Bush wrong again

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

Ok Fatboy, I'll give you one hint at one of the reasons terrorists are not covered: Uniforms.

 

Stay tuned for more if you can't figure it out.

 

Oooh. I am awaiting your response, Sensei.

[Uh-huh 0]

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

Ok Fatboy, I'll give you one hint at one of the reasons terrorists are not covered: Uniforms.

 

Stay tuned for more if you can't figure it out.

 

:wacko:

Did you make up that one all on your own, or did you plagiarize your idol Rush again?

 

What a focking doofus.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

 

Did you post something I should respond to? Not sure how you want me to do it, but it seems you are waiting for me to hold your hand through this.

 

I don't go that way, and if you are too dense to figure it out on your own I suggest you use that internet thingy to help you out.

[Uh-huh 0]

lDid you post something I should respond to? Not sure how you want me to do it, but it seems you are waiting for me to hold your hand through this.

 

I don't go that way, and if you are too dense to figure it out on your own I suggest you use that internet thingy to help you out.

Given you have never made any sense, your only possible response is to do this: , little boy.

 

Keep playing the fool. I have some time to kill.

 

P.S. Thought so.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Did you post something I should respond to? Not sure how you want me to do it, but it seems you are waiting for me to hold your hand through this.

 

I don't go that way, and if you are too dense to figure it out on your own I suggest you use that internet thingy to help you out.

 

Let's have you try doing something that contradicts what SCOTUS ruled on with respect to the Geneva Convention's applicability to this case. I gave you the first part of the majority opinion from SCOTUS.

 

You gave us some BS regarding uniforms. Again, please enlighten us on how you somehow have more relevant information than the Government's case and SCOTUS' ruling on the case. Sure seems to me that you have nothing other than some fishing line.

 

If you can come up with a complete sentence, I will be surprised.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

You are starting to bore me Fatboy.

 

Itsatip that the Geneva Conventions do not cover anyone and everyone who decides to kill innocent people. There is certian criteria one has to meet.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

You are starting to bore me Fatboy.

 

Itsatip that the Geneva Conventions do not cover anyone and everyone who decides to kill innocent people. There is certian criteria one has to meet.

Again, please explain how this item (or your last irrelevant thought) is pertinent to the folks in Guantanamo.

 

I agree with one thing that you said: "There is a certian [sic] criteria [sic] one has to meet". You have not met that criterion by providing an argument of any substance whatsoever.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Again, please explain how this item (or your last irrelevant thought) is pertinent to the folks in Guantanamo.

 

I agree with one thing that you said: "There is a certian [sic] criteria [sic] one has to meet". You have not met that criterion by providing an argument of any substance whatsoever.

 

Thanks for the English lesson Captain Grammar, but you are wrong here too. I specifically said criteria, the plural form of criterion, because there are more than one.

 

Here are just a few criteria that rules out Al Queda being qualified for Geneva protections:

 

1. They do not represent a legitimate country or govt.

2. They do not wear a recognized uniform.

3. They do not conduct themselves in accordance with the "rules of combat" as spelled out in the Conventions.

 

Is that enough fer ya?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Thanks for the English lesson Captain Grammar, but you are wrong here too. I specifically said criteria, the plural form of criterion, because there are more than one.

 

Here are just a few criteria that rules out Al Queda being qualified for Geneva protections:

 

1. They do not represent a legitimate country or govt.

2. They do not wear a recognized uniform.

3. They do not conduct themselves in accordance with the "rules of combat" as spelled out in the Conventions.

 

Is that enough fer ya?

Well, you are wrong again. If you read your quote:

There is certian criteria one has to meet.

 

Either there are criteria or there is a criterion. Can't be mixing and matching.

 

As far as your points about these individuals and whether they are qualified for Geneva protections, I think that there are two things you must consider:

1. You don't need to convince me. You need to convince SCOTUS and this argument did not do so. I will take their word over yours anyday

2. In addition to the Geneva Convention, these tribunals were considered to be failing to adhere to US law. So, even if we make that leap of faith in your argument (and I am not ready to jump the Grand Canyon), you still have not addressed the fact (in SCOTUS' eyes) that we are breaking our own laws.

 

OK?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's not the first time the SCOTUS is wrong. :cough Kelo cough:

 

Unless you can show me how Al Queda meets the parameters to be covered by Geneva I will leave it at that and take my victory.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It's not the first time the SCOTUS is wrong. :cough Kelo cough:

 

Unless you can show me how Al Queda meets the parameters to be covered by Geneva I will leave it at that and take my victory.

