[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 73362 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 (1-59) not displayed.       .       .       . #60. To: nolu chan (#59) 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] war  posted on  2011-10-14   23:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#58) 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] war  posted on  2011-10-14   23:07:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-15   0:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: war (#60) That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-15   1:00:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-15   1:08:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: A K A Stone, war (#6) Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people. "Unlawful combatant" is the recent make-believe classification nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-15   4:08:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: A K A Stone, war (#29) Al Qaeda... 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. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-15   4:33:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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] war  posted on  2011-10-15   10:02:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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] war  posted on  2011-10-15   10:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: nolu chan (#62) (Edited) [RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD] war  posted on  2011-10-15   18:47:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: A K A Stone (#0) 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 no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-10-15   19:46:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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". 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, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHDRAWS “ENEMY COMBATANT” DEFINITIONFOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES 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: The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization. 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. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And before I forget, here is your "enemy combatant" classification. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant." 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: In Re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, USDC DCDC 08-442, (13 Mar 2009) DOJ News Release, DOJ Withdraws E... nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-16   0:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-16   1:13:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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 Godwinson  posted on  2011-10-16   1:26:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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] war  posted on  2011-10-16   11:30:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: nolu chan (#71) You have currently cited the detainees being "enemy combatants," 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] war  posted on  2011-10-16   11:36:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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] war  posted on  2011-10-16   11:39:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: Godwinson (#73) 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. FALSE. Irregular forces are explicitly covered by Common Article 3 and Conflicts NOT of an International Character. Common Article 2 applies only to wars or armed conflicts between two or more high contracting parties, which defines an armed conflict of an international character for Geneva Conventions and the laws of war purposes. Only in such conflict of an international character, literally involving two or more nations, can any of the fighters be classified as "enemy combatants." "Enemy combatant" in this context is a legal term of art with a specific definition within the conventions and protocols. Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol 2 apply to armed conflict of a NON-international character. That includes conflict between one nation and one or more groups of armed irregulars. In NON-international armed conflict, nobody is classified as an "enemy combatant," despite the best efforts of some to use the term in a generic manner within a context that only allows of its specific meaning as a legal term of art. Art 1, §8, "The Congress shall have power to... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." There is no death penalty for piracy under U.S. law. I believe a death sentence or execution not provided for by law would, indeed, raise constitutional questions. § 1651. Piracy under law of nations § 1652. Citizens as pirates § 1653. Aliens as pirates Your point has nothing to do with the USA extra-judicial homicide committed against an American citizen in Yemen. Gherebi v Obama, DCDC 04-1164, (2009), Memorandum OPINION Footnote 8 on pages 25-26, [8] In Hamdan, the Supreme Court held that the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda is at least a non-international armed conflict subject to Common Article 3, but did not reverse the determination made by the District of Columbia Circuit that the conflict was not an international conflict subject to Common Article 2. See Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 628-29 (declining “to decide the merits” of the government’s argument that the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda is not an international armed conflict “because there [was] at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applie[d]” to the conflict). The Court is therefore constrained by the precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit to treat the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda as a non-international armed conflict for purposes of the Geneva Conventions. At 26, The distinction drawn between “international” and “non-international” conflicts has its roots in the Geneva Conventions, four treaties that comprise a part of “the rules and precepts of the law of nations.” Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 613. Two articles are identical in the Third and Fourth Conventions, and thus are known as “common articles”: Common Article 2, which specifies that the Conventions apply to “all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,” Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 2, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 (the “Third Geneva Convention”), and Common Article 3, which governs “armed conflict[s] not of an international character,” id., art. 3.9 At 44-45, Thus, under Additional Protocol I, only “persons who receive and execute orders” from the enemy’s “command structure” can be considered members of the enemy’s armed forces. Sympathizers, propagandists, and financiers who have no involvement with this “command structure,” while perhaps members of the enemy organization in an abstract sense, cannot be considered part of the enemy’s “armed forces” and therefore cannot be detained militarily unless they take a direct part in the hostilities. At the same time, the armed forces of the enemy consist of more than those individuals who would qualify as “combatants” in an international armed conflict. See ICRC Third Geneva Convention Commentary, supra, at 51. [...] The key question is whether an individual “receive[s] and execute[s] orders” from the enemy force’s combat apparatus, not whether he is an al-Qaeda fighter. Thus, an al-Qaeda member tasked with housing, feeding, or transporting al-Qaeda fighters could be detained as part of the enemy armed forces notwithstanding his lack of involvement in the actual fighting itself, but an al-Qaeda doctor or cleric, or the father of an al-Qaeda fighter who shelters his son out of familial loyalty, could not be detained assuming such individuals had no independent role in al-Qaeda’s chain of command. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-17   23:02:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: war (#74) I should hope that the standard to detain and keep someone detained is at least as high as the standard to just exterminate them. 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. If, as you insist, fighters of Al Qaeda are classified under the laws of war and international law as "enemy combatants," then Aulaqi could only have been classified as a civilian pursuant to the law applied to Armed Conflict of an International Character. Status as a "combatant" obviously cannot exist in an armed conflict of a NON-international character. Under those rules, applied to irregular forces not of a high contracting party, Al Qaeda fighters cannot be classified as "enemy combatants." They need not be treated as privileged civilians either. But if you choose to insist on using the term "enemy combatant," applicable only to armed conflict of an international character, then Aulaqi does not meet the definition of "enemy combatant" and, in international conflict, all who are not "enemy combatants" are civilians. As a necessary predicate to your holding that the armed forces of Al Qaeda enjoy status as enemy combatants, you apparently believe that Al Qaeda is a recognized State government. Re estoppel. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Estoppel. "Estoppel" means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, 658. A principle that provides that an individual is barred from denying or alleging a certain fact or state facts because of that individual's previous conduct, allegation, or denial. A doctrine which holds that an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another. Brand v. Farmers Mut. Protective Ass'n of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 994, 997. See Restatement, Agency, Second, § 8B . Estoppel is a bar or impediment which precludes allegation or denial of a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law. It operates to put party entitled to its benefits in same position as if thing represented were true. May v. City of Kearney, 145 Neb. 475, 17 N.W.2d 448, 458. Under law of "estoppel" where one of two innocent persons must suffer, he whose act occasioned loss must bear it. Sackenreuther v. Winston, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 93, 96. Elements or essentials of estoppel include change of position of parties so that party against whom estoppel is invoked has received a profit or benefit or party invoking estoppel has changed his position to his detriment. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis ESTOPPEL a bar; preclusion , also known a issue precluion "a bar which precludes a person from denying the truth of a fact which has, in contemplation of law, become settled by the facts and proceedings of judicial or legislative officers, or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional writing, or by representations, express or implied. An estoppel arises where man has done some act which the policy of the law will not permit him to gainsay or deny ." 