Other
See other Other Articles
Title: The fill in the blank quiz that stumped war!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 14, 2011
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2011-10-14 08:58:37 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 73301
Comments: 107
In the United States of America you are considered ___________________ until proven guilty.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: war (#34)
You made the claim. You can't back it up.
Yea...I fucked up the HTML tag...sorry...go read the post again... A good dose of irony ruined by computer illiteracy...
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
U.S. Indictment: 'Detonated an Explosive Device' Published: November 5, 1998 E-Mail Send To Phone Print Following is an excerpt from the indictment returned yesterday in a Federal District Court in Manhattan against the Saudi exile, Osama bin-Laden: At all relevant times from, in or about 1989 until the date of the filing of this indictment, an international terrorist group existed which was dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and violence. This organization grew out of the ''mekhtab al khidemat'' (the ''Services Office'') organization which had maintained offices in various parts of the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan (particularly in Peshawar) and the United States, particularly at the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. The group was founded by defendants Osama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef, a.k.a ''Abu Hafs al- Masry,'' together with ''Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri'' and others. From in or about 1989 until the present, the group called itself ''Al Qaeda''' (''the Base''). From 1989 until in or about 1991, the group (hereafter referred to as ''Al Qaeda'') was headquartered in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. In or about 1991, the leadership of Al Qaeda, including its ''emir'' (or prince) defendant Osama bin Laden, relocated to Sudan. Al Qaeda was headquartered in the Sudan from approximately 1991 until approximately 1996 but still maintained offices in various parts of the world. In 1996, defendants Osama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef and other members of Al Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan. At all relevant times, Al Qaeda was led by its emir, defendant Osama bin Laden. Members of Al Qaeda pledged an oath of allegiance (called a ''bayat'') to defendant Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons. First, the United States was regarded as an 'infidel'' because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other ''infidel'' governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group. Third, Al Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the [Persian] gulf war in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by Al Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries. In particular, Al Qaeda opposes the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the gulf war. Fourth, Al Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or with whom it worked, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. One of the principal goals of Al Qaeda was to drive the United States armed forces out of Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) and Somalia by violence. Members of Al Qaeda issued fatwahs (rulings of Islamic law) indicating that such attacks were both proper and necessary. Al Qaeda functioned both on its own and through some of the terrorist organizations that operated under its umbrella, including: the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, led by, among others, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, named as a co- conspirator but not as a defendant herein; the Islamic Group (also known as ''El Gamaa Islamia'' or simply ''Gamaa't''), led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and later by Ahmed Refai Taha, a.k.a. ''Abu Yasser al-Masri,'' named as co- conspirators but not as defendants herein; and a number of jihad groups. . . . Osama bin Laden, the defendant, and Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. . . . On Oct. 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by Al Qaeda (and by trainers trained by Al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel. . . .
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Texan Charged With Bin Laden Link By BENJAMIN WEISER Published: September 22, 1998 E-Mail Send To Phone Print A Texan was indicted yesterday on new charges that he lied about his knowledge of the activities of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile suspected in the bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania last month. In bringing the new charges against Wadih el Hage, an Arlington, Tex., man who has admitted that he worked as Mr. bin Laden's personal secretary in the Sudan in 1994, Federal prosecutors in Manhattan offered their most expansive look yet at the scope and direction of their investigation into Mr. bin Laden and his organization, Al Qaeda.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
If you were of that time and were having tea and crumpets in a restaurant at a table next to him, would you smile and tip your three cornered hat his way and wish him well for the day? Oh, I know, who are you to involve yourself in condemning betrayal with the death and oppression of his fellow countrymen in mind while this man sought to gain money and influence to his face? Ain't any of your business, right? You have no opinion on this known infamy and would not want to see Mr. Arnold pay with his life for his murderous actions, I see. Damn Stone, the least you could do is parrot your old saw and accuse him of having been the father of all those who kill babies and mumble the usual vague generalities of condemnation you love so much in his general direction.
Where'd you go? [snicker]
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
rotflmao.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
First he flicks his Cricket lighter at you with this superfluous and self serving attack thread, then when cornered he only leaves the sound of crickets chirping in his retreat into silence.
It's only me and Mike in here now Boofer. Try two threads over... [snicker]
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Stone bitch slap BUMP...
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
I just caught up with the tail end of this thread. Where did Stoned disappear to?
The same place his tail and his head is... Are?
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Should we call a proctologist for him? Get 911... make popcorn... BUMP
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
I asked for something predating 911. Back in the nineties. This is just from yesterday making claims. Go try again.
Are you blind? Go get your reading glasses Stoned.
You might consider changing the title to: The fill in the blank quiz that backfired! (chuckle)
Following is an excerpt from the indictment returned yesterday
Can you fill in the blank? War hasn't been able to yet.
Are you blind?
It was "filled in" in #5.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Dated from 1998, doof...
