It is what you say, not what you do!

STOP IT, you're killing me. "It's what you say, not what you do!" ROFL...you tear me up, nit. I busted a gut laffin' Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

I hope you have a clear area to roll in!
Now, you know darn well that one can't say what he thinks! The words have to be parsed. Even white lies are acceptable to be "nice."
Ever notice the criminal who says, "I did it," is immediately hung?
The criminal who lies and says, "I didn't do it," is let off easy? Just in case he might be telling the truth!
If you are Catholic and tell the Priest every day you screwed up again, he will forgive you---even though you did the same stuff last week, and the week before!
Even the Mafia had their Priests to talk to----playing it safe, you know?
If you want in trouble tell it clear, straight, nothing held back, and you will certainly be in trouble!
That is the definition of "is."

I have been reading this all day some and all of you guys perverts?

I didn't vote for any of those people. Let's get your Demo. list- oh, I am sorry it's too long- and Bill is still at it.

Bill Clinton has done enough of it to hit the all time high,that's something to tell your kids, embrassement- he found out in school, I warned him- what a legacy????????????????????

What happened to your Sofa friend?

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

_

When did Jim Baker run for President- you really are bonkers!

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I've noticed anytime someone says something bad about Republicans, you immediately start whining "but...but...the DEMOCRATS! but...but...BILL CLINTON!"

Now you claim to go to church but I am thinking it must not be a Christian church because I've never heard of a church that preaches "two wrongs make a right".

You always keep on excusing the poor behavior of your beloved Republican party. That's called "enabling". Tsk.
_____________________________________________________
Wall Street Journal: FairTax,Flawed Tax
Unspinning the FairTax

__

I am not a silly goose, I am a 20 year old female, ask Hutch and Penguin.

I still voted for Bush because he's handsome.

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

____

A member for 4 days .......ummmmmm

___________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

If you'd been paying attention, bpr, you'd have read your cyberboyfriend Hutch's blog about someone (obviously a "good conservative") has been monkeying around with the password reset function and causing problems for people who dare to criticize the false idol you worship (George W. Bush). My password has been reset about 50-60 times in the past two weeks, and when my spam filter goofs up and deletes email from the citizen I have to re-register.

They've also targeted Nitpicker and AF-10 and a number of others.
_____________________________________________________
Wall Street Journal: FairTax,Flawed Tax
Unspinning the FairTax

_

Wow, have I been talking to looney's? Are you old enough to remember the song "Mama Told Me Not To Come" well that's me today. Hope your day is good.

These guys are looney's- hey but like I say "Hope Changes Everything"
Hutch my cyberboyfriend, have you finished laughing. Read above. Some one has lost their marbles. I have been married to my guy the love of my life for 27 years, okay do the math like Hack did- I was 20 when I got married, who cares how old I am. My husband is a little older than me. I thought I met some wierd people in his radio days especially the younger one, I think these are the same people they just got older. Ha.

Please- don't say you friends with these looney tunes.

I don't care it shows who they are.

And for them HOPE, HOPE, HOPE, HOPE, HOPE.

Have a good evening.

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

ssssshhhhhhhhhhhush, I haven't told my cyberwife yet. You have to understand about sniffles(basmati the hypocrite) he's one of those who says one thing and does another, just ignore him, he's about as relevant as the $nitpicker$.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

IT's our secret. I could say alot, but I won't- don't make me laugh- they will get jealous AGAIN!

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I'm laughing. Please don't tell. They will talk again.

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

It doesn't surprise me that someone for Bush would hack the paper's computer, or whose ever computer it is, they also like to tap phones, take names, and punish people like they did in the 50s. Mean bunch.
They also need help! 60 days ought to do it.
I don't understand two weeks of it with no action by the paper!!!!

Good shot- you can not make me get upset over someone like you- You are the one who asked me if I had been hacked? I happen to be married to a very smart guy that can outsmart all of you- well one.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

What is it with you, you dislike me for some reason- why? Actually all of you dislike me, sorry I like you, not my nature. So what is the deal with you are you bonkers?

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

stop whining and thinking everyone hates you - what are you, 12???!!

Come on, grow a pair and provide a decent rebuttal occasionally, instead of crying about how everyone dislikes you. Is it really that important to you, to be liked??!!

Most of us could really lay into you if we wanted, but we don't because you sound a bit pathetic at times - it would be like sticking pins in a bunny rabbit - just can't do it.

