Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#252 Dec 22 2010 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT.

lulz.

Try reading again for comprehension.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Dec 22 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
Thanks Shaow. :3
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#254 Dec 22 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,974 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,


I'm right. That's all you had to say.

Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT. So if officers in the military wanted to be hard ****s they could ask every single person under their command about their sexual orientation and dismiss anyone who says they are *****.

That this is just a minor technicality makes no difference.


Bahaha, totally wrong. DADT is still the law until they finish writing up the new guidelines. If an officer asked about orientation right now the officer would be let go.

Edit: Dang, what Joph said.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 1:26pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#255 Dec 22 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm constantly amused by the conservative desire to find a simple silver bullet for all their problems. And invariably a silver bullet that defies all logic but they tell themselves that they know better and their bullet really does kill monsters that scare them. You completely throw out any notion that the people actually involved in it have a clue and insert your own hopes and dreams in the form of authoritative statements that completely contradict those uppity "experts".

Global Warming? "I bet those scientists never heard of the Medieval Ice Age!"
Obama's Presidency? "I bet he doesn't have a birth certificate!"
DADT Repeal? "Instead of allowing gays to serve, this will just make it so no gays can serve at all!"

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 12:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256 Dec 22 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Well at least they moved on from "It was God".
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#257 Dec 22 2010 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And as I understand it homosexual acts are against the UCMJ, which is the law for the military.
UCMJ prohibits any act of sodomy, which would also include getting blow jobs from your wife. In fact, its Article 125: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite *** or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#258 Dec 22 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
Technically, the army only defines "unnatural carnal copulation" to mean **** or oral ***.

Though I'm trusting about.com as my source.

Oh, and SURPRISE, the army has it's own definition of statutory rape. You're totally allowed to do a 16 year old girl, as long as you only put it in her ****** and it isn't by force.

Wow. I REALLY hope the military takes a look at this article when editing out DADT.

Because, really, what % of the military has violated it when on leave if it includes blow jobs? C'mon, it's probably huge.

Frankly, the rule should be something like--No sexual activity while deployed and not on leave. No raping people. No sticking it in kids.

Oh, and they aren't fucking around about no kids under 16 though. 12-16 years, among other things, is 20 years in prison. Under 12 is life, no parole. So I'll give them some credit on the statutory rape thing.

[EDIT]

Quote:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or **** the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or **** of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.


With a technical reading of that, women can receive all the oral *** they want. And you are perfectly free to use your tongue on the guy--just not the mouth.

This article is horribly written (even ignoring how stupid the mandates are).

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:41pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#259varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 2:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#260 Dec 22 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
The real question you should be asking yourself is what gives your party the right to change every law they don't like

Majority votes. Super-majority votes in the case of the Senate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#261 Dec 22 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
The irony here of course being that the Constitution is in place to protect the rights of the minorities.

You're a very, very confused man, Varus. Try spending some time off the buckle of the Bible belt and maybe you'll come to realize that your abhorrently twisted view of reality is at best laughable and at worst capable of causing physical sickness and disgust.
#262 Dec 22 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
varus, you so silly. :P

But I don't give a rat's *** about tradition. That's one of the worst defenses you could give about a retarded law. Traditions are nice, but they should be left to parades and sh*t. Laws should evolve as the times do.

Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)

[EDIT]
Quote:
You're a very, very confused man, Varus. Try spending some time off the buckle of the Bible belt and maybe you'll come to realize that your abhorrently twisted view of reality is at best laughable and at worst capable of causing physical sickness and disgust.


Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:48pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#263 Dec 22 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...
If I wasn't so damned sure he'd decline or go ******* at the event, I'd invite him to a few of the live debates that I have from time to time. We live probably no more than 30 minutes away from each other, and I'd just love to see him stammering to try to pull the **** he does here in the presence of real people.
#264varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 2:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) littlwoc,
#265 Dec 22 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of super-majorities, I'm sure you're all breathless to hear that the START treaty passed with 71 votes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#266 Dec 22 2010 at 3:00 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
iddigory,

Quote:
But I don't give a rat's *** about tradition.