 

 

You think you know more than SCOTUS and you ignore the fact that the ruling was based partly on the Geneva Convention (where you are wrong in its applicability) and based partly on US law (which you continue to turn a blind eye to).

 

Not only have you failed to prove ANY point, but you have looked like an idiot in doing so. Feel free to claim victory in your warped and twisted mind, but that does not make it so.

 

Of course, that is SOP for RP.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You obviously can't show where Al Queda is qualified to be covered by Geneva.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You obviously can't show where Al Queda is qualified to be covered by Geneva.

 

Because I don't have to. Your argument is a strawman.

 

The point of bringing up the Geneva Convention is that the President can only authorize war tribunals under the Geneva Convention. If he calls a war tribunal, then it is under the Geneva Convention. The Government is the one saying that these guys are covered under the Geneva Convention, not me.

 

So, stick to the real issue and argue your case rather than attempting to move this into irrelevant areas.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Still nothing.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Still nothing.

 

You are still making yourself look like an idiot. You have been repeatedly biotch-slapped in this thread and you resort to child-like ingnorance of the issue.

 

I am going to make it very simple for you. Go here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...mp;invol=05-184

 

and do a search on "Geneva". There is a wealth of information that clearly proves you to be wrong, over and over again.

 

In addition to what I have already shown you:

4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72.

 

How about this one:

(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. 62-68.

 

 

I could go on, but I figure that you might want to actually read the ruling before you continue with your childish banter.

[torridjoe 48]

It's not the first time the SCOTUS is wrong. :cough Kelo cough:

 

Unless you can show me how Al Queda meets the parameters to be covered by Geneva I will leave it at that and take my victory.

 

SCOTUS was absolutely right on Kelo. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You plainly never even read that decision, in which a host of precedents going back 50 years made clear why it was the correct decision.

 

You may not agree with the principle, but it's a long established one, and places control of the question where it belongs: with the states.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You are still making yourself look like an idiot. You have been repeatedly biotch-slapped in this thread and you resort to child-like ingnorance of the issue.

 

I am going to make it very simple for you. Go here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...mp;invol=05-184

 

and do a search on "Geneva". There is a wealth of information that clearly proves you to be wrong, over and over again.

 

In addition to what I have already shown you:

How about this one:

I could go on, but I figure that you might want to actually read the ruling before you continue with your childish banter.

 

A little slow on the uptake aren't ya. I am familiar with the ruling. I'm saying (once agian, and read slowly) the SCOTUS is WRONG. It's not the first time (see Kelo, despite Turbin's BS).

 

The SCOTUS is saying Al Queda is covered by Geneva when they don't meet the basic qualifications to be covered. It's very simple, yet apparently too complex for your pea-brain.

 

 

 

 

SCOTUS was absolutely right on Kelo. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You plainly never even read that decision, in which a host of precedents going back 50 years made clear why it was the correct decision.

 

You may not agree with the principle, but it's a long established one, and places control of the question where it belongs: with the states.

 

So you are OK with Wal-Mart taking the dirt floor shack you live in up there in Oregon and building on it just becasue they would pay more in property taxes.

[torridjoe 48]

A little slow on the uptake aren't ya. I am familiar with the ruling. I'm saying (once agian, and read slowly) the SCOTUS is WRONG. It's not the first time (see Kelo, despite Turbin's BS).

 

The SCOTUS is saying Al Queda is covered by Geneva when they don't meet the basic qualifications to be covered. It's very simple, yet apparently too complex for your pea-brain.

So you are OK with Wal-Mart taking the dirt floor shack you live in up there in Oregon and building on it just becasue they would pay more in property taxes.

 

Even if I were, it was still the correct decision to note that the Constitution doesn't prevent it--but federal and/or state law can. However, the scenario you describe is nowhere close to the situation in New London.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

A little slow on the uptake aren't ya. I am familiar with the ruling. I'm saying (once agian, and read slowly) the SCOTUS is WRONG. It's not the first time (see Kelo, despite Turbin's BS).

 

The SCOTUS is saying Al Queda is covered by Geneva when they don't meet the basic qualifications to be covered. It's very simple, yet apparently too complex for your pea-brain.

Gotcha. You are too lazy to even read the rational explanation of the ruling and just because it does not agree with your whackjob ideals, it must be wrong. Well, I thank God every day that there are at least a couple of rational folks running the country besides your King-wannabe (I am talking about GWB, RP).