I have a husband that worships the ground I walk on. Plus Hutch likes me and Penguin- btw Yardman I still like you. I like Cy and Denise plus others and even you Main.

BTW can't you do math?

Just remember Hutch likes me.

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Muddle even likes me. Are you surprised?

__________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I don't care what you say or think- hit me with you best shot-
WARNING- I don't fight like babies or kids. Say what you want, btw I don't give insults back- I was taught respect for others,my parents did a great job with that. Something you should look into.
I'll get back with you later-
My adorable husband and son we are going to watch a movie.
I'm sorry your not happy.

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Skyspy likes me- so what's your problem? Is it this Hutch thing?

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Have a great night.

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Good night. Don't take any of this seriously.

The problem with politics is it hits our core belief systems. When someone criticizes a politician we think is good (no politician is good...ever, they are all snakes) we take it as a personal attack.

I didn't like hucka-do-whatever-you-want-to-hypocrite to begin with,...but his son torturing a dog...even if "it was a stray"(not a good excuse) is personal to me. He is the lowest of the low. Right now I'm not sure who I hate more the old nasty guy who killed Meredith or hucka-hypocrites son.

Anyway....have a good night bpr.....kbets still hasn't checked in....I hope he is busy taking care of his uncle.

While my husband is rewinding the movie, you I can talk to- you treat me with respect.

There is not one person running for President that is perfect- I know that, even I'm not perfect- you know that. Hey everyone knows that.
Just ask my son. Ha.

It's okay, everyone is entitled to his or her belief- we discussed this before- but as I said before-

some of us are not as ditzty as others may think we are.

I feel the same about Mick Vick- I love animals- Just ask my husband- my job would be working with them- honestly I can't put them to sleep if I were a doctor or nurse- my heart could not do that. But, that's me.

I really don't feel like Huckabee can control everything his son does, this is not a excuse- what he done is wrong.

For example- I try my best, pray to God- does my son always do what he should- NO. Under my house he will- I just pray when he is on his own he will remember some of what I taught him. But then again does this mean I am a bad parent. I don't think so.

Your child becomes a adult- sad sometimes has to learn the hard way- this is the hardest part of being a parent- you love them no matter what- but there actions if they are wrong are wrong. When they are a adult it is there decesion not the parents- this is what so scarey of being a parent.

I know you, you don't do or say these things to hurt me. It's okay.

I'm still praying for kbets.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I hear you, but I just feel there is some serious lack of values in huckabees home. If his kid could do something so evil....I can't get by it....People who sacrifice or torture animals are satanic. He is of the devil.

Anyway have a good night. I have to get up early.

I must admit I like several people running for President, not sure yet which one, but this year is weird kinda like yeah I want him to win but if he doesn't there's 3 more in line I like almost as much.
I know all that sounds weird.

I do think animal cruelty leads to other things- this happened in our neighborhood, with a kitten- when my son was about 9 years old- my son came and got me because a kid he was playing with was hitting it with huge rocks that could kill it, I took care of it, I went and told the kid I would call the police and they would get him for animal cruelty- well he headed home FAST. The kitten we found a home with a no-kill humane society. I would taken the kitten, I have 4. I let that kid know if I hear of this again- no warning- I will call.

My husband calls me Elly-Pat

The difference is I am not a hillbilly- even if I am from N.C.
He said Elly-Mae liked all the critters- just like me.
That's me.

Have a Good Night- Movie- School is EARLY!

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

One of the Nick's asked me if I had been hacked. I said no- have you- I have not had any problems at all signing in and out. What about you?

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Not yet anyway.

I like you even if you do jump all over our bpr all the time. Why can't we all just get along. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

You just keep the faith.
______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I have never met you, but the ones that told me about you gave you outstanding remarks- now you have alot to live up to. (Just a joke) It's nice to have a pleasant person on here. Thanks.

____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I think more than a few people are getting just a bit tired of her passive agressive posturing. I personally dislike the nasty commentary she heaps on my parenting skills. Quite judgemental for a supposed Christian, if you ask me.
_____________________________________________________
Wall Street Journal: FairTax,Flawed Tax
Unspinning the FairTax

that someone for Bush would hack the paper's computer,

Understand this $nitPickerSmith$. There is a conspiracy taking place under the direction of Karl Rove who heads up the South Atlanta Wing of the Vast Right Wing Majority. Sniffles has been singled out because he opposes the war on terror. Watch out... You could be next.