Then you don't give sh*t about the constitution. But we already knew this.

#267 Dec 22 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
But not sexual deviants. Just because you label a class a "minority" doesn't make it so.
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" doesn't make it so.


LOL DO U SEE WUT I DID THAR?! I DID WUT U DID

The difference is: they are objectively verifiably a minority.
#268 Dec 22 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,974 posts
idiggory wrote:

Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)


This is (mostly) true. 1805, Jefferson hosted the Tunisia representative and agreed to change the time to past sunset in respect of Ramadan.

Tunisia was also the first country to recognize the US as a new country. Yay Muslims! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#269 Dec 22 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
lilwoc,

Quote:
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" doesn't make it so


Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.

You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
#270 Dec 22 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" doesn't make it so


Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.

You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of ****.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#271 Dec 22 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Bard,

Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.


But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.

#272 Dec 22 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Considering they all are branches of the same original book (the Old Testament), your argument is complete ****. Variations on a theme often have some relation to the central theme, you know? It's beside the point that the Supreme Court has ruled again and again that we can't discriminate based on sexuality and that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state. (As it was by the founding fathers you adore so much) Your religion doesn't matter here, varus.
#273 Dec 22 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Bard,

Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.


But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't know my bible too well but from what I recall most references to homosexuality are in the Old Testament...

I didn't know you kids still followed that thing.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#274 Dec 22 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
I saged Lewo (or someone else did and I got to experience it). :D

Quote:
If I wasn't so damned sure he'd decline or go apesh*t at the event, I'd invite him to a few of the live debates that I have from time to time. We live probably no more than 30 minutes away from each other, and I'd just love to see him stammering to try to pull the sh*t he does here in the presence of real people.


He probably start humping the chair with all the excitement

And @varus, that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. I don't respect the constitution out of tradition, I respect it because it's the backbone of our entire country. I think it was decently written at the start, and has gotten better with additional amendments (mostly). But I'm not opposed to striking amendments if they prove to be poisonous overall.

But there are certain ones that I won't give up--Amendment 1 is frankly the one I care most about, which is funny, because it's the one the right hates the most. Most amendments I would not want to give up. Some, like 3 are archaic and pointless (and if troops want to be quartered in your home, it's because you are in a fucking war zone and you better be happy they are there). I don't give a crap about 2, frankly. Most people are better off without guns.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#275 Dec 22 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
lilwoc,

Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.


Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.

And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.

#276 Dec 22 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.


Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.

And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.

You do realize it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution, right? You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


@idiggory - You've jinxed me. Or I'm just being a particularly big cnut today. Either way.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:26pm by LeWoVoc
#277 Dec 22 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.


Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.

And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.

You do realize it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution, right? You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


@idiggory - You've jinxed me. Or I'm just being a particularly big cnut today. Either way.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:26pm by LeWoVoc
in before liberal activist judge reference
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#278varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 3:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) idiot,
#279 Dec 22 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.


Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.

And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.

You do realize it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution, right? You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


@idiggory - You've jinxed me. Or I'm just being a particularly big cnut today. Either way.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:26pm by LeWoVoc
in before liberal activist judge reference
I tried to avoid it. It's like Godwin's law on this board.
#280 Dec 22 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
lilwoc,

Quote:
it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution


LMAO!!! Considering your liberal buddies appoint radical idealogues like Vader it's obvious you don't care about the actual duties of the Scotus.

#281 Dec 22 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution


LMAO!!! Considering your liberal buddies appoint radical idealogues like Vader it's obvious you don't care about the actual duties of the Scotus.

like shooting fish in a barrel.

Actually, I think Mythbusters showed that to actually be hard to do. Point still valid, though.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#282 Dec 22 2010 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Bard,

Well then don't pretend like you care if your radical judges are interpreting law or making it.

