RkFast Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Step #2: Commence vomiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ok sure, but please be fair... they are not terrorists, they are suspected terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Step #2: Commence vomiting I fail to see how that step 2 leads to step 3 - profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ok sure, but please be fair... they are not terrorists, they are suspected terrorists. They're also not citizens. Why are we trying to confer rights to people who are not citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 They're also not citizens. Why are we trying to confer rights to people who are not citizens? That's not the issue. It's why are you applying US criminal statutes in a military action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm pretty sure it's an attempt to make us a civil people again ruled by law, and not the fascist whims a pseudo-dictator president. I mean I know it's horrible to treat these people like actual people ... but you are just going to have to get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm pretty sure it's an attempt to make us a civil people again ruled by law, and not the fascist whims a pseudo-dictator president. I mean I know it's horrible to treat these people like actual people ... but you are just going to have to get over it. And which law covers an enemy combatant caught in action in Afghanistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ok sure, but please be fair... they are not terrorists, they are suspected terrorists. I thought they were enemy combatant detainees. guests of the US Govt resting on a tropical island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 And which law covers an enemy combatant caught in action in Afghanistan? Oh goodness this again? Listen I know you are too stubborn to listen and I'd literally have to take you to court to prove you wrong. But there are likely a lot of laws covering them. Geneva Conventions being one of them. I'm not a !@#$ing lawyer though. Treating prisoners humanely and giving them a chance to demonstrate innocence is and should be a basic human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 And which law covers an enemy combatant caught in action in Afghanistan? I believe it's the Sally Fields Law of War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Oh goodness this again? Listen I know you are too stubborn to listen and I'd literally have to take you to court to prove you wrong. But there are likely a lot of laws covering them. Geneva Conventions being one of them. I'm not a !@#$ing lawyer though. Treating prisoners humanely and giving them a chance to demonstrate innocence is and should be a basic human right. You're not a lawyer, yet you're confident in your interpretation of the law. Never mind that the links that you previously provided had no relevance to your position - ie, just because you provide a link, doesn't mean it supports your position. But, you have to hand it to the Obama administration. This move maybe will ensure that a lot fewer prisoners will be taken in a field of battle. Yeay for human rights!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Oh goodness this again? Listen I know you are too stubborn to listen and I'd literally have to take you to court to prove you wrong. But there are likely a lot of laws covering them. Geneva Conventions being one of them. I'm not a !@#$ing lawyer though. Treating prisoners humanely and giving them a chance to demonstrate innocence is and should be a basic human right. The same Geneva conventions that allow us to execute terrorists when they are captured? They get no trial, no chance to prove their innocence... just a bullet to the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 You're not a lawyer, yet you're confident in your interpretation of the law. Never mind that the links that you previously provided had no relevance to your position - ie, just because you provide a link, doesn't mean it supports your position. But, you have to hand it to the Obama administration. This move maybe will ensure that a lot fewer prisoners will be taken in a field of battle. Yeay for human rights!! I do play a lawyer on TV!!! It's not my interpretation of the law you twit. If you know so much... tell me ... why haven't charges been brought against anyone from the previous administration at all? And I don't mean "because they didn't break the law"... I mean what laws didn't they break. Did they or did they not break Reagan's treaty and/or Geneva Conventions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I do play a lawyer on TV!!! It's not my interpretation of the law you twit. If you know so much... tell me ... why haven't charges been brought against anyone from the previous administration at all? And I don't mean "because they didn't break the law"... I mean what laws didn't they break. Did they or did they not break Reagan's treaty and/or Geneva Conventions? Why would charges be filed if they DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAWS? Unless, I totally misunderstood your usual dribble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why would charges be filed if they DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAWS? Unless, I totally misunderstood your usual dribble. Go back to eating your paint chips. Obviously you haven't figured out how to use your brain yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Go back to eating your paint chips. Obviously you haven't figured out how to use your brain yet. Again, if no law is broken, why would anyone be charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Go back to eating your paint chips. Obviously you haven't figured out how to use your brain yet. He seems to be using his brain rather well. The logjam seems to be happening when he tries to engage yours. He's really asking a very simple question. No sure how you go from "Why charge someone if no law is broken?" directly to "Go eat paint chips." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Again, if no law is broken, why would anyone be charged? Why did you skip over this part of my post? "And I don't mean "because they didn't break the law"... I mean what laws didn't they break. Did they or did they not break Reagan's treaty and/or Geneva Conventions?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why did you skip over this part of my post? "And I don't mean "because they didn't break the law"... I mean what laws didn't they break. Did they or did they not break Reagan's treaty and/or Geneva Conventions?" You may as well have included speeding laws in Cheektowaga in your list, because those laws weren't broken either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Oh goodness this again? Listen I know you are too stubborn to listen and I'd literally have to take you to court to prove you wrong. But there are likely a lot of laws covering them. Geneva Conventions being one of them. I'm not a !@#$ing lawyer though. Treating prisoners humanely and giving them a chance to demonstrate innocence is and should be a basic human right. Miranda rights aren't part of the convention. In fact, if the Geneva Convention applies to them at all, then it's ILLEGAL to put them on trial and "[give] them a chance to demonstrate innocence". You can't have it both ways: either the Geneva Convention applies and domestic law doesn't, or domestic law does and the convention doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts