|
Due Process???
Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. |
Due Process???
YouDont@NeedToKnow wrote in message ... Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. -------------------------------------------------- And still is. |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
On 9/30/2011 6:41 PM, John H wrote:
Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. Democrats could care less about the non-voters in Gitmo.. all they care about is the rhetoric and votes... |
Due Process???
On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... |
Due Process???
On Oct 1, 11:09*am, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. I have no problem with Gitmo... |
Due Process???
On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing? -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
On 10/1/11 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 00:34:36 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... Still trying to figure that out? When he gets confused by a poster, he assumes it is me. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
In article ,
says... On 10/1/11 12:47 PM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 00:34:36 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... Still trying to figure that out? When he gets confused by a poster, he assumes it is me. Don't give yourself credit, coward. |
Due Process???
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John H wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots against western targets? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise" until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter. Bush again? Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault. Do you not realize how stupid you sound? |
Due Process???
On 10/1/2011 11:12 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Oct 1, 11:09 am, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. I have no problem with Gitmo... Nor do I. Cept it was much nicer before the towel heads took up residence. |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
On 10/1/2011 10:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:50:30 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yup. Collateral damage . I'm sure O/bama didn't lose any sleep over it. |
Due Process???
JustWait wrote:
On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... What's with the X-Man thing? Is/was he a trans woman? -HB |
Due Process???
X ` Man wrote:
On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing? What is your president doing about it? He promised to shut it down in his inaugural speech. -HB |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
On 10/1/2011 9:31 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
X ` Man wrote: On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing? What is your president doing about it? He promised to shut it down in his inaugural speech. -HB He promised a lot then. Problem is the only two promises he kept were doubling the gas prices to feed GE, and triple health care costs over the next five years... |
Due Process???
YouDont@NeedToKnow wrote in message ... The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. I personally think it is a problem that it was used as a dumping ground for a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, too. I have no problem with holding perps and defending America, but using the same methods as the perps makes us no better than them. ----------------------------------------------------------- This is the heart of the debate in the courts. Gitmo is *not* American soil. It is Cuban sovereign territory. The US has practical control as a US Naval Base, technically leased from Cuba, but it is not American sovereign territory, therefore by law, US courts have no jurisdiction. Eisboch |
Due Process???
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... What's with the X-Man thing? Is/was he a trans woman? -HB He is a shut-in. His "wife" or more correctly landlord keeps him down in the basement of the house he inhabits. Each time he posts a picture it has been stripped of any and all identifying meta-data due to the fact that he has been caught posting other people's photo's before. He is cowardly and plays with his guns and will not meet anyone from the list for fear of getting his ass kicked due to his acerbic tongue. |
Due Process???
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year that they refuse to cash. We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up political prisoners there is the normal thing to do. Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to change the situation. Do you ever get the feeling you're conversing with the plume operating under a nom de plume? |
Due Process???
On 10/2/11 8:25 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlez5OdnXKSL8gCIxrTnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews. com, says... JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... What's with the X-Man thing? Is/was he a trans woman? -HB He is a shut-in. His "wife" or more correctly landlord keeps him down in the basement of the house he inhabits. Each time he posts a picture it has been stripped of any and all identifying meta-data due to the fact that he has been caught posting other people's photo's before. He is cowardly and plays with his guns and will not meet anyone from the list for fear of getting his ass kicked due to his acerbic tongue. No one fantasizes better than the right-wing trash that pollutes this newsgroup. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
On 10/2/11 8:25 AM, BAR wrote:
Each time he posts a picture it has been stripped of any and all identifying meta-data due to the fact that he has been caught posting other people's photo's before. As usual, you are full of ****. I upload my photos to Photobucket. Photobucket retains some metadata and discards the rest. I don't know whether there is an option to show more metadata. The info is present when the photos are uploaded. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... What's with the X-Man thing? Is/was he a trans woman? -HB I think so, he and Suckling Don have a very special relationship.... |
Due Process???
In article ,
says... In article , says... JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 9:37 PM, Honey Badger wrote: wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. How do you know he was guilty? Was he tried and convicted, you silly crazy *******? -HB He doesn't know anything, he is just arguing, like he did when he called himself Plum, or Paul, or Areal boater, X-man... What's with the X-Man thing? Is/was he a trans woman? -HB He is a shut-in. His "wife" or more correctly landlord keeps him down in the basement of the house he inhabits. Each time he posts a picture it has been stripped of any and all identifying meta-data due to the fact that he has been caught posting other people's photo's before. He is cowardly and plays with his guns and will not meet anyone from the list for fear of getting his ass kicked due to his acerbic tongue. Yeah, it's not like ex-man, because he's always been a spineless coward, never a man. |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
YouDont@NeedToKnow wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 22:03:08 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: ----------------------------------------------------------- This is the heart of the debate in the courts. Gitmo is *not* American soil. It is Cuban sovereign territory. The US has practical control as a US Naval Base, technically leased from Cuba, but it is not American sovereign territory, therefore by law, US courts have no jurisdiction. Eisboch So, your point is that a person committing a crime at Gitmo will be punished under Cuban Law? Having our cake and eating it, too? ----------------------------------------------------------------- No, I was simply pointing out an error in your comment that Gitmo is US territory. It is not. The civilian US Court systems do not have jurisdiction there which is why an attempt was made to move any trials to somewhere within the USA. The US military has control and jurisdiction of legal matters within the military court system at Gitmo. Eisboch |
Due Process???
