I don't forgive them though, they are the reason this little Hitler took power in the first place!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.t...nals/index.html
Full Version: Supreme court confirms bush is a fascist dictator!
LOL...how did that guy come to power...I mean seriously....Even though he stole Florida, he STILL shouldn't have won...this should have been a landslide election in 2000....and ESPECIALLY a landslide election in 2004.....what are we, retarded?
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 29 2006, 02:32 PM) 
I don't forgive them though, they are the reason this little Hitler took power in the first place!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.t...nals/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.t...nals/index.html
Great Stretch TQ.
I wonder which of you, meaning you or Haupt, have the most wisdom. I already assume that you beat him in IQ. HOwever, IQ and wisdom are not the same, and I would like to know which of you has the lowest Wisdom Coefficient. I am certain that it would be neck and neck.
why are you guys always ragging on me. How do you know my IQ isn't high? How do you know I have no wisdom.....what if me and TQ have high IQ's?
I agree that you are a little more in the middle of the two extremities, possibly leaning a little to the right, John, but in the case that has beheld us over the past few years, I find it very acceptable to choose extremities at this point. I chose to side w/ the left for their morals and ideas better suit me. And I'm not too sure that has anything to do w/ IQ or Wisdom..
I agree that you are a little more in the middle of the two extremities, possibly leaning a little to the right, John, but in the case that has beheld us over the past few years, I find it very acceptable to choose extremities at this point. I chose to side w/ the left for their morals and ideas better suit me. And I'm not too sure that has anything to do w/ IQ or Wisdom..
Indeed, A very good day for America. Once again, we have proven we are a nation whose people operate under the rule of law unlike our enemies both foreign and domestic.
On the one hand, the long whined about status, and human rights abusing pathetic interpretation as to these terrorists finally is silenced in regards to the whiney moans of International and domestic nimrods deposed in and of appeasement and tacit support for these most inhuman terrorist’s rights.
On the other hand the ruling defines the yet undefined way our nation is to proceed in handling this extensive never before known gangster formations of terrorist as is the enemy in this war on Terror.
The courts ruling, clearly states we are to treat all war on terror combatants as lawful combatants and as such as POW’s.
In confurring that status the court used the provsio of the Geneva Coventions to allow them to be interred when captured for the duration of the hostilities and as well subject to war crimes trials as to the appropriate laws and legal rights and systems, civilian or military, of the capturing country as to the issues of extra military war crimes. The are, as such, also subject to a proviso under Geneva Conventions to held until repatriated under formal agreement with a sovereign nations to which they were “lawful combatants.”
This is one of many ambiguities of the courts rulings as to these men as to what nations they are lawful combatants for and whom we are we to negotiate to formally end hostilities and for repatriation once the war on Terror is officially concluded with an undefined entity as defined under Geneva as a belligerent soveriegn nation?
The issues of contention have always been centered on the legal status of those at Gitmo terrorists. One, as to it being a status as a POW thusly as a lawful combatant as supposed under the Geneva conventions and thusly, as that conventions states, being subject to be held until hostilities cease and repatriation agreements with sovereign nation are executed and, as well,under those same conventions.
In contrast, as to the Administration former position, that they are unlawful Combatants, not being a part of a constituted sovereign nation and thusly are not subject to the proviso of POW status as stated under the Geneva Conventions. Thusly, as the administration concluded, subject to special extra civilian and military Judicial prosecution with less rights than if recognized as a POW with lawful combatant status subject to the capturing nations Civilian and Military trail systems and all customary rights and privileges contained therein.
Likewise, as such, if one is designated legally as a POW, meaning they are lawful combatants, they are eligible, as such, to be held without charge for the duration of the war. The court clearly ruled, by not allowing them to go free and stating they and ALL aspects of the war on Terror is subject to the Geneva Conventions and any captives resulting from it, are clearly lawful combatant and subject to the proviso’s of the Geneva Conventions.
Thusly bring to a legal conclusion to how the US government is to deal legally with international terrorist who are captured by the “US.” Which, I surmise will not be as frequent as it has been from here on. Thusly allowing “other nations” the capturing nations status instead.
One thing is certain, the court clearly did NOT designate these, and future captives, in this war on terror as Non Combatants., nor did it awarded any rights of freedom to them at all.
It just granted them limited Legal rights that is "IF" charged with a crime as specified under Geneva Conventions. Yet, in defining their status as lawful combatant and subject to the Geneva conventions, if they "ARE NOT" charged with a crime, as the rules allow, they may be held as POWS until hostilities cease and repatriation agreements with sovereign nations are concluded
As one justice said clearly Congress may set forth certain measures that will allow the government to charge these captives and future captives in a military Court martial trial mechanism, that is still not subject to public access or media review as to the records and the proceeding. But instead the government must give these non-citizen terrorist, rights to be present at trial, face these accusers and defended themselves, the latter of which was already allowed.
On the other hand, the Government, through this ruling, can merely designate them all POW status and inter them without trial or charge for the duration of hostilities. Then, when hostilities have formally ceased if it can be at all given the nationless nature of these terrorist as combatants, the US must negotiate with sovereign nations for their repatriations under formalized agreements.