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Neither Aulaqi nor any Al Qaeda fighter is classified as an enemy combatant. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the Palestinian Freedom Fighters are civilians and not enemy combatants. PCATI v. Israel, HCJ 769/02 (2006) "as we have seen, the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law...." The U.S. Supreme Court held that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were entitled to the protection of Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and that it is not a conflict of an international character. It further found, "Even assuming that Hamden [sic - Hamdan] is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment." In 2006, the Bush administration "agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials." All enemy combatants, upon capture, are entitled to POW status. The Al Qaeda fighters are not classified as enemy combatants. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the Palestinian Freedom Fighters are civilians and not enemy combatants. PCATI v. Israel, HCJ 769/02 (2006) "as we have seen, the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law...." The U.S. Supreme Court held that Al Qaeda fighters were entitled to the protection of Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and that it is not a conflict of an international character. It further found, "Even assuming that Hamden [sic - Hamdan] is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment." In 2006, the Bush administration "agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials." All enemy combatants, upon capture, are entitled to POW status. The Al Qaeda fighters are not classified as enemy combatants. The Israeli Supreme Court found that the Palestinian fighters were not combatants. The U.S. Supreme Court found that Al Qaeda fighters are not combatants. Both courts found that the Geneva Conventions apply. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in armed conflict involving alleged members of Al Qaeda, the Geneva Convention Common Article 3 applies, it must be complied with, and its protections must be observed. Oh snap! (Bench Opinion) NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006 - Decided June 29, 2006 At 1-2: At 4: At 6: At 6: (iii) While Common Article 3 does not define its "regularly constituted court" phrase, other sources define the words to mean an "ordinary military cour[t]" that is "established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country." The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statute. At a minimum, a military commission can be "regularly constituted" only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice. No such need has been demonstrated here. Pp. 69.70. (iv) Common Article 3's requirements are general, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems, but they are requirements nonetheless. The commission convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements. P. 72. (d) Even assuming that Hamden is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment. P. 72. - - - - Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006) - Armed Conflict With Al Qaeda and Common Articles 2 and 3
First off, "enemy combatant" is TWO words. Secondly,. read the decision rendered in Ex Parte Qurin from 1942. The term "ENEMY COMBATANT" has been around for decades. Thirdly, as a result of court decisions surrounding the detention of Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo, DumbDubv43 was actually forced to narrowly define what an "enemy combatant" was in the war against Al Qeada: "Enemy combatant" shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces. This bullshit was destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan.
Guess again. That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it. Hamden was decided in 2006 and nothing from Hamden changed one word in that definition.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
You're citing a case that decided the powers of the Commander in Chief when an enemy combatant is CAPTURED and IN CUSTODY. That case says diddly squat about how he may prosecute the actual war.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
I cited a case that decided Common Article 3 was applicable. What was his status at the time of capture? If you can't figure out what the status of someone entitled to Common Article 3 protection is, ask one of your imaginary friends to help.
Read the opinion. "On November 13, 2001, while the United States was still engaged in active combat with the Taliban, the President issued a comprehansive military order intended to govern the 'Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism,' 66 Fed. Reg. 57833 (hereinafter November 13 Order or Order." That's the Order that was at issue before the Court. The legal action was commenced in 2004. The Supreme Court was acting as an Appellate court. Get a clue.
It did not decide any powers of the Commander-in-Chief. It determined what protections inhered to the detainee. It determined the actions of the United States government violated those protections. The President (or C-in-C) has no authority to commit unlawful acts.
"Unlawful combatant" is the recent make-believe classification
You mean the word that no on ever heard of until after 911. Aulaqi was not alleged to me a member of AQ, but of AQAP (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula). "AQAP appears to be merely the latest iteration of al Qaeda's long-standing operational presence in Yemen, contrasting sharply with the lack of historical ties to al Qaeda when it comes to some other current al Qaeda franchises such as AQIM. On the other hand, AQAP appears to operate without direct lines of control running to bin Laden or other senior al Qaeda leaders." Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010, (2011), p. 8. It may be easier to show an armed conflict between AQAP and the U.S. than to show that AQAP is a part of AQ. AQAP did not exist in 2001.
I have one. You're using your typical sleight of hand to meld two concurrent yet separate events as being the same event. As you stated, Hamden decided that the "comprehensive military order" that DumbDubv43 had issued was extra legal and NOT the definition of "enemy combatant".