#283 Dec 22 2010 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
The First ******* Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


1. The gov't can't mandate that you do or do not follow a religion, nor can they form laws based solely on religious dogma. If you are referencing religious beliefs to make an argument for a law, you've already failed--the 1st amendment protects against it.

2. Kinda like how gays were trying to petition that their rights were being violated and the Republicans kept trying to push back the vote on DADT?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#284 Dec 22 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Bard,

Well then don't pretend like you care if your radical judges are interpreting law or making it.


******************************************************** those radical judges of the 1870s[/link]
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#285varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 3:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) idiot,
#286 Dec 22 2010 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
And you realize that Amendments 5, 6, and 8 all guarantee American citizens the right to:

5. The right to trial by jury according to due process and prevents trial by self-incrimination.
6. The right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, with representation, to face your accuser and know of the accusations against you.
8. The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

And then amendment 9 states that the federal gov't has no right to infringe on these rights.

So, explain to me how the Republican President Bush was paying due consideration to these articles of the constitution when he threw American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison, refused to grant them trials (let alone fair or speedy ones), doesn't inform them why they are there, and tortures them. I'm REALLY interested to hear that answer.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#287 Dec 22 2010 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

Quote:
it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution


LMAO!!! Considering your liberal buddies appoint radical idealogues like Vader it's obvious you don't care about the actual duties of the Scotus.

If you can look past the 80 billion logical fallacies you just committed to see my point rather than running scared because you're talking nonsense, try to bear with me here. I'm going to ignore your infantile attempt to point a finger at me at get back to the point. You said, not too many posts ago, that you were about the Constitution and tradition. It is both traditional and in the Constitution that the SCotUS gets to interpret the Constitution. The SCotUS has spoken on these issues and came up with a conclusion with which you disagree. Because you disagree, rather than accepting them because it's the Constitution and tradition, you get backed into a corner and start spewing out everything you can against liberals. So tell me, varus, why is the Constitution wrong in this instance?
#288 Dec 22 2010 at 3:47 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
idiot,

Quote:
American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison


Terrorists are treated differently. It's really that simple. The safety of the majority always, ALWAYS, supercedes the right of one.

#289 Dec 22 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison


Terrorists are treated differently.

Provide constitutional backing please.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#290 Dec 22 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,871 posts
And how do you know they are terrorists if you haven't even given them a trial. You DO remember that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is represented by the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, right?

I mean, ****, the gov't can just lock up ANYONE they want to then guys! All you have to do is call them a terrorist and all their rights disappear, never matter if it is true or not! Isn't that useful.

Oh, and btw, the constitution specifies that these rights cannot be denied to ANY PERSON by the federal gov't.

I wasn't aware that terrorists weren't people. That should make it much easier to find them!
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#291 Dec 22 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
But there are certain ones that I won't give up--Amendment 1 is frankly the one I care most about


No you don't. It's your party that's trying to control speech through the fairness doctrine.


Quote:
I don't give a crap about 2, frankly. Most people are better off without guns.


I care about them all because they all serve a purpose.


Except the ones you don't, like 14...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#292 Dec 22 2010 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Speaking of super-majorities, I'm sure you're all breathless to hear that the START treaty passed with 71 votes.


I, for one, am disgusted this Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty passed with no provision for the regulation of tactical weapons. What a disgrace! What an outrage!
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#293 Dec 22 2010 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison


Terrorists are treated differently.

Provide constitutional backing please.

Precedent in Lincoln & FDR. Executive authority and all that.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#294 Dec 22 2010 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison


Terrorists are treated differently.

Provide constitutional backing please.

Precedent in Lincoln & FDR. Executive authority and all that.
I didn't know they were the constitution.

**** Caribu Lou has got me all confused.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#295 Dec 22 2010 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Provide constitutional backing please.
Precedent

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Dec 22 2010 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*
53 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Bard,

Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.


But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.



And so is not stoning unruly children at the edge of town, or not killing someone for building a fire on the sabbath, or planting two different grains in the same furrow, or eating pork. We have a long TRADITION in this country of upholding those sacred laws, don't we? I say, let's stop being hypocrites and bring back all the Old Testament laws.

