

If they are are combatants, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Now, if they are criminals, then they can either be tried under international law or US law. I'm assuming you would want them tried in the US in that scenario.

Thus, Obama's decision to try them in criminal court in the US.

It's completely logical. Obama, after all, was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He knows a bit about the law.

Now, if your point is that they are in fact combatants, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention. If that is the case, Bush and Cheney tortured them, and are thus guilty of war crimes, under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

So, in effect, Obama is protecting Bush and Cheney from being prosecuted for War Crimes. So I think you should all shut up while you're ahead.

 

[Vast LWC]

False.

If one is a uniformed combatant of a nation's military engaged in war against a uniformed enemy of another nation, and assuming that the laws and rules of war are properly adhered to, then one is a lawful combatnat.

IF one is a NON uniformed enemy combatant who wilfully and deliberately and savagely violates the rules and laws of war, then one is an UNlawful combatant which is NOT at all the same thing as a mere "criminal."

Lying will never help you, you dishonest fucking idiot, because there are too many people more than happy to exposed your contempt of the truth.

REALLY?

Please show us any bit of international law, or the Geneva Convention that defines an "Unlawful Combatant".

And a uniform doesn't mean anything at all. One is either given legitimacy to conduct war by a nation-state, or one is not.

An "unlawful Combatant" therefore, is a criminal, especially in this case where they didn't represent any nation-state at all.

 

[Intense]

S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
10/16/2006--Public Law. (There are 3 other summaries)

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 28, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Military Commissions Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) States that the authority under this Act to establish military commissions (commissions) may not be construed to alter or limit the the President's authority under the Constitution or laws of the United States to establish commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to codify and establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants (combatants) engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by commissions under this Act. Defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person who has: (1) engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant; or (2) been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or other tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense (Secretary). Defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as a person who is a member of: (1) the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (2) a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (3) a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

Authorizes the President to establish such commissions. Prohibits commission findings, holdings, and other precedents from being introduced or considered in any proceeding of a court-martial convened under the UCMJ. Prohibits a combatant subject to trial by commission from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Allows commissions to impose upon any person found guilty any punishment not forbidden under the UCMJ, including the death penalty. Requires an annual report from the Secretary to the congressional defense committees on any trials conducted.

Makes eligible to serve on a commission any commissioned officer of the Armed Forces on active duty. Requires to be detailed to each commission a military judge, trial and military defense counsel, and reporters and interpreters. Requires at least five members in each commission.

Outlines commission pre-trial procedures, including charges and specifications. Prohibits a person from being required to testify against himself (compulsory self-incrimination) at a commission proceeding. Prohibits (with a limited exception) a statement obtained by the use of torture from being admissible against the accused.

Prescribes commission trial procedures, including: (1) rules of evidence; (2) duties of trial and defense counsel; (3) pleas of the accused; (4) opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence; (5) the defense of lack of mental responsibility; and (6) the record of trial. Requires: (1) a two-thirds commission member vote for conviction; (2) a three-fourths member vote for a sentence of life imprisonment or confinement of more than ten years; and (3) a unanimous vote by at least 12 members in a case in which the death penalty is sought. Prohibits any sentence from including cruel or unusual punishments such as flogging, branding, or marking or tattooing of the body.

Prescribes commission post-trial procedures, including: (1) review by the convening authority; (2) appeal by the United States; (3) rehearings; (4) reviews by the Court of Military Commission Review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court; and (5) the execution of sentences.

Makes the following offenses triable by commissions: (1) murder of protected persons; (2) attacking civilians; (3) attacking civilian objects; (4) attacking protected property; (5) pillaging; (6) denying quarter; (7) taking hostages; (8) employing poison or similar weapons; (9) using protected persons as a shield; (10) using protected property as a shield; (11) torture; (12) cruel or inhuman treatment; (13) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (14) mutilating or maiming; (15) murder in violation of the law of war; (16) destruction of property in violation of the law of war; (17) using treachery or perfidy; (18) improperly using a flag of truce; (19) improperly using a distinctive emblem; (20) intentionally mistreating a dead body; (21) rape; (22) sexual assault or abuse; (23) hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft; (24) terrorism; (25) providing material support for terrorism; (26) wrongfully aiding the enemy; (27) spying; (28) conspiracy; (29) perjury and obstruction of justice; and (30) contempt.