Remember... they know where you live.

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

causing problems for people who dare to criticize the false idol you worship (George W. Bush).

Easy there Sniffles ole buddy. You "good bed-wetters" aren't the only ones getting nailed. Though I disagree with Nuk quite a bit, he's hardly on your side. Myself either. Other than being on your side in regards to understanding that Westmoreland is a goof. I've heard others who have mentioned.....

Side Note to BPR: Basmati... I mean Sniffles is an old timer around here. For that you must honor him for his longevity in the Citizen blogging world.

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

At first I thought the common denominator was people who spoke out against Lawyer Ramsey, but they got Nuk too.

So I figured it was someone who hated Democrats....they got you and Nuk because NOBODY likes you two!
_____________________________________________________
Wall Street Journal: FairTax,Flawed Tax
Unspinning the FairTax

Perhaps you're right Sniffles.

QFBD2nE3np

I guess nobody loves us...

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

You are a sick jealous guy!

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Have you not been hacked yet? Huhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

No, I haven't.

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

First I never said who was doing it, or what their affiliation was, or is. Second, basmati you hypocrite, I notice you're using your but, but, Clinton, line again, just another clue that proves you're a hypocrite. You climb the major about reregistering and then turn around and do it your yourself. You said you only attack when you're attacked and then you attack Tug. Like I said before name the place, man to hypocrite.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Sorry, wasn't me messing you up. You see the problem is you have 5000 names- Sofa was banned and you took the place-

No problem with my password-

Don't try you will never get it. You could stay up all night and never guess it.

Ummmmm good reason to reregister- give us another one. Clever one though. How many sniffles can they be?

This God thing- you said God was helping you raise your kids???????

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

____

Now we know who sent us that wonderful song- funny huh??????

___________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Hutch have your day in the sun,he is jealous of you. Are you sure you don't know him? This guy does not need kids, he says he has kids, we need to help him if he does. He is sick.

___________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

__

Do you know Sniffles5? He needs help- do you know of someone who can help him?

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

What else did Clinton do? Anything lately?

____

I think he was born doing it.

___________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Well, maybe if you "hope" Bill Clinton will get forgiven, he will!
Anyway his wife is running for President, not him.

Bill doesn't want to be forgiven, he wants his wife back in office, so he can be first man and have some more girl toys.

____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

__

No sex scandle with President George W.Bush- honestly where do you get this news from that home made source you sent me to earlier, someone reporting out of their home on their own home page.

Hint- I did vote for President George W. Bush because I though he is handsome.

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Does this mean I am still invited to Starbucks?

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I have read all your posts, I know where you stand.

Being Christian means abortion and politics matter to me. I know that shocks you-

I believe God (Jesus) is in control. My trust is in Him not the world.

I'm praying for you- I will not argue.

I don't profess to speak for "main", but I think what he/she was trying to say is that there are "life" issues other than abortion. The war in Iraq, capital punishment, response to Katrina are merely some of those life issues. I have absolutely no doubt in the importance you place on the issue of unborn babies, or the sincerity of your beliefs. But there is a much broader scope of this issue and Bush's record is somewhat questionable is some of those other areas. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

A few bad apples? You need to do some more historical research.

Civilians (not in uniform) engaging in combat are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. In many nations, including the history of America, combatants disguised as civilians were considered spies and it was lawful to shoot them on sight. But today, we don't do that.

We face a new kind of warfare today. Yet we do not immediately shoot combatants disguised as civilians because it would lower us to their level. These detainees CHOOSE to disguise themselves as civilians while conducting combat operations. We take the higher ground by CHOOSING not to shoot them on sight. Instead, we feed clothe and house them in Guantanamo as detainees. Because we have the basic unalienable right to protect ourself from those who have shown and sworn their intent to do us harm.

I do not agree with torture, not only because of what it represents, but because of what it does to humans who practice it.

Your assertion that this is the first time in history that torture is official government policy is a blatant falsehood. Do some more research on the history of American warfare first. And then show me the document Bush signed that officially sanctions torture by the American government. There is none. From day one, Bush has officially opposed torture. And he still does.

And the rest of the world does "envy our freedom". That's why there are 12 million illegal aliens inside our borders.

