Fasten your seatbelts ...
|
|
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Fasten your seatbelts ...
|
|
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
given the fact that they chose to run this thru criminal channels, in my humble opinion, the Judge ruled correctly...
precisely why this was never supposed to BE a criminal matter.
precisely why Gitmo was the BODACIOUSLY AWESOME choice when they were doing the initial site selection for the internment facility.
RetRsvMike
Waitadamnedminutehere!
How in hell is ruling on the legality of the warrant he himself signed NOT a conflict of interest? Shouldn't he have recused himself, or at least moved it to another court with a different judge?
If I tried anything comparable in the business world, I'd be bounced out on my ass!
Oh well, at least it sent "Freezer Cash" Jefferson to jail. Only bright point I can see there.
w/o eye glasses, late night battling cold symptoms and aobut to have a hot brandy.... that cartoon seems to say it all. Except for this regarding gitmo: we're fucked.
can't see shite, but we're sitll fuk'd.
ps. please fill in a non stop rant of endless "f" wording. Thank you very much. Effin Juice
Aw, Juice, put a little lemon, cloves, & brown sugar in that brandy, and don't heat it too much or you'll bleed the alcohol off.
Casca
It would have been better if the judge simple threw the case out, on the grounds that it was an act of war by an enemy of the United States, and therefor not a civilian court matter.
Ask the military to remove the POW from his courtroom, and give the POW permission to sue Holder personally for improper prosecution as a civilian.
And then suggest the military look at its past actions against un-uniformed combatants shooting at our troops.
You know Kristopher, you'd make a good Supreme Court Justice.
Casca
I don't like to quibble, but this individual is not a POW. A Prisoner of War is one who was taken prisoner while in (uniformed) combat against an enemy force. The Geneva Conventions addressed treatment of such prisoners. The assumption was that they had been acting honorably and had been captured by an opposing force also acting honorably. None of this applies to the current CF. I do agree, however, that we should look at our actions regarding non-uniformed hoodlums.
MichigammeDave
Non-uniformed guerrillas also gain combatant status if they carry arms openly during military operations.
.
Adjustments have been made.
.
Soylent Green:
Yes, non-uniformed "guerrillas" also gain combatant status if they carry arms openly during military operations.
THEY BECOME ILLEGAL COMBATANTS!
They're the equivalent of pirates. All of the Al Qaeda crazies were fighting out of uniform in a foriegn country. They're bandits! They shoud have been summarily shot on the battlefield.
Armageddon Rex
Armageddon Rex wins
MichigammeDave: He is a prisoner of war. But the Hague Convention gives all nations the right to shoot combatants who are caught out of uniform fighting.
You pick up a rifle, you better have a uniform on, or at least something that says combatant.
he is NOT a "Prisoner of War".. he meets none of the criteria of Geneva III. if he was, then he would be liable to being held "for the duration", and be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities and/or peace treaty.
yes, he is a combatant. an UNLAWFUL one. for that, he is liable to be tried by competent tribunal (and maybe resulting in execution), but more likely, being held for the duration.
RetRsvMike