Republicans say the darndest things! Or rather, the DUMBEST things

[Ben Kenobi]

All sex transmits STDs. Not just types of sex God doesn't like.

Some forms are more likely to transmit AIDS than others. That is the point to which I was referring. The author you took great offense declined to comment on this point in his reference to promiscuity. Both are risk factors.

She only scares me if she's able to convince enough people to make her President. In that highly unlikely scenario, yes, she does.

I'm glad you are honest. She's got nothing to do with your topic, and you took the time to criticise her.

[Boris Godunov]

For an attack on American soil. How does that compare to an attack committed by non-citizens abroad? The Americans have no jurisdiction there.

Because American laws are not universally applicable. Neither are American courts courts for the world.

These aren't morally defensable positions and you know it, which is why you're trying to hide behind technical details instead of the issues addressed by people in this thread.

This is getting way off the point, anyway. The point is, you made the claim that Obama was setting "Muslims" free. Since you've utterly failed to provide an actual example of this, I consider the point conceded. That you're now trying to pivot into the precedent of the trials that are to be held--in which the DOJ has stated they intend to seek the death penalty--just shows how fundamentally dishonest you are.

You're assuming they are convicted. What if they are released? By conferring upon them the same status as American citizens, they can make the argument, if released, that they have other constitutional rights.

Just when I think you can't say anything more retarded.

Find me a single case of a non-citizen being tried in a U.S. court being able to claim citizenship after acquittal as a result of his being tried there. That's one of the most patently ridiculous arguments I've ever seen.

And yeah, what if some of them are actually not guilty? Why *shouldn't* they be released? That doesn't mean we have to release them *here,* though.

Could have sworn you were one of the folks who did. Apologies. Still curious about that question, what makes a good Catholic in your eyes?

Considering this is by no means the first time, your apology is hollow.

For starters, a good Catholic wouldn't lie like you do. Bald-faced, malicious lies seem to contradict something I've read. Thou shalt not...something?

I also don't think Jesus would approve of indefinite detentions of people who haven't even had a trial.

Or at least follow the lead of the Vatican:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6153

[MrFun]

Jesus ****ing Mary and Joseph! Put the bastard on Ignore for the love of god!

[Ben Kenobi]

These aren't morally defensable positions and you know it.

That I believe in respecting the sovereignty of other nations? It's true. American laws do not represent laws in the rest of the world. America is by far one of the better nations.

This is getting way off the point, anyway. The point is, you made the claim that Obama was setting "Muslims" free.

I believe he is doing everything in his power to bring about this result, yes. I brought up the example where he has provided a trial for those accused of terrorism. One of the possible results of such trial is release.

My question is where would they be released? Trial in US courts is reserved either for offenses in America, where they have jurisdiction, or offenses of american citizens which occur abroad, and America gains permission to try their citizen. Neither apply in this case. American courts have no jurisdiction over non-americans for offenses committed outside the US. This is a very important principle. You could not be arrested in Europe by Americans and taken before an American court, if you were to rob someone in Europe. You would be tried there. This is part of extraterritoriality, in arguing that Americans are not subject to laws abroad, which is something that we've tried to do away without over the last 100 years.

the DOJ has stated they intend to seek the death penalty

The prosecutor for these cases has admitted that a possibility is the outright release.

Find me a single case of a non-citizen being tried in a U.S. court being able to claim citizenship after acquittal as a result of his being tried there. That's one of the most patently ridiculous arguments I've ever seen.

Show me an example where a non-citizen is being tried in American courts for an offense against Americans, committed in a foreign land outside of American jurisdiction? I can't think of any. You have tried two examples, and each of them do not fit this unprecedented case.

And yeah, what if some of them are actually not guilty? Why *shouldn't* they be released? That doesn't mean we have to release them *here,* though.

Where would they go? I am willing to bet that if any are released, they will be given US citizenship and residence in america as 'restitution.'

Hostilities have not ceased. Some who have been released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefront to fight again. I have no problem releasing those held in Gitmo when hostilities have ended.

I also don't think Jesus would approve of indefinite detentions of people who haven't even had a trial.

Or at least follow the lead of the Vatican:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6153

Pope Benedict XVI referred to Guantanamo in a recent message to youths on world peace. Although he did not directly refer to alleged violations at the prison, the German pope called for the respect of international human rights accords, saying this was a fundamental "duty for everyone." There have been several reports of abuse and torture of detainees at the US naval base, where many prisoners have been held for four years without trial

Few things here.

1. Pope Benedict is calling for the respect of international human rights accords. This is what I've been arguing that the US has not only done, but they have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Geneva Accords are silent on the treatment of irregular terrorists. Again, if they wore a uniform and openly declared themselves, then the US would be bound to treat them as prisoners of war, and they would be held only until the cessation of hostilities. They would not be charged.

2. The article speculates that abuse and torture have occured at Gitmo without providing evidence of such.

3. The weasal words inserted show me very clearly that this is Cardinal Martino, who for your perusal:

Cardinal Martino visited the Caribbean island to attend celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the first bishops conference allowed following the Cuban revolution. He also held talks with Cuban leader Fidel Castro

He's also been relieved and stripped of his position wrt to the Council for Justice and Peace by Papa Benedict.

[Theben]

That is why the Geneva convention is very specific to say that they must be in uniform to be subject to their rules surrounding prisoners.

The international court said that 'unlawful combatants' are covered under the GC. It cited the 3rd and 4th Convention to reach this decision. We've covered that here at least 3 times in the last 2 years. Please keep up.

[Ben Kenobi]

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Convention 3 says nothing of the sort.

[Asher]

So you think Hassan should not be afforded any rights.

[MrFun]

So you think Hassan should not be afforded any rights.

Honestly, I think many of us came to that conclusion of BK much earlier in this thread. It didn't take all this back and forth **** to figure that out.

Besides, I ran out of popcorn.

[Boris Godunov]

That I believe in respecting the sovereignty of other nations? It's true. American laws do not represent laws in the rest of the world. America is by far one of the better nations.

If you believed in that, as Asher said, you should believe that Afghanistan was an illegal and immoral war in the first place.

I believe he is doing everything in his power to bring about this result, yes. I brought up the example where he has provided a trial for those accused of terrorism. One of the possible results of such trial is release.

By this stupid logic, any prosecutor is working to get murderers released by bringing them to trial.

The prosecutor for these cases has admitted that a possibility is the outright release.

Not into U.S. soil. There is no way a U.S. court acquittal would mean these guys could just walk out of the courtroom and down the stree into a crowd. This is just fear-mongering teabaggery.

I still don't see what you find so horrifying about giving accused criminals a day in court.

Show me an example where a non-citizen is being tried in American courts for an offense against Americans, committed in a foreign land outside of American jurisdiction? I can't think of any. You have tried two examples, and each of them do not fit this unprecedented case.

Quit weaseling. As I said, I am accepting your concession that your ludicrous fantasy of an acquitted terrorist suspect being granted citizenship upon release based on your complete inability to substantiate your stupid claim.

If the trials aren't constitutional, the SCOTUS can weigh in and say so. Are you telling me that if these trials are held and these men are convicted, you're going to complain?

Where would they go? I am willing to bet that if any are released, they will be given US citizenship and residence in america as 'restitution.'

You are so, so stupid...

Hostilities have not ceased. Some who have been released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefront to fight again. I have no problem releasing those held in Gitmo when hostilities have ended.

I bet this is a lie. Were Obama to cease hostilities in Afghanistan, withdraw and then release these men there, you would rant and froth more than ever.

He's also been relieved and stripped of his position wrt to the Council for Justice and Peace by Papa Benedict.

And another lie. You're pathetic.

Martino retired, he was not "stripped" of anything. He was two years past the mandatory retirement age. There was nothing at all negative in his departure from the post.

Yet another example of how you're a ****ty Catholic--you'll even attempt to smear a Cardinal with a lie rather than acknowledge that your extremist, hateful views aren't shared by the Church.

[Asher]

Honestly, I think many of us came to that conclusion of BK much earlier in this thread. It didn't take all this back and forth **** to figure that out.

Besides, I ran out of popcorn.

I'm not even reading what he posts. I'm just inventing absurd positions and assuming he took them. Apparently with great success.

[Theben]

The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[4] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

[DaShi]

Poor Ben. He so desperately wants people to torture and isn't content with us.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you believed in that, as Asher said, you should believe that Afghanistan was an illegal and immoral war in the first place.

Uh, I believe I said that already.

By this stupid logic, any prosecutor is working to get murderers released by bringing them to trial.

Perhaps he is, I don't know.

Not into U.S. soil. There is no way a U.S. court acquittal would mean these guys could just walk out of the courtroom and down the stree into a crowd. This is just fear-mongering teabaggery.

I still don't see what you find so horrifying about giving accused criminals a day in court.

What, you think the US military just drags these guys off the street and tosses them in jail?

If the trials aren't constitutional, the SCOTUS can weigh in and say so. Are you telling me that if these trials are held and these men are convicted, you're going to complain?

No, and I'll be happy to apologise to Barry O if they are all convicted.

I bet this is a lie. Were Obama to cease hostilities in Afghanistan, withdraw and then release these men there, you would rant and froth more than ever.

Nope, I'd be glad.

Martino retired, he was not "stripped" of anything. He was two years past the mandatory retirement age. There was nothing at all negative in his departure from the post.

He continues to hold other posts, just not that one. Yes he retired, but he's still holding other offices not related to development and peace.

Yet another example of how you're a ****ty Catholic--you'll even attempt to smear a Cardinal with a lie rather than acknowledge that your extremist, hateful views aren't shared by the Church.

He was stripped of that one post in particular. The man is a good Catholic, just not on this one issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Which I'm in complete agreement. It doesn't say 'required' except for humane treatment.

[Theben]

Poor Ben.