51 S.E. 514, 521. It is an equitable doctrine, and as such, is used when good conscience requires it. Thus, some injury to a party invoking the doctrine of estoppel is generally required and the elements of the claim, then, consist of ignorance on the part of the person invoking estoppel, representation by party estopped which misleads, and an innocent and detrimental change of position in reliance on the representation. See 159 A. 2d 345, 351. Estoppel is distinguished from waiver in that a waiver generally refers to a voluntary surrender or relinquishment of some known right, benefit, or advantage; estoppel creates an inhibition or inability to assert it. 106 F. 2d 687, 691. Compare res judicata. [emphasis as in original] nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-17   23:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: war, A K A Stone (#75) 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. You repeatedly used the legal term of art, "enemy combatant." Your change of what you actually and repeatedly said, while slick as ever, does not change what you repeatedly asserted, however wrong that may have been. It does not even cure your bullshit predicament as the problem with the term "combatant" is not changed or cured. The term "enemy combatant" is dead with regards to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. Hamdan, USSC 05-184, Opinion at 6: On November 8, 2004, however, the District Court granted Hamdan.s petition for habeas corpus and stayed the commission.s proceedings. It concluded that the President.s authority to establish military commissions extends only to .offenders or offenses triable by military [commission] under the law of war,. 344 F. Supp. 2d, at 158; that the law of war includes the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, T. I. A. S. No. 3364 (Third Geneva Convention); that Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until adjudged, in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war, the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ 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. 344 F. Supp. 2d, at 158.172. The Bush nonsense that it was an armed conflict of an international character was squashed. The goofy notion, still pimped by some, that no laws of war or international apply to the conflict or the detainees was also squashed. Hamdan, USSC 05-184, Opinion at 69-70, Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). While the term "regularly constituted court" is not specifically defined in either Common Article 3 or its accompanying commentary, other sources disclose its core meaning. The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines " 'regularly constituted' " tribunals to include "ordinary military courts" and "definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals." GCIV Commentary 340 (defining the term "properly constituted" in Article 66, which the commentary treats as identical to "regularly constituted"); [64] see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 44 (Rutledge, J., dissenting) (describing military commission as a court "specially constituted for a particular trial"). And one of the Red Cross' own treatises defines "regularly constituted court" as used in Common Article 3 to mean "established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country." Int.l Comm. of Red Cross, 1 Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005); see also GCIV Commentary 340 (observing that "ordinary military courts" will "be set up in accordance with the recognized principles governing the administration of justice"). The Government offers only a cursory defense of Hamdan .s military commission in light of Common Article 3. See Brief for Respondents 49-50. As JUSTICE KENNEDY explains, that defense fails because "[t]he regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes." Post, at 8 (opinion concurring in part). At a minimum, a military commission "can be 'regularly constituted' by the standards of our military justice system only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice." Post, at 10. As we have explained, see Part VI.C, supra, no such need has been demonstrated here. []65] ____________________ [64] The commentary.s assumption that the terms "properly constituted" and "regularly constituted" are interchangeable is beyond reproach; the French version of Article 66, which is equally authoritative, uses the term "régulièrement constitués" in place of "properly constituted." [65] Further evidence of this tribunal's irregular constitution is the fact that its rules and procedures are subject to change midtrial, at the whim of the Executive. See Commission Order No. 1, §11 (providing that the Secretary of Defense may change the governing rules "from time to time"). As Common Article 3 is applicable, the laws of war and international humanitarian law are also applicable, and the conflict is undeniably held to be an Armed Conflict NOT of an International Character. Al Qaeda fighters cannot be classified as enemy combatants Gherebi v Obama, 04-1164, Opinion at 38-39, But the government no longer seeks to detain the petitioners on the theory that they are “enemy combatants,” and neither Common Article 3, Additional Protocol II, nor the respective commentaries on these treaties by the International Committee of the Red Cross make any reference whatsoever to the term “combatant.” “The reason for the absence of combatant status in non-international armed conflicts is obvious: states are not prepared to grant their own citizens, and even less others who might engage in fighting on behalf of a non-state group, the right to do so.” By definition, combatants are regular armed forces of a state. While engaged in military combat, they commit no crime while killing the enemy. Terrorists are not members of the regular armed forces of a state. Their acts of killing do not enjoy the protection afforded to combatants. The Bush administration created a legal shit sandwich and gave it to the Obama administration. The Bush administration avoided legal disaster by filing a Notice to the Court stating that, On or about November 25, 2008, the Department of Defense transferred Hamdan to the Government of Yemen to serve the remainder of his sentence. On or about January 9, 2009, the Government of Yemen announced the release of Hamdan from its custody, Hamdan having served the remainder of his sentence imposed by military commission. However, the inability of the U.S. Government to meet a reasonable standard of proof to hold detainees has been