From the other side of the tracks

I’m sorry other side trax, but your assertion that: “Civilians (not in uniform) engaging in combat are not protected under the Geneva Conventions” is simply incorrect. Trust me I know. Or read the Conventions.

Everyone inside a country that has signed the Geneva Conventions is covered. Everyone. Without exception.

There are different levels of protection and coverage. Specifically and most importantly, if you are in uniform, you cannot be tried for murder if you kill someone during a war and, if you are captured, you must be released at the end of hostilities.

A terrorist or other combatant on the other hand, not wearing a uniform, can be tried in military or civilian or international court for murder or lesser crimes and their sentence may extend past the end of the hostilities.

I believe that you are also incorrect saying there is no torture sanctioned by the Bush administration. Waterboarding is torture, always has been. Here is a link to some historical cases:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

The United States has prosecuted waterboarding cases in international courts against the Japanese and Chinese, supported other countries in international cases when Norwegians were waterboarded, prosecuted domestic cases against waterboarding when blacks were tortured in an Alabama prison, and had cases successfully prosecuted against US soldiers in the Philippines.

You are correct that we cannot produce Bush’s documents. They have classified them for this very reason. I predict and fear that after the next administration comes into office, some Bush administration officials will probably be tried for war crimes and the documents will be made public. I expect that Bush will offer blanket pardons before he leaves office which will prevent prosecution in the US but not overseas. Members of the Bush administration will have to be very careful as to which countries they travel to, especially in Europe, lest they find themselves jailed and charged with war crimes. I doubt you’ll see Rumsfeld or Cheney visiting the EU countries. Remember what happened to Peron:

Argentine Ex-President Charged With Rights Abuses

A Republican president might object to an international trial and bring political pressure or he might not, deciding not to damage his administration by supporting torturers. A Democratic president will almost certainly take a “hands off” position.

If it were up to me, I’d let them have access to whichever classified documents they needed for their defense and then let them be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.

You claim that the Geneva Conventions covers civilians. Correct, it does. But it only protects the rights of civilians and VICTIMS who are NOT ENGAGED in hostile activities.

You didn’t read what I wrote. As I correctly stated, the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to combatants (terrorists) who have disguised themselves as civilians and engage in combat. That is why the terrorists at Guantanamo are called DETAINEES! If they had fought in uniform, they would be PRISONERS of WAR and would be protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are not PRISONERS of WAR. Thus, they are not covered by the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions for combatants IN UNIFORM. Civilian VICTIMS are protected. Combatants disguised as civilians are not protected. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not protected by the Geneva Conventions because they CHOSE to conduct combat operations in a cowardly and morally despicable way by disguising themselves as civilians. They do NOT DESERVE the protections the Geneva Conventions afford uniformed combatants because of the choice they freely made to disguise themselves as civilians. Sure the Conventions include civilian protections. But not in the broad, all-inclusive way you suggest.

Here are the highlights of the Geneva Conventions so YOU CAN READ THEM. All four conventions and the numerous protocols are too lengthy to published in their entirety here:

The Geneva Conventions (1949)
> Geneva Convention (I) – for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
> Geneva Convention (II) – for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
> Geneva Convention (III) – relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
> Geneva Convention (IV) – relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Signatories to the Geneva Conventions pledge the following:
> To treat humanely all persons who are not taking an active part in hostilities, as well as those who have been made incapable to participate in battle through injury or detention. There should be no distinction made as to race, religion, or creed.
> To prohibit violence in particular extermination, torture, mutilation, deportations and other acts to non-combatants and POWs which diminish the dignity of the human being.
> To respect the rights, customs, and honour of the human being, especially the rights of the most vulnerable groups – elderly, women and children.
> To respect humanitarian activities by ICRC or other humanitarian organisations to protect and relieve war victims.
> To disseminate the Geneva Conventions to armed forces and civilians in both times of war and peace.
Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
Adopted to manage the new situations and changing realities of armed conflict.
> Additional Protocol (I) – Protection of victims of international armed conflicts.
Expands provision of Geneva Conventions to include conflicts of national liberation / self-determination. Protection is detailed in favour of children, women and journalists and use of indiscriminate weapons and means of warfare which cause unnecessary human suffering and severely damages the environment is prohibited.
> Additional Protocol (II) – Protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts.