You know, like the biblical law that says the proper punishment for rape is to force the rapist to pay some money to the victim's father and to force the rapist to marry the victim. Let's enforce the punishment of sins, what do you say?

Oh, and speaking of the Constitution and tradition, you do realize that one of the most amazing things about our Constitution is the ability to amend it, right? Not sure if you've read it since the 1700s, but it's been amended 27 times.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:50pm by SuperAtheist
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#297 Dec 22 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of super-majorities, I'm sure you're all breathless to hear that the START treaty passed with 71 votes.


I, for one, am disgusted this Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty passed with no provision for the regulation of tactical weapons. What a disgrace! What an outrage!


Probably because the strategic arms already regulate the use of the tactical arms implicitly in the same way they both regulate the combined arms.

I am aware that this sounds like some kind of arm-hydra arm wrestling match.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#298 Dec 22 2010 at 9:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Completely sidetrack, but what the ****:

idiggory wrote:
And you realize that Amendments 5, 6, and 8 all guarantee American citizens the right to:

5. The right to trial by jury according to due process and prevents trial by self-incrimination.
6. The right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, with representation, to face your accuser and know of the accusations against you.
8. The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

And then amendment 9 states that the federal gov't has no right to infringe on these rights.

So, explain to me how the Republican President Bush was paying due consideration to these articles of the constitution when he threw American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison, refused to grant them trials (let alone fair or speedy ones), doesn't inform them why they are there, and tortures them. I'm REALLY interested to hear that answer.


Sure.

1. No American citizens were held at Gitmo. This is actually irrelevant since the amendments in question refer to "persons" or "people", and not just to "citizens". But I figured I'd point it out anyway.

2. Trials are only guaranteed for cases of "criminal prosecutions". Those held at Gitmo were specifically held as "unlawful combatants", and thus fall under a different set of rules (as do all combatants, we don't grant POWs trials or let them go do we?).

3. They were certainly informed as to why they were there. You're confusing being informed, with being charged with a crime. Which is irrelevant given answer number 2 above.

4. Torture is a pretty subjective allegation, not a fact. How about we stick to facts, ok?



Oh. And for the record, I doubt seriously that you REALLY want to hear an answer. What you REALLY want is to hear the question asked again, and again, and again. Repeat it enough and most people will assume the questions have merit.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 7:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#299 Dec 22 2010 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Probably because the strategic arms already regulate the use of the tactical arms implicitly in the same way they both regulate the combined arms.

Actually, New START doesn't address tactical weapons but the START treaty and its descendants never have. We haven't had a new tactical arms agreement with Russia/Soviet Union since 1987.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#300 Dec 22 2010 at 9:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory wrote:
I mean, ****, the gov't can just lock up ANYONE they want to then guys!


Anyone who's found to be engaging in military operations against the US, yes. I'll point out again that we do this with declared enemy combatants all the time. We call them POWs.

The only difference between the treatment of the detainees in Gitmo and normal POWs is that those detainees were found to not qualify for the preferential POW status granted to those who fight in ways specified under the 3rd Geneva Convention. Thus, they are not awarded the special privileges we grant to POWs.

Do you REALLY want me to quote you the section of the Geneva Conventions which specifically outlines the conditions and loss of protection that people meeting those criteria may be subjected to? I'll give you a hint: It specifically states they may be held without communication, and may be subject to interrogation.

But you don't really want an answer to your question, do you? You want us to assume that by asking it, there must not be an answer.

Quote:
All you have to do is call them a terrorist and all their rights disappear, never matter if it is true or not! Isn't that useful.


All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


You're ignoring a whole section of the law here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Dec 22 2010 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:

2. Trials are only guaranteed for cases of "criminal prosecutions". Those held at Gitmo were specifically held as "unlawful combatants", and thus fall under a different set of rules (as do all combatants, we don't grant POWs trials or let them go do we?).
Don't we have to be in a war to have prisoners of war?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT