Saturday, August 19, 2006
rebuttal
for those that know me or not it seems I started a bunch of sh** at another blog over certain contentions that our government is/was involved in illegal activities.However the blog master didn't publish my rebuttal to their chastisings, so I will do it here. I give him the benifit of the doubt since 19 and15 and sos all seemed to hit the fan at the same time as I submitted my rebuttal and since I dont have the traffic he does I can afford the luxury of long winded responses.
To wagon man and scc etc :
my argument was twofold and I thought clear but maybe not first and foremost as I have stated in the past in order to conquer the terrorist it is necessary to terrorize them hence kill them, their families, and put whatever mud hut village they came from farther back into the stone age than it already is. And bury them in a pigs carcass. Now as to my original question SCC is it your contention that disagreement with a presidential policy is tantamount to wanting the country to fail? I.e. . dissention = treason?
.
As far as the Geneva convention the following is from the treaty:
Common Article 3,which appears in all four Conventions, provides that,in a “conflict not of an international characteroccurring in the territory of one of the HighContracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party tothe conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,”certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons . . . placedhors de combat by. . . detention,” including aprohibition on “the passing of sentences . . . withoutprevious judgment . . . by a regularly constitutedcourt affording all the judicial guarantees . . .recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. What this means is that any conflict within a signer’s borders (Afghanistan was a signer) requires that all combatants without regard to nationality are entitled to the protection and rights accorded by the convention. The combatants do not need to be from the signers country or organized miltiary but only involved in combat within the borders. For more info on this please go to the supreme courts website and read the decision in hamdan vs rumsfeld. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf) So yes I guess my belief in the constitution requires that I go with they get the protection of the Geneva convention. Note that I am making this point on “An “enemy combatant” is defined by the military order as “an individual who was part of or supportingTaliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces thatare engaged in hostilities against the United Statesor its coalition partners.” NOT I REAPEAT NOT TERRORISTS. However the majority held at gitmo are not charge with any form of terrorism. It is this new category that I was referring to.
2nd I referred to the ILLEGAL spying on US citizens by my government , if SCC you can show me some connection between the recent arrests of Pakistani nationals in great Britain and the spying illegally on US citizens I will concede the point however I still believe with the secret warrants authorized by the courts which are covert, secret, and legal etc there was and is no cause to illegally spy. As far as spying on immigrants legal or illegal etc have at it. I am only referring to the narrowly defined US citizen.
Lastly am sorry about the length of this but two oaths I believe most of us took: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the country for which it stands……..I will support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC I don’t recall either oath saying anything about a political party or a specific politician or office.
P.S SINCE WRITING THIS AN ADDITIONAL COURT HAS FOIUND THE NSA PROGRAM TO BE ILLEGAL
To wagon man and scc etc :
my argument was twofold and I thought clear but maybe not first and foremost as I have stated in the past in order to conquer the terrorist it is necessary to terrorize them hence kill them, their families, and put whatever mud hut village they came from farther back into the stone age than it already is. And bury them in a pigs carcass. Now as to my original question SCC is it your contention that disagreement with a presidential policy is tantamount to wanting the country to fail? I.e. . dissention = treason?
.
As far as the Geneva convention the following is from the treaty:
Common Article 3,which appears in all four Conventions, provides that,in a “conflict not of an international characteroccurring in the territory of one of the HighContracting Parties [i.e., signatories],each Party tothe conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,”certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons . . . placedhors de combat by. . . detention,” including aprohibition on “the passing of sentences . . . withoutprevious judgment . . . by a regularly constitutedcourt affording all the judicial guarantees . . .recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. What this means is that any conflict within a signer’s borders (Afghanistan was a signer) requires that all combatants without regard to nationality are entitled to the protection and rights accorded by the convention. The combatants do not need to be from the signers country or organized miltiary but only involved in combat within the borders. For more info on this please go to the supreme courts website and read the decision in hamdan vs rumsfeld. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf) So yes I guess my belief in the constitution requires that I go with they get the protection of the Geneva convention. Note that I am making this point on “An “enemy combatant” is defined by the military order as “an individual who was part of or supportingTaliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces thatare engaged in hostilities against the United Statesor its coalition partners.” NOT I REAPEAT NOT TERRORISTS. However the majority held at gitmo are not charge with any form of terrorism. It is this new category that I was referring to.
2nd I referred to the ILLEGAL spying on US citizens by my government , if SCC you can show me some connection between the recent arrests of Pakistani nationals in great Britain and the spying illegally on US citizens I will concede the point however I still believe with the secret warrants authorized by the courts which are covert, secret, and legal etc there was and is no cause to illegally spy. As far as spying on immigrants legal or illegal etc have at it. I am only referring to the narrowly defined US citizen.
Lastly am sorry about the length of this but two oaths I believe most of us took: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the country for which it stands……..I will support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC I don’t recall either oath saying anything about a political party or a specific politician or office.
P.S SINCE WRITING THIS AN ADDITIONAL COURT HAS FOIUND THE NSA PROGRAM TO BE ILLEGAL
# posted by fillmoreranger @ 5:34 PM 