Here endeth the "civics" lesson.
From the other side of the tracks

The Geneva Conventions covers everybody. I carry them around with me on my data stick and I know what they say.

You say : “You didn’t read what I wrote. As I correctly stated, the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to combatants (terrorists) who have disguised themselves as civilians and engage in combat. That is why the terrorists at Guantanamo are called DETAINEES!”

I did read what you wrote and you are simply mistaken.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is the legal arbiter of what the Geneva Conventions mean. Here is a link to a press release from the ICRC in which there legal department makes it explicitly clear:

"Article three applies to anybody -- the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, al Qaeda, anybody fighting in the territory," said Catherine Deman, legal adviser to the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Geneva Conventions Apply Even in Afghanistan -- ICRC

There is lots of follow-up on the ICRC website but there is no question at all that the Conventions cover everybody including terrorists.

As to US law and the Bush administration, The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions.

This is now the law of the land and has been incorporated into the military under DOD Directive 2310.01E on DOD’s detainee program and the new Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations, both released Sept. 6, 2006.

The Fourth Geneva Convention in Article 5 specifically focuses on spies, saboteurs and others hostile to a detaining power who, by definition under that treaty’s Article 4, are not considered regular POW’s.

You are also incorrect when you stated: “That is why the terrorists at Guantanamo are called DETAINEES!” Exclamation point!

They were not called “detainees” they were called “enemy combatants” specifically because there was no definition of “enemy combatants” in the Geneva Conventions and the Bush administration was trying not to have the Conventions apply, leading directly to the Supreme Court decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld.

Regardless of what they are called, anybody who is not an automatic POW (i.e. being captured in uniform) is still considered a POW until a competent tribunal is held as declared in Article 5:

Article 5
“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

This is why the Bush administration has gone to such lengths to try to legitimize their proposed kangaroo court military tribunals; to get them to declare the detainees somehow eligible to be tried without allowing evidence they had been tortured. This is why they are so desperate to suspend Habeus Corpus.

Incidentally, to protect against just such abuse by the government; the fundamental right allowing persons redress to the courts against the government, is why the founding fathers specifically disallowed suspension of Habeus Corpus in the Constitution and why the Bush administration are doomed to failure too.

If the administration had not tortured the prisoners and now justly fear that their war crimes will be revealed in a court of law or that the torture will negate any evidence thus obtained, they could have tried the detainees as agent provocateurs, saboteurs, terrorists or spies in either a civilian or military court or they could have tried them as individuals for war crimes.

It was the administration’s use of torture, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which has precluded the administration from following established military and civilian judicial paths to prosecute the terrorists.

You made some very good points, but the fact that remains is simple. The terrorist DETAINEES at Guantanamo are NOT AFFORDED the same protections as PRISONERS of WAR. That was my point.

Split hairs all you want and blame it on allegations of Bush's use of torture which he has NEVER condoned. You are still missing the point.

They are DETAINEES, not POWs. And you will never change that. POWs have lots of protections under the Conventions not enjoyed by DETAINEES. That was my point. And is TRUE. Just admit it and stop your yammering.

From the other side of the tracks

In your earlier post, when you said: “Civilians (not in uniform) engaging in combat are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.”

I thought you meant: Civilians (not in uniform) engaging in combat are not protected under the Geneva Conventions

And when you stated: “…the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to combatants (terrorists) who have disguised themselves as civilians and engage in combat.”

I though you meant: “…the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to combatants (terrorists) who have disguised themselves as civilians and engage in combat.”

And when you wrote: “Combatants disguised as civilians are not protected.”

I thought you meant: “Combatants disguised as civilians are not protected.”

And when you stated: “The prisoners at Guantanamo are not protected by the Geneva Conventions…”

I misunderstood you to mean: “The prisoners at Guantanamo are not protected by the Geneva Conventions…”

However since you are now changing your argument to say that POW’s and detainees do not have the SAME protections then we are finally in agreement, I hope.

I would like to point out that it still seems to me that you are somewhat confused when you write: “POWs have lots of protections under the Conventions not enjoyed by DETAINEES. That was my point. And is TRUE. Just admit it and stop your yammering.”

If you will look back over this conversation, you will see in my first blog two days ago in which I first corrected your misstatements and which you have been so consistently arguing against for two days, I clearly stated:

“There are different levels of protection and coverage. Specifically and most importantly, if you are in uniform, you cannot be tried for murder if you kill someone during a war and, if you are captured, you must be released at the end of hostilities.”

