DrGuy; The thing you miss is that nothing was ruled illegal, just procedurally not accurate. On the whole, the only thing the ruling said was "Bush - Talk to Congress". Period. Sift through it. You are wrong again. It says specifically in the ruling that "Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with h
International Herald Tribune, France: Link Hong Kong Standard: Link Los Angeles Times: Link CBS Marketwatch: Link None of those links work.
There was no error in my ways. I never said it only applied to uniformed soldiers. Here I'll repost what I did say: I really tried to make it as easy as I could fo ryou to read, but alas, I have failed. I never said you said that, I clearly said that Drguy said that. I give up, it is impossible to keep you up to speed. <TABLE
Want to "show me" where? And just an fyi....we're not talking about civilians "or" unlawful combatants. The GC says alot about POW's (which they aren't and do not fit the requirements for) civilians (again they're not) or uniformed soldiers ( once again, not) You'll have to show me where I said Hamdan o
Want to tell me again how my point isn't valid? Which "point" are you talking about? The one where you said I should quote actual text from the GC, when I did twice and you just didn't see it? Or do you mean your point/opinion that we shouldn't honor the GC? <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb
Actually his understanding is correct. Yours is flawed. He said I never posted any of the GC, only the ruling. My understanding of that is not flawed. His comprehension is flawed. <TD class="mb-Body-
I see, so because I am not willing to root through your blog to substantiate my points somehow that negates everything printed and shouted by the lunatic left? ha! try again It should be pretty easy, if it's such an obvious point, as you claim.
you are not all liberals, and I am not even thinking about going through every article you have written to prove what is an obvious point. LIBERALS have blamed bush for everything from lying, to selling the country out to global warming, I stand by what I said. Yeah, I didn't think you'd actually do any
It seems either you don't/won't read or comprehend what I write, so what's the difference? I understand the points you're attempting to make, they're just not valid. For example; conflict not of an interna
If Bush was really pulling the strings of "his new Court", they would have signed off on all the Gitmo business, no matter what. If the SCOTUS was really in Bush's hip pocket they would've said anything goes at Gitmo. So to believe that Bush stacked the deck with cronies and sycophants...? Disproven by this ruling. BTW,
TRUTH HURTS DON'T IT? or turnabout fair play, YOU LIBERALS BLAME BUSH for everything that is bad I figured the truth shall set you all free Since that was a response to me and you said YOU liberals, why don't you point out some specific instances where I've "blamed Bush", for everything. If you could s
You're beginning to sound like as much of a broken record as the Col., only blaming the left instead of Bush. Sad.
I was going to respond to your "points", but then realized how silly that would be. You either won't read or won't comprehend it anyways, just as I showed you above. The court has ruled in opposition to your arguments. The GC does apply to Hamdan, as found by SCOTUS. They have the authoritative word in this matter, not you.
Just one problem here davad.....no where have you quoted the actual geneva conventions that cover what dr guy was talking about. All you quoted was the SC's opinion. If you want to quote information to back-up your position that's fine. But at least try to quote the correct info. Actually, if you bothered to read before posting you would see that
The legislation is on the Military tribunals and the ability of the POTUS to arbitrarily decide to hold them. Apparently you need to look more thoroughly into what the ramifications of the Hamdan decision are. Mere authorization from Congress to conduct the tribunals is not enough to comply wit
It means that the "courts opinion" that you quoted carries no real weight because they can NOT rule on "international" law. Their "opinion" means nothing when they voice it on the geneva conventions (which are international). First of all, this case was not entirely about the Geneva Conventions. It als
Have "you" actually been paying attention? The US court has ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION over the geneva conventions! Who said they "had jurisdiction over the Geneva Conventions"? And what exactly do you mean by that?
By the way, I'm not saying that these looters should get a slap on the wrist. I would sympathize with them more if the'd been caught looting bottled water and bread. But 15 years seems pretty excessive to me.
I can concede the broad argument that violent looting in general, may have endangered others in some instances. However, these people were caught in the act by police, so there is no evidence that the looting done by these specific people had the effect of keeping out police and rescue personnel.
The contractors talked about stealing, planned to steal, but the looters DID steal, and in the worst way, possibly contributing to the deaths of innocents. The sentence fits. How exactly did they "possibly contribute to the deaths of innocents"? Perhaps you missed this part; N
Three people who were caught looting liqu
I understand what you guys are saying, but did you actually read the opinion of the court that I posted? (d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan’s challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Pp. 62
The Geneva Convention does not apply as they are not uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation. Actually it is you who is not correct. The Geneva Convention apparently does apply, at least in part. From Scotusblog; Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held
Okey, so now Greenpeace is just a puppet org for the Bush administration and the UN had this yellowcake before Hussein did? No, didn't say or imply that they were puppets of anyone. Greenpeace are the ones who found the yellowcake and said it was under the control of the UN before the invasion,
Here is some more info from Greenpeace about yellowcake in Iraq; Uranium and other nuclear material stored under UN control in Iraq until the fall of Saddam Hussein have been stolen and local residents are reportedly displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning. Six weeks after the occupying forces took control of the country, the US finally conceded that the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), could return to assess what has been stolen at part o
JoeUser Forums