well documented in other cases. As their evidence cannot meet the minimum standard for detention, it remains to be seen how anyone justifies the use of such crap to justify extra-judicial execution, i.e. homicide, of an American citizen. Parhat v. Gates, DC Cir 06-1397, Opinion at 28, First, the government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has “said it thrice” does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”). In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for the documents’ thrice-made assertions. Parhat v. Gates, DC Cir 06-1397, Opinion at 28-29, Second, the government insists that the statements made in the documents are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case. This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true, thus rendering superfluous both the role of the Tribunal and the role that Congress assigned to this court. We do not in fact know that the departments regard the statements in those documents as reliable; the repeated insertion of qualifiers indicating that events are “reported” or “said” or “suspected” to have occurred suggests at least some skepticism. Nor do we know whether the departments rely on those documents for decisionmaking purposes in the form in which they were presented to the Tribunal, or whether they supplement them with backup documentation and reliability assessments before using them to take actions of consequence. Bostan v. Obama, DC Cir 05-883, Opinion of 8/19/2009 at 1112, Ultimately, the government seems to suggest that because so much of its hearsay evidence is (in its view) internally consistent, the contents of all of its proffered hearsay evidence must be true, rather in the same way that a rumor must be true if enough people repeat it. But even the most widespread rumors are often inaccurate in part if not in whole. How, then, is the Court to know which parts are correct and which are not? It does not and will never know, which is why it cannot assess the reliability of hearsay on the basis of other unreliable hearsay that purportedly corroborates it. See Parhat, 532 F.3d at 848 (“Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has ‘said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true.” (quoting Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark 3 (1876)). For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that neither Hamdi nor Boumediene, nor the existing will of Congress compels the Court to adopt a blanket presumption that the hearsay proffered by the government in each of its cases before this member of the Court is admissible. Nor is the Court willing to look at all of the government’s hearsay in “context” before determining the admissibility of individual pieces of evidence. The individual items of hearsay proffered by the government will be assessed to determine whether they have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify their admission. If they do, they will be admitted into evidence; if they do not, they will be excluded. This is not to say that hearsay proffered by the government must have intrinsic indicia of reliability to be admitted into evidence, as corroborating evidence can be used to establish reliability if that corroborating evidence is itself reliable. The Court’s only point is that otherwise unreliable hearsay cannot be deemed reliable because there is other unreliable hearsay to the same effect. The approach taken by this member of the Court comports with the standard set forth by Judge Hogan in his case management order (subject to the clarifications of that standard set forth above). Consequently, both with respect to these particular habeas corpus petitions and for all of the active habeas corpus petitions pending before this member of the Court, the government must establish that any proffered hearsay evidence is admissible either (1) under the Federal Rules of Evidence, as modified by 28 U.S.C. § 2246, or (2) by demonstrating that (a) the proffered hearsay is reliable and (b) that the provision of non-hearsay evidence would unduly burden the government (as that term is construed in this opinion) or interfere with the government’s ability to protect national security. SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2009. Bostan v. Obama, DC Cir 05-883, Opinion of 10/23/2009 at 40-42, Instead, what the Court has consistently done in these cases is require the government to support its arguments for admissibility with the best evidence available and in a manner that guarantees some modicum of trustworthiness in the proffered evidence. That this requirement has proven so difficult for the government to accept is troubling in and of itself, for the basic guidelines set forth by the Court-that the government should use otherwise inadmissible hearsay only when it truly needs to do so and the hearsay is reliable-would not be considered onerous or controversial in virtually any other type of proceeding. But these strictures concern the manner in which the government's proffered evidence has been presented to the Court, not the evidence itself, and it may well be the case that much if not all of the hearsay proffered by the goverrunent will be admitted into the record once the government has (to the extent possible) shored up its evidentiary submissions in the manner required by the Court." For now, at least, the Court expects that the government, having been placed on notice of the rulings delineated above and in the Court's earlier rulings, appreciates what it needs to do to supplement its evidentiary submissions and will do so (if it can) in an expedited manner. The Court will therefore direct the government to supplement its evidentiary submissions within thirty days of the entry of the order accompanying this memorandum opinion, with any response from the petitioner to follow within fourteen days thereafter. In light of these new deadlines, the Court will reschedule the status