Timestamps in a public blog are a terrible thing aren’t they?

And their status remains DETAINEES!!!!!!!!

From the other side of the tracks

I assume you are just using the word "detainees" as some kind of meaningless shorthand covering the prisoners in Guantanamo. Fine with me. However, their legal status under international law is POW until they appear before a competent military tribunal which may then change their status.

The administration, as I have said before, is trying to declare them “enemy combatants” not as detainees, as in:

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I))).

The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant was given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions

"The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means —
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006. as a response to the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The rights guaranteed by the third Geneva Convention to lawful combatants were expressly denied to unlawful enemy combatants for the purposes of the Act by Section 948b. The Act also denied the right of Habeus Corpus. These provisions made the act unconstitutional.

When you write: “Because the miltary tribunals ARE LEGITIMATE” and use the capital letters for emphasis, I have to admit that I feel you are shouting at me in frustration or that you believe that the emphasis and the exclamation points will somehow bend reality into agreement with you. However, I would like to point out that I am just the messenger here. The military tribunals as proposed by the administration ARE NOT (emphasis!!!) legitimate according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It was in all the MSM papers:

High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals

This is great. Thanks for the link. I'm learning a lot here. And eating some crow. But what is your real agenda here?

You’ve got the Geneva Conventions on your memory stick???
You sound like a lawyer with misplaced sympathies toward the “oh-so terrible fate” of the Guantanamo detainees. Spare me. I’ve been to Guantanamo. Served with MG Miller who commanded there.
Do you actually believe these cowards should be given the protections espoused by the Geneva Conventions for POWs and other legitimate combatants???? Or God forbid, that these cowards should be tried in U.S. civilian courts with all of the rights afforded US CITIZENS??? Cause that’s where all of your yammering is leading . . .
Like you, I agree they should not be tortured. As I said before, I do not condone torture, not only because of what it represents (lowering ourselves to their level), but because of what it does to those who practice it.
We are facing a whole new kind of warfare, and every action sets a precedent. You have to ask yourself, “Just what are we prepared to do to prevent the elimination or enslavement of America under the coming Caliphate?” The original Geneva Conventions were wrought in a completely different time and space, ignorant of the kind of tactics we are facing today.
So what is your SOLUTION to this dilemma??? It will probably sound like this: “First, we have to admit we tortured them, and then they must tried by the international courts in the Hague . . . “ Spare me.
Sorry, but I do not propose abdicating our right to prosecute these cowards to some international body. The UCMJ contains everything we need apply the right kind of justice here.
From the other side of the tracks

I believe we may have reached a definitive view of our different political views on which we will just have to disagree. It is exemplified in you question:

You have to ask yourself, “Just what are we prepared to do to prevent the elimination or enslavement of America under the coming Caliphate?”

I hope you do not get the impression that I am trying to insult you when I tell you that I find the statement silly. From my point of view, this is precisely the type of fear mongering extremism which so defines the Bush administration and has led us to where we find ourselves today.

I understand your position and you argue it well and I disagree.

Specifically, I do not believe that is any chance at all, none, that Islamic terrorists will ever enslave America. I do not believe that there is even the remotest possibility that they will be able to eliminate America. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is even the slimmest chance of the establishment of a “coming Caliphate”. The “coming Caliphate” would require the reconciliation of the Sunnis and Shias in spite of a thousand years of barbaric hostilities toward each other and it would require the over throw of all Islamic governments. This is not going to happen in a million years.

Now I know that some radicals have called for this but that is a far, far different thing than them implementing it.

So we disagree on that and I suspect our differences are irreconcilable.

However, I do agree with you that the UCMJ contains everything we need apply the right kind of justice here. This most assuredly would not involve the suspension of Habeus Corpus or the introduction of secret evidence or witnesses or denial of legal advice, all of which the administration has tried to implement and all of which the Supreme Court has struck down.

I would support trials under the auspices of a “competent military tribunal” which, if it were constituted under the UCMJ rules would certainly be deemed legitimate by the Supreme Court. The military tribunals as conceived by the administration were not compatible with the UCMJ and were ruled unconstitutional precisely along the lines where they deviated from the UCMJ.

It would be perfectly OK with me if these proposed military tribunals had the right, as now given under a legitimate military tribunal by the UCMJ, to restrict access to any classified material.

