Fasten your seatbelts ...
|
|
Friday, January 08, 2010
Our Court System
13 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/8/10, 7:56 PM
-
Randy Rager said...
-
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. -
1/8/10, 8:00 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/8/10, 11:17 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/9/10, 12:33 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
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. -
1/9/10, 3:22 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
You know Kristopher, you'd make a good Supreme Court Justice.
Casca -
1/9/10, 4:24 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/9/10, 9:37 AM
-
SoylentGreen said...
-
Non-uniformed guerrillas also gain combatant status if they carry arms openly during military operations.
-
1/9/10, 10:34 AM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
.
Adjustments have been made.
. -
1/9/10, 11:08 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/9/10, 1:26 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
Armageddon Rex wins
-
1/9/10, 1:55 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
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. -
1/9/10, 3:34 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
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 -
1/10/10, 11:47 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)