1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Guantanamo Detainee Found Innocent, Set Free

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by lorien1973, Oct 22, 2007.

  1. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #21
    They are sensoring you like Foxnews censors RP supporters!!!
    SEMrush
     
    d16man, Oct 24, 2007 IP
    GRIM likes this.
    SEMrush
  2. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #22
    :D

    lol I 'thought' the same thing! :p
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  3. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    I addressed this. What detention facility did you mention that our troops were held in, given 3 halal meals per day, recreation and sporting activities, religious books, comfortable places to sleep? I forget what that facility was, when the moral equivalence argument ensued on behalf of whom?

    That's a matter of opinion. Not only has your posts seemed sympathetic, but continue to do so. Denial doesn't change that. That you put words into others posts by making allegations of lawlessness, etc, on behalf of whom???? blatantly puts words into others posts. The hypocrisy is blinding!

    How so? So you are arguing on behalf of terrorists now? That's exactly what your comment suggests.

    You always blame America first. That's what you are doing now. Selling out your country by asserting it doesn't follow laws on behalf of whom? Who are the group of people that are receiving your sympathy and concern here? How have I proven anything regarding laws. Shall we go into enemy combatants again? I've covered it before, with case law. I can provide the case law and you can defend...uh, who is it you are defending, again?

    What question? Please source the question you had for the administration and where you raised it. Some people hide behind the notion of "questioning" when in fact, they are making allegations. Isn't that what you were doing?

    You mean the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay wish they had it easier?

    Who broke the law and what law was broken? If a court rules against something, then it's clearly a sign that our system works. That issue is no longer an issue.

    Who are "we?" Are you part of a group larger than yourself? What laws are broken and on whose behalf are you blaming for such?

    Going with the "but, but, but he's not answering my question illusion again?" I'd suggest you take your own advice. If you are going to be the spokesman for terrorists and take their cause, you should be prepared to answer on their behalf.

    You could always loosen those blinders. I'm not asking you to be the spokesman for terrorists, just being observant and participating in a conversation where you are.
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  4. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #24
    I should have known, a crap response as always.

    You never cease to amaze or is that disappoint me Gtech.

    :rolleyes:

    I question the Bush administration, it's simply laughable how you equate that to selling out the country.

    You prove time and time again to be more blind than a deer caught in headlights.

    I am NOT a spokemen for terrorists, I am a spokesman for following the constitution and the rule of law, but I forgot you don't care about either ;)

    ---edit
    So Gtech are you happy with how things are handled now or do you want it to go back before the supreme court rulings? Posts from you and others in the past would indicate you thought it was fine and dandy before the Supreme court ruled, is that the case, do you want it to go back?

    I have no problem with terrorists being locked up as long as they are done so via the law of the land. I also do not believe they are entitled to any constitutional protections 'bet you didn't see that one coming' I simply believe they should be handled via current law, but I guess that's so hard to understand and equates to supporting them now does it?

    ----further edit
    Before someone twists something ;)
    Terrorist as in a non citizen, a citizen is always due protection entitled to them under the constitution.
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  5. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    Some people can't handle opinions other than their own.

    I'll sleep better knowing that ;)

    Really, what question? Some people make unfounded allegations against their country under the guise of pretending to "question" it. And they'd do so, because (as seems apparent), their BDS overrides common sense.

    Everyone has opinions.

    The Constitution is capitalized. It wasn't mentioned. Some people need to hide behind it. It's clear you were speaking for a group of people. Who where they?
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  6. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #26
    Sigh yet again you try to equate questioning the president with that of 'the country' can you not seperate the 2?

    The legality of how Guantanamo originally was setout, many of the same items reversed by the Supreme court ;) Following the geneva convention, Bush IMO did not, that is questioning the president not tearing down the country.

    BTW I can handle opinions, I despise the twists you choose to respond with. You do not see it, but you honestly twist and avoid, that's the entire method you use to debate. You attack peoples love of the country, you call them terrorists supporters, all the while smiling and thinking you are actually correct. I'm glad most see right through you on this very forum, even many people on your side ;)

    Please see my edit above BTW.
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  7. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    More misleading and untruths from Grim to avoid and cover up.

    If you don't want to answer what question you were pretending to ask, in order to cover up the support, I won't hold you accountable.

    Enemy combatants (terrorists - those people you are standing up for) are not entitled to ANY rights nor our Constitution, nor do they fall under the Geneva Convention.

    It is touching though, that you want to give them things they are not entitled to. Perhaps it's time for a call for forum support?

    Heh!
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  8. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #28
    Nothing misleading coming from me.

    You claim they do not get any rights under our constitution, I agree I said as much above ;)

    As far as the Geneva Convention, thank you! Yet our supreme court ruled otherwise ;)
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
    Not to mention the other links I linked to that you failed to even read.

    I am not standing up for anyone, I unlike you are standing up for the country that I love and the laws that are in place.

    I do not support or stand up for convicted child rapists, I however will fight to make sure they are treated by the current laws of the land. That does not equal supporting the child rapist 'who I wish I could kill at my own hands' it is standing up for the country I love. Funny you can't see the difference from standing up for the country, but you'd rather tear it down for your own agenda ;)

    I want to give them things they are not entitled to? Seriously? Yet I've already stated they should not get any constitutional protections IMO, all I believe is they should be entitled to the laws set in place for such instances, the experts and US supreme court appear to agree.