Where applicable, I would support trials in international courts.

In the case of a terrorist suspect that we deemed so dangerous that we could not let him be released and where the US feared disclosure of highly sensitive information such that a trial was unwise, I would support the designation of that person as a POW which would give us the right to detain him until the end of hostilities without trial.

The reason that the Bush administration has not embraced the legal remedies available to them under the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ is because they have allowed these prisoners to be tortured and have thereby crippled their prosecution. The administration realizes the implication of their actions which is why they have been trying to operate outside established procedures no matter how convoluted the means.

Detaining prisoners forever without bringing charges against them and denying them the right of council while at the same time denying them the status of POW as required by US and international law is fundamentally un-American and reminiscent of some of the most odious regimes in the world.

Get it past the Supreme Court and it suits me.

You have my respect and admiration. You stated your case very clearly and concisely. Believe there is actually more that we agree on than disagree.
My statement about the coming caliphate was "over the top". Puposely. But not to generate fear. I am merely repeating their stated intent. An intent they have carried thru on in many historical examples (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11). This threat cannot be ignored. The infidel must be either converted or destroyed. It is their rhetoric, not mine. At the risk of repeating myself, "What are we prepared to do in response?"
Like you, I also believe that the re-establishment of the Caliphate will not, in actuality, come to pass. America will persevere. The real problem is, I believe it will take an incident that kills hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of Americans before this nation will have the national will to do what it needs to do to ensure our survival. And I believe it is better to take proactive, pre-emptive action today, at a manageable level, than to clean up the mess after we get hit by a nuke (wherein no one claims responsibility) or a biological weapon like smallpox and other contagious agents that can kill millions. I want to prevent that day from coming. But it is probably already too late. Our borders remain open. Our military is at war, but it has little impact on the average American. And I place the blame for much of this on Rumsfeld, and Bush's misguided loyalty to him. If Colin Powell had been Bush's choice for SecDef, the world would be a different place today. If we had gone to Iraq at all, it would have been with overwhelming force. Enough to secure the vacated weapons caches and provide sufficient security and stability from the onset. The insurgency we face today would not have even materialized. But the political tumoil in Iraq remains.
And while many would like to lay our current foreign policy problems at the feet of the Bush administration, it was Clinton's foreign policy that effectively put a target on the forehead of every American. Bombings to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal, pharmaceutical factory in Sudan bombed based on bad intelligence, for which Clinton never apologized. Clinton tucked our tails and ran out of Somalia and used bombing as his major foreign policy weapon. And the result was 9/11. And the hate filled rhetoric continues. “What are we prepared to do?”
We are engaged in a test of wills between a comparatively young, civilized society (America) against an ancient culture where brutality and terror are commonplace. It will take generations before the middle east can evolve toward a more stable existence. Foisting democracy on them is not the answer. I believe the best answer lies in leveraging information. In part, that’s what brought down the Berlin Wall. Until Iraqis adopt a society that understands the advantages of inclusion over tribalism, of power sharing instead of power (oil) mongering, they will never come to terms with the West. In the meantime, what is the best way to protect America?

From the other side of the tracks

I think we've argued each other to a draw on this one pending further developments.

Let's change the subject and see if you agree with me on this:

I sure wish there were more illegal immigrants coming into the US. We need more good workers around here and the double bonus is that I can practice my Spanish...

Peace!

There is one point we disagree on. In an earlier post, you suggested giving Guantanamo terrorists POW status so we could detain them for the duration of the war, and then release them. We are legally detaining them now, so what’s the advantage?
Furthermore, I vehemently disagree with giving these cowards POW status for the sake of expediency. It would be a terrible precedent-setting mistake. Believe John McCain would agree. It would be a huge slap in the face to all former POWs (military members who served honorably in combat, upheld the Laws of War, and abided by the Geneva Conventions). And by comparison, the interminable detention of terrorists at Guantanamo is a much better fate than history provides (execution).
I have another question for you related to precedents already set reference military tribunals. After WWII, GEN Douglas MacArthur commissioned a military tribunal to try Japanese officers for war crimes. As a result, high ranking Japanese officers were found guilty and executed. These military tribunals set a precedent and validated the legality of such tribunals. One of the major objections to these tribunals was the appearance of undue command influence (MacArthur hand-picked the officers who sat on the tribunals and some contend that he selected like-minded officers). The issue of undue command influence could be easily avoided today, so that is not an issue. What is the difference between the military commissions that Bush attempted to establish, and a military tribunal? I know at Guantanamo they were conducting “panels” to make some decisions as to the status of detainees.