It seems on the surface apparently the Administration lost. Yet, in fact, it actually maybe a win politically and legally as it sets forth a means for the administration to defend its self in the detainment so against loudly voiced by anti-America crowd who scream of the illegally of detaining and thusly providing inhuman treatment for these inhuman terrorists.
In the end the PR that has been and is so rampant, pervasive and fashionable these days by the external and internal anti-America crowd, actually may be muted as to having any substances about the inhumanity and legality of detaining these terrorist by this very decision.
Bush may actually benefit from this decision more than many would surmise. As it may lay a crown of legitimacy on these detention, treatments and, if need be, trials of these terrorist, as a means of dealing with them, that was missing in his former position that acted as a magnetic, drawing international and domestic shouts of inhumanity and illegality.
This decision may actually lay the crown of illegitimacy so shouted by those who protest, to rest for ever, as long as this war goes on.
TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!
THAT IS ALL!!
On the one hand, the long whined about status, and human rights abusing pathetic interpretation as to these terrorists finally is silenced in regards to the whiney moans of International and domestic nimrods deposed in and of appeasement and tacit support for these most inhuman terrorist’s rights.
On the other hand the ruling defines the yet undefined way our nation is to proceed in handling this extensive never before known gangster formations of terrorist as is the enemy in this war on Terror.
The courts ruling, clearly states we are to treat all war on terror combatants as lawful combatants and as such as POW’s.
In confurring that status the court used the provsio of the Geneva Coventions to allow them to be interred when captured for the duration of the hostilities and as well subject to war crimes trials as to the appropriate laws and legal rights and systems, civilian or military, of the capturing country as to the issues of extra military war crimes. The are, as such, also subject to a proviso under Geneva Conventions to held until repatriated under formal agreement with a sovereign nations to which they were “lawful combatants.”
This is one of many ambiguities of the courts rulings as to these men as to what nations they are lawful combatants for and whom we are we to negotiate to formally end hostilities and for repatriation once the war on Terror is officially concluded with an undefined entity as defined under Geneva as a belligerent soveriegn nation?
The issues of contention have always been centered on the legal status of those at Gitmo terrorists. One, as to it being a status as a POW thusly as a lawful combatant as supposed under the Geneva conventions and thusly, as that conventions states, being subject to be held until hostilities cease and repatriation agreements with sovereign nation are executed and, as well,under those same conventions.
In contrast, as to the Administration former position, that they are unlawful Combatants, not being a part of a constituted sovereign nation and thusly are not subject to the proviso of POW status as stated under the Geneva Conventions. Thusly, as the administration concluded, subject to special extra civilian and military Judicial prosecution with less rights than if recognized as a POW with lawful combatant status subject to the capturing nations Civilian and Military trail systems and all customary rights and privileges contained therein.
Likewise, as such, if one is designated legally as a POW, meaning they are lawful combatants, they are eligible, as such, to be held without charge for the duration of the war. The court clearly ruled, by not allowing them to go free and stating they and ALL aspects of the war on Terror is subject to the Geneva Conventions and any captives resulting from it, are clearly lawful combatant and subject to the proviso’s of the Geneva Conventions.
Thusly bring to a legal conclusion to how the US government is to deal legally with international terrorist who are captured by the “US.” Which, I surmise will not be as frequent as it has been from here on. Thusly allowing “other nations” the capturing nations status instead.
One thing is certain, the court clearly did NOT designate these, and future captives, in this war on terror as Non Combatants., nor did it awarded any rights of freedom to them at all.
It just granted them limited Legal rights that is "IF" charged with a crime as specified under Geneva Conventions. Yet, in defining their status as lawful combatant and subject to the Geneva conventions, if they "ARE NOT" charged with a crime, as the rules allow, they may be held as POWS until hostilities cease and repatriation agreements with sovereign nations are concluded
As one justice said clearly Congress may set forth certain measures that will allow the government to charge these captives and future captives in a military Court martial trial mechanism, that is still not subject to public access or media review as to the records and the proceeding. But instead the government must give these non-citizen terrorist, rights to be present at trial, face these accusers and defended themselves, the latter of which was already allowed.
On the other hand, the Government, through this ruling, can merely designate them all POW status and inter them without trial or charge for the duration of hostilities. Then, when hostilities have formally ceased if it can be at all given the nationless nature of these terrorist as combatants, the US must negotiate with sovereign nations for their repatriations under formalized agreements.
It seems on the surface apparently the Administration lost. Yet, in fact, it actually maybe a win politically and legally as it sets forth a means for the administration to defend its self in the detainment so against loudly voiced by anti-America crowd who scream of the illegally of detaining and thusly providing inhuman treatment for these inhuman terrorists.
In the end the PR that has been and is so rampant, pervasive and fashionable these days by the external and internal anti-America crowd, actually may be muted as to having any substances about the inhumanity and legality of detaining these terrorist by this very decision.
Bush may actually benefit from this decision more than many would surmise. As it may lay a crown of legitimacy on these detention, treatments and, if need be, trials of these terrorist, as a means of dealing with them, that was missing in his former position that acted as a magnetic, drawing international and domestic shouts of inhumanity and illegality.
This decision may actually lay the crown of illegitimacy so shouted by those who protest, to rest for ever, as long as this war goes on.
TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!
THAT IS ALL!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.