If the acquitted Islamo nut jobs come a knocking on doors

[OCinBuffalo]

As often as I've called him an idiot? You think being first matters to me at all?

I am honestly not sure...you are almost always first, so perhaps you merely think you don't care. But, if others were to consistently beat you out, maybe you would care.

 

My typical thread experience:

1. Read the first post, next, etc.

2. Conner says something stupid funny.

3. I check the multiquote with great anticipation and giggles

4. I find that you already crushed him the same way I would have

5. I go back, unclick the multi-quote and the try to lamely pile on the point you already made, or try to say something useful, which is boring

 

It feels like this has happened over 9000 times.

[OCinBuffalo]

You agreed with me. Yes I agree with someone who agrees with me. I think that is the definitions of agree.

No. DC_Tom, in the most unfunny, kid that the teacher leaves in charge of the class, way, told you the answer. You can't have agreed with it, because you didn't know it before he said it.

So you intentionally lied about what the constitution says?

No, I intentionally only put out some of the facts, not all of them. You should be familiar with this, because that's exactly what DailyKos/Huffington Post/Salon od, but not because you can tell when they are doing it. Rather, because I keep telling you when they do.

[drnykterstein]

No. DC_Tom, in the most unfunny, kid that the teacher leaves in charge of the class, way, told you the answer. You can't have agreed with it, because you didn't know it before he said it.

 

No, I intentionally only put out some of the facts, not all of them. You should be familiar with this, because that's exactly what DailyKos/Huffington Post/Salon od, but not because you can tell when they are doing it. Rather, because I keep telling you when they do.

 

Ok. What part of "The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S." was true?

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok. What part of "The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S." was true?

Are you saying that it doesn't protect US citizens accused of crimes? Of course it does. It does other things too, but you don't know what they are, and I am not doing your homework for you.

 

Please explain where it says that foreigners captured on foreign soil for actively participating as combatants in an ongoing terror war against the United States and her allies...are to receive the same rights as US citizen, and somehow shouldn't be summarily executed for not wearing a uniform while participating in war.

 

That's the law that is supposed to be applied here. We give them a chance to turn, and if they won't, or if they don't have anything useful to offer, it's firing range time.

 

However, personally, I want to deny the enemy everything, and killing him might make him a martyr, and therefore happy. I would have shrinks determine what they hate the most, and do that. I know that's not possible but it's fun to dream.

[OCinBuffalo]

You can't skip over words. That word was in your sentence, and it gives the sentence a vastly different meaning than what you have just described. Please acknowledge that you said the constitution "only protects US citizens".

 

And then acknowledge that it was an incorrect statement.

Of course this isn't accurate, my joke wouldn't have worked if I didn't put it in there that way.

 

You did read the part where I said (Tom, don't be technical and ruin it), right?

 

Or are your reading comprehension skills as bad as Tom says?

 

(Hmmm Tom is starting to look right about the ruining thing)

[OCinBuffalo]

I think you pushed the dildo a bit too far up there.

You still don't know what the Geneva convention is, do you? You still think that the US Constitution is supposed to be applied to every citizen of the world, don't you?

 

Does the Canadian constitution apply to you? Does it apply to me?

[OCinBuffalo]

The Geneva conventions do not supersede the constitution. Parts of the Constitution do apply to anyone who is on American soil, yes (notably, habeas corpus). The Supreme Court does agree with me. [link]

Wrong. Once again you are distorting the truth. They are simply talking about the status of detainees, and that we cannot hold people, whose status has not been determined, indefinitely. They say that the process for determining who is an enemy combatant, and who is not, is not up to them. Rather, they say it's up to the President and Congress. So, there is no sweeping endorsement of your position in this document at all.

 

Our opinion does not undermine the Executive’s powers as Commander in Chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the Judicial Branch. Within the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person. Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention. Their access to the writ is a necessity to determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not obtain the relief they seek.

So this is about solving a problem, not attribution of rights to scumbags.

 

Instead, it's simply allowing a writ, so that the status of these people will be determined asap, after 6 years of nothing. That's not the same as giving full Constitutional rights to these idiots. This is specifically telling the WH: "do something. We aren't going to rule on what you do, but you can't continue to do nothing".

 

So, your poor reading comprehension skills strike again. The Geneva convention sure as hell does supersede the Constitution, but somebody would have to beat us in a major war, and we would have to actually commit war crimes, for you to see that in action.

Edited November 19, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

You agreed with me. Yes I agree with someone who agrees with me. I think that is the definitions of agree.

 

So now are you going to admit you were wrong?

 

The Geneva conventions do not supersede the constitution. Parts of the Constitution do apply to anyone who is on American soil, yes (notably, habeas corpus). The Supreme Court does agree with me. [link]

 

You're a stunning moron.

 

1) That's not what that Supreme Court decision said.

2) The Gitmo detainees were never on American soil. In fact, that was the whole point of holding them at Guantanamo Bay, you twerp.

3) You need to read what the Geneva Convention says about that (and remember that the US ratified it).