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Frankly, having read through the materials you posted and your commentary about them, I have little, if any, disagreement with you about custodial process, i.e., how the US MUST proceed once a person is in custody.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Don't worry; this is all about his love for Obama's manhood. If this were Bush, he would be arguing adamantly in your behalf.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
You have currently cited the detainees being "enemy combatants," despite the fact that such has always been legally indefensible. I provide your Paul Wolfowicz "authority" for yucks. You have stated, "That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it." That was the terminology used until the Court ordered the administration to provide its definition of the term. It then rapidly withdrew it. You have been incessantly referring to the detainees, and Aulaqi, as "enemy combatants." As you apparently don't know, this was officially dropped. The DOJ press release had the headline, You have been making the current claim that the President's acts are based on his inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief. Gee, will you look at this: You seem to think the government can detain or kill anyone as long as some bureaucrat says it is alright. The definition received a major tweak. And before I forget, here is your "enemy combatant" classification. While you have complete faith in that the government must have documented cause to assassinate Aulaqi, you only "suppose" that "enemy combatant" was really abandoned. Why you have such complete faith in the secret government process to determine combatant status is not clear considering their evidence difficulties in habeas corpus litigation. Here is the unlawful orders issued by Paul Wolfowicz. Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal of 7 Jul 2004 Issued by Paul Wolfowicz And here is the Press Release from the Justice Department:
Then you realize that the terms "substantially supported" and "part of" are interpreted to encompass only individuals who were members of the enemy organization's armed forces, as that term is intended under the laws of war, at the time of their capture. I should hope that the standard to detain and keep someone detained is at least as high as the standard to just exterminate them.
In the USA, the police can shoot to kill if it will save a life. al-Qaeda is not covered under the rules of war but Americans who have been pirates or served foreign armies have been killed without raising constitutional issues.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
When the standard for the prosecution of a war requires only that the military must take care to minimize civilian casualties rather than a full estoppel of any military action if there is a chance for civilian casualties then that "hope" is fleeting. I will never believe that Al-Awlki was a "civilian" in any way.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
I haven't cited any detainee as a military combatant. I simply posted the definition of one. Hamden put the process of determining the legal status of a detainee under scrutiny. It had no comment about the battlefield determination of one.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
That was why I used the word "allegedly" when stating that Obama had [allegedly] abandoned it. Frankly, I don't believe that he has. The increase in drone activity alone renders any statement of "abandonment" bullshit...imho.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Comments (77 - 107) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#39. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#32)
(Edited)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#43. To: war (#41)
#44. To: Badeye (#42)
(Edited)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#46. To: war (#44)
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#46)
(Edited)
#48. To: war (#47)
#49. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#50. To: war (#38)
Following is an excerpt from the indictment returned yesterday in a Federal District Court
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)
#53. To: Fred Mertz (#51)
#54. To: Fred Mertz (#52)
#55. To: A K A Stone (#53)
On Oct. 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by Al Qaeda (and by trainers trained by Al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel. . . .
#56. To: A K A Stone (#54)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Following is an excerpt from the indictment returned yesterday
#58. To: war, A K A Stone (#5)
The issue is what powers the Commander in Chief has in ordering the killing of a specific enemy combatant.
OCTOBER TERM, 2005
The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission's proceedings, concluding that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed.
4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72.
(d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Pp. 62–68.
(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum," certain provisions protecting "[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by . . . detention," including a prohibition on "the passing of sentences . . . without previous judgment . . . by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a "conflict not of an international character." That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory "accepts and applies" those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict "in the territory of" a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65.68.
#59. To: war, A K A Stone (#8)
Why do you spout this bullshit?
#60. To: nolu chan (#59)
This bullshit was destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan.
#61. To: nolu chan (#58)
#62. To: war, A K A Stone (#61)
You're citing a case that decided the powers of the Commander in Chief when an enemy combatant is CAPTURED and IN CUSTODY.
#63. To: war (#60)
That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it.
#64. To: war, A K A Stone (#61)
You're citing a case that decided the powers of the Commander in Chief when an enemy combatant is CAPTURED and IN CUSTODY.
#65. To: A K A Stone, war (#6)
Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people.
#66. To: A K A Stone, war (#29)
Al Qaeda...
#67. To: nolu chan (#63)
That's the Order that was at issue before the Court. The legal action was commenced in 2004. The Supreme Court was acting as an Appellate court. Get a clue.
#68. To: nolu chan (#62)
I cited a case that decided Common Article 3 was applicable. What was his status at the time of capture? If you can't figure out what the status of someone entitled to Common Article 3 protection is, ask one of your imaginary friends to help.
#69. To: nolu chan (#62)
(Edited)
#70. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#71. To: war, A K A Stone (#67)
As you stated, Hamden decided that the "comprehensive military order" that DumbDubv43 had issued was extra legal and NOT the definition of "enemy combatant".
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHDRAWS “ENEMY COMBATANT” DEFINITIONFOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization.
It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial.
And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."
#72. To: war (#68)
Frankly, having read through the materials you posted and your commentary about them, I have little, if any, disagreement with you about custodial process, i.e., how the US MUST proceed once a person is in custody.
#73. To: nolu chan, war, A K A Stone (#72)
Then you realize that the terms "substantially supported" and "part of" are interpreted to encompass only individuals who were members of the enemy organization's armed forces, as that term is intended under the laws of war, at the time of their capture.
#74. To: nolu chan (#72)
I should hope that the standard to detain and keep someone detained is at least as high as the standard to just exterminate them.
#75. To: nolu chan (#71)
You have currently cited the detainees being "enemy combatants,"
#76. To: nolu chan (#71)
While you have complete faith in that the government must have documented cause to assassinate Aulaqi, you only "suppose" that "enemy combatant" was really abandoned.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]