hearing currently scheduled for October 27, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. to another date and time to be determined in consultation with counsel for the parties. Finally, while the Court has regularly granted requests for extensions of time by the government in response to its preliminary evidentiary rulings because the requested extensions have to this point been of a reasonable duration and the rulings made by this member of the Court differ in some respects from other members of the Court, the window of time in which the government could credibly claim to be surprised by the outcome of these evidentiary disputes has now closed. The Court therefore expects that the government will abide by its rulings from this point forward with respect to all of the active habeas petitions from Guantanamo Bay pending before this member of the Court, and will look with disfavor upon any requests by the government for extensions of time with respect to those habeas petitions that have not yet reached the evidentiary phase of the proceedings. The path to resolving these cases chosen by this member of the Court has been a comparatively slower one, but the Court intends now to proceed with all deliberate speed with respect to resolving all of the cases pending before it from this point forward. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-17   23:04:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: war, A K A Stone (#76) 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. 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. Frankly, I believe the Obama administration made a public announcement of the fact that it abandoned the impossible term "enemy combatant." I provided it and do not care what you believe. It is legally impossible to support the "enemy combatant" crap. Extra-judicial homicide does not provide support for your contention. Gherebi v. Obama, DCDC 04-1164, Opinion at 36-38, At least for those petitioners detained due to their associations with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, there is little question that such individuals fail to satisfy these requirements. While the term “armed forces” is defined broadly in the Third Geneva Convention, “the non-recognized government or authority” sponsoring the putative “armed forces” in question “must represent, or must claim to represent, a subject of international law recognized as such by the other Party to the conflict,” ICRC Additional Protocols Commentary, supra, at 508, and must be “indissolubly bound” by the rules that govern international warfare, id. at 513. “Anyone who participates directly in hostilities without being subordinate to an organized movement” that “enforc[es] compliance with these rules[] is a civilian.” Id. at 514. Thus, under the combatant/civilian distinction formerly drawn by the government, the petitioners would appear to fall under the rubric of “civilians.” See Additional Protocol I, art. 50.1 (defining the term “civilian” to mean “any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4(A) (1), (2), (3), and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of [Additional Protocol I]”). And as civilians, the petitioners would not be subject to military force “unless and for such time as they [took] a direct part in hostilities.” Id., art. 51.1, 51.3. In its most restrictive interpretation, this standard would require “a direct causal relationship between the activity engaged in and the harm done to the enemy at the time and the place where the activity [took] place.” ICRC Additional Protocols Commentary, supra, at 516. But the government no longer seeks to detain the petitioners on the theory that they are “enemy combatants,” and neither Common Article 3, Additional Protocol II, nor the respective commentaries on these treaties by the International Committee of the Red Cross make any reference whatsoever to the term “combatant.” “The reason for the absence of combatant status in non-international armed conflicts is obvious: states are not prepared to grant their own citizens, and even less others who might engage in fighting on behalf of a non-state group, the right to do so.” But then, there are those, such as war, who apparently do want to grant to Al Qaeda members engaged in fighting on behalf of that non-state group, the right to do so, and to grant to them the status of "enemy combatant." nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-17   23:06:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: nolu chan (#77) Irregular forces are explicitly covered by Common Article 3 Irregular forces is not applied to aQ. "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 Godwinson  posted on  2011-10-17   23:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: nolu chan (#79) The term "enemy combatant" is dead with regards to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. Good for them, sugar pants. Al-Awlki was not in custody. Tap your ruby slippers together as many times as necessary until you get that. [RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD] war  posted on  2011-10-18   8:16:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: war (#82) Al-Awlki was not in custody. Good point. Thunderbird  posted on  2011-10-18   9:18:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: Thunderbird (#83) A point that I have made from the onset, btw. Nolo knows he lost on this point 2-3 posts in. I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one... war  posted on  2011-10-18   9:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: war, godwinson, A K A Stone (#82) [godwinson #81] Irregular forces is not applied to aQ. [war #82] Al-Awlki was not in custody. The fact that Aulaqi was not in custody is irrelevant to determining his status as an alleged "enemy combatant." Combatant status determination is not based on any time after capture. After capture they are detainees or prisoners. Combatant