Requires a report from the Secretary to the defense committees setting forth commission procedures prescribed under this Act.

(Sec. 4) Makes inapplicable to commissions UCMJ provisions concerning: (1) contempt; (2) speedy trial; (3) self-incrimination warnings; and (4) pretrial investigations.

(Sec. 5) Prohibits a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in any habeas corpus or other civil action to which the United States, a current or former officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its states or territories.

(Sec. 6) Authorizes the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate standards and regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Directs the President to issue such interpretations through Executive Orders.

Amends the federal criminal code to include the following as violations of the War Crimes Act: (1) torture; (2) cruel or inhuman treatment; (3) performing biological experiments; (4) murder; (5) mutilation or maiming; (6) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (7) rape; (8) sexual assault or abuse; and (9) taking hostages.

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(Sec. 7) Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

(Sec. 8) Amends provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 relating to the protection of U.S. government personnel engaged in authorized interrogations to: (1) require (currently authorizes) the U.S. government to provide counsel and pay the legal fees of any such personnel with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of an authorized interrogation; and (2) make such provisions effective with respect to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.

(Sec. 9) Amends the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to make reviews of all judgments of commissions (currently, only judgments involving a capital case or a case in which the alien was sentenced to imprisonment of ten years or more) a matter of right.

(Sec. 10) Includes all aliens detained by the United States (currently, only those detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) under the authority for the review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of a decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:
9/22/2006 Introduced in Senate
9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 65 - 34. Record Vote Number: 259.
9/29/2006 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 250 - 170 (Roll no. 508).
9/29/2006 Cleared for White House.
10/10/2006 Presented to President.
10/17/2006 Signed by President.
10/17/2006 Became Public Law No: 109-366 [Text, PDF]


Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Vast LWC]

Prove it.

I don't have to. The categories already exist.

If you all want to create a new category, that of an "Unlawful Combatant", you will have to create a whole new set of guidelines dictating rules of conduct, etc...

Thus you have to "Prove" the existence of such a category to begin with before I must prove it false.

 

[Liability]

They are combatants and are absolutely NOT covered by the Geneva Accords under its own terms. And there is not a hint of honesty in your bogus claim that former President Bush or former Vice President Cheney are guilty of any crimes.

They are not "criminals" in the ordinary sense of that term and it's beyond stupid to try to put them in that category. This explains why you try.

If they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, then they are criminals, not combatants.

Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)

The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.

And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.

 

[Liability]

False.

If one is a uniformed combatant of a nation's military engaged in war against a uniformed enemy of another nation, and assuming that the laws and rules of war are properly adhered to, then one is a lawful combatnat.

IF one is a NON uniformed enemy combatant who wilfully and deliberately and savagely violates the rules and laws of war, then one is an UNlawful combatant which is NOT at all the same thing as a mere "criminal."

Lying will never help you, you dishonest fucking idiot, because there are too many people more than happy to exposed your contempt of the truth.

REALLY?

Yes.

Please show us any bit of international law, or the Geneva Convention that defines an "Unlawful Combatant".

If you haven't read the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and it looks like you haven't, then why are you spouting off?

Are you actually seeking to be heard to argue that the GC doesn't define its own terms? And if you acknowledge that it does, then you tell US what it says about recognizable uniforms and insignia or badges. I mean, you ARE familiar with those provisions, right?

Don't feign ignorance. It's bad enough if you really are ignorant and saying the utterly silly shit you've been spewing here.

 

[Vast LWC]

S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A bill that the Bush administration and it's flunkies in the Republican congress MADE UP to cover their own unconstitutional actions, on September 28th 2006, just days before the November elections.

And it's utter Bullshit.

The Supreme Courts rulings since that legislation have overturned most of it.