On illegal immigration I have one point. Granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens would be similar to granting detainees POW status. They have not earned it. Both violated the law. Detainees violated the laws of war, and illegal immigrants violated our immigration laws. That is all I have to say on that topic. Other than the comments above, I'm not taking the bait.

Peace indeed! From the other side of the tracks

From the other side of the tracks

From the other side of the tracks

If you haven't already read it, take a look at Cal Thomas's column this week on immigration in England. Britain's Muslim populations are voluntarily segregating themselves from the rest of society. This does not bode well.

From the other side of the tracks

.

I'm curious, is Israel in non-compliance with Article 49 with respect to the West Bank?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

In my non-legal opinion, which is what I hope you are asking for, Israel is in compliance with Article 49 because hostilities have not ceased. Also, there is no provision in the Geneva Conventions that I am aware of that will preclude waiving this section as part of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. I expect that eventually this provision will be waived through negotiations thus keeping Israel in compliance in the future also.

Non-legal is just fine. Haven't they ceased with Jordan?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I've got a question for you, you said in an earlier post that Steve Brown didn't put his money where his mouth is, my question is was all the money Ramsey spent his own, and if not didn't he believe in himself?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Ramsey is not known for his "mouth". Brown is. So your comparison is ludicrous. My point was that Brown tried to delude voters with his "no campaign contributions" stance. It was just a ploy to hide the fact that he would not have been able to generate much in contributions even if he tried - and Brown knew it. And savvy voters saw right thru it.

From the other side of the tracks

Where did I compare them? I just asked a question, once again you made a statement you couldn't prove or back up, the only thing ludicrous here is your statement. Of course you could just answer the question, but it seems that when I ask you a question I never get an answer that pertains to the question. Maybe we should call you the other side of the facts.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Brown and Ramsey. You made the money/belief in self comparison. Not me. But you took it out of context. I put it back in context. You are the one trying to make something out of nothing. Not me. Brown lost. Time to give up the ghost.

From the other side of the tracks

You are the one who made the statement after the election when you weren't content to win you had to ride it into the ground, and still you haven't answered the question, do you always make statements you can't support.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Thanks for the information. I believe it holds true that when you find someone destroying information, they most likely feel they have done something wrong. I would give anything to know what was on those CIA tapes, or hear transcripts between FBI agents at Abu Ghraib who reportedly threatened to arrest CIA agents for what they were doing to detainees. Time magazine had an excellent article on this. I wish more people read Time, US News and World Report, etc. It is amazing what they can get out of people during an interview.

Kevin "Hack" King

Read my response to Jeffc above. You are both incorrect.

Further, you stated, "I believe it holds true that when you find someone destroying information, they most likely feel they have done something wrong."

Except folks like Sandy Berger (during the Clinton Administration) who stole classified documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his socks, so that these documents would be permanently erased from the record????

Berger and the media claimed it was, "an honest mistake". What a CROCK.

From the other side of the tracks

Other side trax is wrong as you know. I'm awaiting his response to my comments. Frankly, I'm hoping for something better then, "I know what the United States Supreme Court says but I believe..."

Until then... looks like a good night coming up!

I'm all a'twitter.

By any chance were you having breakfast at Mike and C's Friday?

Just found the key to unlock my blogging ability again. No. Wasn't me. I was in Oklahoma. Keep up the great posts!
and I'll be at the Starbuck's meeting 19 Jan 0900 on HW 54. Cheers

Kevin "Hack" King

Glad to hear you can make it, Sat. 1/19 at Starbucks! You're one of many bloggers that I'm looking forward to finally meeting. Even though it is a Fayette Dem. mtg., it would be nice to have some Independents, Libertarian's and Republicans there too, just to round out the session! We may all have more in common, than we think.

See you Saturday, and travel safely!

This means you can't wait to meet me. I can assure you I don't have anything in common with you- thanks for the invite.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

_

Did you know that Main Stream wants to meet us. Can't wait, can you?

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Looks like we'll be in Rome (GA) for a birthday celebration (mine and two daughters-in-law). But I would like to make one of these get togethers soon.