 

I am done arguing with you on this one. I refuse to go into a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

However, the scenario you describe is nowhere close to the situation in New London.

 

Kelo Ok'd taking one person's private property and giving it no another private entity using the argument that increased tax revenues qualify as "the public good" as a rationale to make it Constitutional.

 

That is a load of crap that has no resemblence to anything the founding fathers invisioned regarding imminent domain.

 

The same my scenario.

 

 

Gotcha. You are too lazy to even read the rational explanation of the ruling and just because it does not agree with your whackjob ideals, it must be wrong.

 

 

My "ideals" have nothing to do with it. The ruling doesn't agree with the guidlines of the Geneva Conventions.

 

My God you are dense.

[torridjoe 48]

Kelo Ok'd taking one person's private property and giving it no another private entity using the argument that increased tax revenues qualify as "the public good" as a rationale to make it Constitutional.

 

That is a load of crap that has no resemblence to anything the founding fathers invisioned regarding imminent domain.

 

The same my scenario.

My "ideals" have nothing to do with it. The ruling doesn't agree with the guidlines of the Geneva Conventions.

 

My God you are dense.

 

"My God you are dense." This coming from the person who thinks it's called IMMINENT domain?

 

Kelo OK'd taking private property and giving it to a developer as part of the creation of a large public complex. Like I said, it's clear you haven't read the ruling--you don't even know the phrase the case refers to--so why even bother?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"My God you are dense." This coming from the person who thinks it's called IMMINENT domain?

 

Kelo OK'd taking private property and giving it to a developer as part of the creation of a large public complex. Like I said, it's clear you haven't read the ruling--you don't even know the phrase the case refers to--so why even bother?

 

More spelling police.

 

Exactly what "large PUBLIC complex" is in question here? Was it a police station? A library? A county courthouse?

 

 

Hey Turbin, since when is Pfizer considered a "public entity", not an evil corporation?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Was it a hospital to treat the poor?

[torridjoe 48]

More spelling police.

 

Exactly what "large PUBLIC complex" is in question here? Was it a police station? A library? A county courthouse?

Hey Turbin, since when is Pfizer considered a "public entity", not an evil corporation?

 

The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort hotel and conference center, a new state park, 80–100 new residences, and various research, office, and retail space. The plan divided the area into seven parcels, but did not specify the exact plans for development in any but the first parcel (the resort hotel and conference center). The city in 2000 approved the development plan and authorized the corporation to acquire land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

 

Note that the development corporation--the entity seizing the land--was in fact set up by the City of New London, and controlled by the city. It was ostensibly private, but not in any real sense, based on ultimate control by New London.

 

Thanks for proving you know nothing about this case.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Note that the development corporation--the entity seizing the land--was in fact set up by the City of New London, and controlled by the city. It was ostensibly private, but not in any real sense, based on ultimate control by New London.

 

Thanks for proving you know nothing about this case.

 

I know you are wrong. "Ostensibly private" WTF kind of Turbinspin are you trying to pull here? What do you call Pfizer?

 

 

From a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy....CNN:

 

"The case pitted the city of New London, Connecticut, against homeowner Susette Kelo and six other families who were trying to keep the municipality from condemning their homes for use as part of a redevelopment project, centered around a $270 million global research facility built by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer."

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

[torridjoe 48]

I know you are wrong. "Ostensibly private" WTF kind of Turbinspin are you trying to pull here? What do you call Pfizer?

From a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy....CNN:

 

"The case pitted the city of New London, Connecticut, against homeowner Susette Kelo and six other families who were trying to keep the municipality from condemning their homes for use as part of a redevelopment project, centered around a $270 million global research facility built by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

 

Pfizer is not the New London Development Corporation, an ostensibly private organization controlled by the city.

 

Give up. You haven't read the decision, you've shown you don't know anything about the development in question, and you're still trying to catch up by reading CNN.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

These people had their houses taken from them and they are putting a Pfizer facility there.

 

My analogy earlier in this thread (which you claimed was off base) had your dirt floor shack being taken and a Wal Mart being built in it's place.

 

Dead on, I would say.

 

Keep using qualifiers like "ostensibly" to cover the fact you are wrong.

[Uh-huh 0]

Pfizer is not the New London Development Corporation, an ostensibly private organization controlled by the city.

 

Give up. You haven't read the decision, you've shown you don't know anything about the development in question, and you're still trying to catch up by reading CNN.

CNN? You're giving him far too much credit. Recliner Pilot gets all of his information from here.