    Nice avoidance of any questions yet again.
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  9. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #29
    Who cares what Supreme Court says? They are only judges and anyone knows that ex-corporals are smarter and more of an expert in any and all issues than judges, generals or presidents. :rolleyes::D
     
    gworld, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  10. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    I wish you would stop avoiding the questions GRIM. After clearly having stood up for those in the OP, and twisted and changed the topic around to blame your country, you are not attempting to hide behind the Constitution. Claiming rights for terrorists in one post, then changing that and saying you are against it.

    Just like john kerry. Whatever is popular at the moment.

    Unfortunately you can't use cases where the supreme court has ruled over a point of contention to assert there is a current problem, such as you've done. You claim a grievance on behalf of terrorists, blame America for it, then go on to cite where the grievance has been addressed and resolved!

    You're doing all my work for me. Meanwhile, the terrorist released in the OP is getting all your sympathy. What a shame.
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  11. iul

    iul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    46
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #31
    why not? aren't judges the ones who determine if a law is broken or not? You claim no law was broken but it seems like the experts (the judges) think otherwise. Why should we trust you instead of trusting a judge?
     
    iul, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  12. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Quirin, 317
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
    There, is the rule of law.
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  13. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #33
    That's my point. If the Supreme Court hears a case and over turns it, then the issue is resolved.

    I'm not an expert at arguing on behalf of terrorists, but I do know what the law says, as I quoted above, from a credible source.
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  14. iul

    iul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    46
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #34
    iul, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  15. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #35
    Who says they did? There is one case for one individual.

    Why do you interpret the law differently than what I posted, as direct quotes, above?

    Are you suggesting I should feel sympathy for terrorists? Should my Country's men and women put their lives on the line in order to afford those that fight them like cowards, without uniform, the same rights under our Country's Constitution? What would the terrorists do?
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #36
    Quoting a decision from the constitution based in 1942 when the geneva convention for POW's was in what year? 1949, so 7 years after your decision you quote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

    Your decision you quote predates the Geneva Convention that is now taken into account, the Supreme Court came to their ruling using old rules of war, kind of makes your point mute does it not?

    Keep making things up though Gtech, you should be a fiction writer ;)
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  17. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #37
    Enemy combatants are not prisoners of war.

    Keep avoiding the facts posted, from direct law sources, because they don't fit yours or our enemy's agendas.

    If you really wanted to make a point, you'd post where the Geneva Convention supersedes those direct quotes I offered. But that would expose your agenda, so I can understand why you didn't.
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  18. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #38
    Gtech I already did, I see you failed to read as per usual.
    The Geneva Convention of 1949 has more to do with than just POW's as well, if you ever read it you'd know that, I'll take it as you did not read it ever.

    I stated 'POW's' simply because that was the primary issue at hand in that treaty was it not? It seperates more so than just POW's though does it not?

    Not to mention our own supreme courts ruling.

    Now who exactly is avoiding the facts?...

    If you wanted to make a point you'd post where something takes away from our current Supreme courts decision, but then again your agenda would be exposed ;)

    I'm all for making it hell for terrorists, within the law of the land, treaties we obide by, you know those pesky things that make our country great.

    BTW if you read your own quotes the Supreme court at that time is using military law and treaties we are apart of, of course using any logic 'you do have some don't you?' when we get into new treaties in the future those treaties need to be examined at that time within the same set of rules. New treaties equals new laws that we must follow, when and if the supreme court rules they will take the new treaties into effect such as the new supreme court did, offering your answer you asked for..
     
    GRIM, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  19. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #39

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

    And that is the reason they have judges in supreme court and not ex-corporals. :rolleyes: :D
     
    gworld, Oct 24, 2007 IP
  20. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    Grim, I can't fail to read something that is posted. You simply quoted that the Geneva Convention was updated in 1949. You didn't show where anything I had posted was superseded. I'm guessing you just assumed it was.

    I've not seen anything in our Constitution regarding the Geneva Convention either. However, I've clearly shown that there is a difference between a Prisoner of War and an Enemy Combatant, and that definition goes back to the days of Abraham Lincoln.

    If you want to continue to avoid the facts, because they don't serve your or the enemies of our country, I'll understand.

    I'm relieve to know, after everything you initially said, you now want to make it hell for terrorists. As of yet, you've not shown where any law is being broken or treaty for that matter. It seems you are arguing an assumption that these things exist, but then go on to cite sources that shows our Supreme Court actually made a decision and reversed such. When the SC reverses a ruling, then it's null and void. The issues is resolved. It doesn't mean it's still a problem or issue.

    We've bent over backwards for terrorists, within the laws of our land and those of the treaties we've signed. As I pointed out, it was just a few days ago I saw a news report concerning the Border agents from El Paso that are imprisoned. Their lawyers are arguing that that Gitmo prisoners are treated better than our own prisoners.

    Other than blaming America and Bush, the people you feel sorry for are being far better treated, within the law, than most behind bars. Checks and balances are in place to assure such. Creating hypothetical "what ifs" and "could be's" in order to attempt to paint an alternative picture isn't serving anyone's best interests. Well, it may be serving a *group* of people's best interests.

    Make your claim, stand behind your claim and source it. You can't have things both ways. Not no mores ;)
     
    GTech, Oct 24, 2007 IP