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:44:12 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John H wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots against western targets? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise" until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter. Bush again? Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault. Do you not realize how stupid you sound? Yes, I do, to those that absolutely believe that Bush could do no wrong. Do you know how stupid YOU sound to the rest of the civilized world? Bush isn't the topic. |
Due Process???
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:00:48 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:12:07 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote: On Oct 1, 11:09*am, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. I have no problem with Gitmo... The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. I personally think it is a problem that it was used as a dumping ground for a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, too. I have no problem with holding perps and defending America, but using the same methods as the perps makes us no better than them. Are you implying our laws shouldn't apply on soil that isn't 'American'? How silly. So, you are making the argument that Sharia Law should be enforceable here? Or is just American Law enforceable in other countries? The law of the land is the law in THAT land, otherwise it is just silly. Ninc de plum, go back to Italy. I've said nothing about Sharia Law, just as I didn't bring up Bush in the other thread. If you're not the plum in disguise, then you've been taking lessons from her. |
Due Process???
On 10/3/11 8:11 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:44:12 -0400, John wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots against western targets? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise" until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter. Bush again? Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault. Do you not realize how stupid you sound? Yes, I do, to those that absolutely believe that Bush could do no wrong. Do you know how stupid YOU sound to the rest of the civilized world? Bush isn't the topic. In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
On 10/3/2011 8:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:00:48 -0400, John wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:12:07 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote: On Oct 1, 11:09 am, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John wrote: Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo. No, it doesn't. al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13 years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and then released because they were guilty of nothing. Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically. Guilty based on what? And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember? More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong. I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo. I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist hideout. These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple drivers and whomever else was in the cars. Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it... I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how we feel.. I have no problem with Gitmo... The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. I personally think it is a problem that it was used as a dumping ground for a bunch of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, too. I have no problem with holding perps and defending America, but using the same methods as the perps makes us no better than them. Are you implying our laws shouldn't apply on soil that isn't 'American'? How silly. So, you are making the argument that Sharia Law should be enforceable here? Or is just American Law enforceable in other countries? The law of the land is the law in THAT land, otherwise it is just silly. Ninc de plum, go back to Italy. I've said nothing about Sharia Law, just as I didn't bring up Bush in the other thread. If you're not the plum in disguise, then you've been taking lessons from her. Plum, X-Man, Iboaterereerererer, youdon'tneed to kmow, etc.... are all one poster. He posts from both sides of the isle if nobody will play with him... |
Due Process???
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency. ------------------------------------------------------------ I have no idea if you are the "real" Harry or not and I am not about to waste my time checking headers, etc. Most of these discussions aren't worth the effort of even reading. However, I think you should consider some recent comments by Bill Clinton. He's no dummy. In his view, the USA has been on a cycle of change for about the last 30 years in terms of the economy, the role of government, the culture of business and relationships with employees, etc. Efforts by government to level the playing field have not always produced the results they intended. It's not necessarily a takeover of any particular political view ... it's a constant see-sawing of how much involvement in private lives should the government have or control. Bush II's administration made errors just like many of those before him and will make in the future. Economically, he happened to be at the helm when the **** hit the fan, so to speak. It would have happened regardless of who was POTUS. Once in a while truth has to be interjected in all the political posturing that takes place. Clinton did. Eisboch |
Due Process???
On 10/3/11 9:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency. ------------------------------------------------------------ I have no idea if you are the "real" Harry or not and I am not about to waste my time checking headers, etc. Most of these discussions aren't worth the effort of even reading. However, I think you should consider some recent comments by Bill Clinton. He's no dummy. In his view, the USA has been on a cycle of change for about the last 30 years in terms of the economy, the role of government, the culture of business and relationships with employees, etc. Efforts by government to level the playing field have not always produced the results they intended. It's not necessarily a takeover of any particular political view ... it's a constant see-sawing of how much involvement in private lives should the government have or control. Bush II's administration made errors just like many of those before him and will make in the future. Economically, he happened to be at the helm when the **** hit the fan, so to speak. It would have happened regardless of who was POTUS. Once in a while truth has to be interjected in all the political posturing that takes place. Clinton did. Eisboch It's me. I don't disagree with Clinton, except that it is obvious the GOP has no regard for the non-wealthy. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
|
Due Process???
In article ,
says... On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year that they refuse to cash. We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up political prisoners there is the normal thing to do. Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to change the situation. It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries ramifications to this day. Unlawful combatants are not afforded the rights of citizens when they are caught on the battlefield. |
Due Process???
On 10/3/11 6:12 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:19:24 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote: The problem with Gitmo is that it is American soil. We either have laws on American soil or we don't. If we do, we compromised all of those cases when they finally come to trial. That is not American soil, it is in Cuba, precisely why we put them there. This is not an embassy. Gitmo is a particularly ambiguous place. Legally it is simply leased from Castro, just like a base in Japan, Germany or Turkey. We actually send them a check every year that they refuse to cash. We can even say we are following the laws of Cuba since locking up political prisoners there is the normal thing to do. Obama must see the convenient irony too since he has done nothing to change the situation. It was a poor attempt to subvert the American Justice system, in particular the FISA court. A needless criminal act, which carries ramifications to this day. Unlawful combatants are not afforded the rights of citizens when they are caught on the battlefield. That's nothing but arbitrary. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com