status is based on their status while on the field of combat as a member of the armed forces of a high contracting party. The Law of Armed Conflict, Gard D. Solis, U.S. Military Academy, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 212: "Next, answer the second question relevant to any armed conflict: What is the individual status of Taliban fighters after the new Afghan government was established and common Article 3 became applicable? Recall that there are no combatants, lawful or otherwise, in a common Article 3 conflict. … In a common Article 3 non-international armed conflict, Taliban fighters are terrorists, in violation of domestic law." Id. at 216: "What of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and elsewhere? What is their individual status? Was it, is it, different than that of the Taliban? No, it is not. … Terrorist armed opposition groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban are modern-day armed opposition groups without a state." Opposition forces without a state do not have any regular armed forces. Gherebi v Obama, DCDC 04-1164, (2009), Memorandum OPINION, Footnote 8 on page 25, [8] In Hamdan, the Supreme Court held that the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda is at least a non-international armed conflict subject to Common Article 3 … The Court is therefore constrained by the precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit to treat the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda as a non-international armed conflict for purposes of the Geneva Conventions. As for the purported evidence the government supplied to the Courts when they had to defend their previous assertions of detainees being the worst of the worst, the government's inadmissible unreliable claptrap met with judicial reality. Bostan v. Obama, DC Cir 05-883, Opinion of 8/19/2009 at 5-6, Second, the undue burden prong of Judge Hogan’s standard relates to the burden imposed on the government, not on its counsel. While the Court is sympathetic to the considerable demands placed on the Department of Justice by the litigation in the numerous Guantánamo Bay detainee cases, the demands imposed upon the government’s attorneys by requiring close adherence to the traditional rules of evidence does not warrant the jettisoning of those rules. Thus, it is no excuse for the government’s lawyers to assert that there are too many habeas corpus petitions pending before the Court or too few resources allocated to the Department of Justice to compel fidelity to the centuries-old proscription against the use of hearsay where that hearsay does not meet any of the numerous exceptions to that prohibition already recognized in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Just as “the costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Boumediene, ___ U.S. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 2275, so, too, the costs of this litigation, including the costs associated with providing sufficient manpower to properly litigate these cases, must be borne by the government, not fobbed off on the petitioners in the form of a blanket presumption of admissibility of otherwise inadmissible hearsay. Third, it bears repeating that the government must “establish[]” that the use of non-hearsay evidence would constitute an undue burden for the proffered hearsay to be admissible—mere allegations or representations to that effect will not suffice. Consequently, representations by the government’s counsel or conclusory assertions from government officials that the use of a non-hearsay alternative to proffered hearsay evidence would be unduly burdensome will not satisfy the undue burden standard. Instead, the government will need to demonstrate why the use of non-hearsay alternatives would be unduly burdensome to the government, and it must do so through the use of statements made under oath by persons with personal knowledge of the matter about which their representations relate. Fourth, and most important, the undue burden standard set forth in Judge Hogan’s case management order does not mean, as the government seems to believe, that hearsay proffered by the government must be admitted into evidence because that is all the evidence that the government has available to it. See Gov’t’s Mem. at 6 (“There can be no doubt that refusing to consider hearsay would impose an undue burden and harm national security. Indeed, a contrary ruling would mean this habeas case cannot properly proceed[] because nearly all of the evidence is necessarily hearsay.”). Contrary to the government’s fulminations, this case, and all of the other active habeas corpus petitions pending before this member of the Court, will “properly proceed” whether the government’s evidence is found to be admissible or not. Of course, the result of this process might not be to the government’s liking, but that is no reason to totally abandon well-established, otherwise-applicable rules of evidence. The very notion that the Court should lower its standards of admissibility to whatever level the government is prepared (or even able) to satisfy is contradictory to the fundamental principles of fairness that inform the Great Writ’s existence. See Boumediene, ___ U.S. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 2247 (explaining that the purpose of the Constitution’s Suspension Clause “ensures that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ [of habeas corpus], to maintain the delicate balance of governance. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-19   14:25:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: war, A K A Stone (#84) Nolo knows he lost on this point 2-3 posts in. yukonesque chants of victory are always amusing. In the Mad Dog realm of things, you are Gidget. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-19   14:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: nolu chan, war, A K A Stone (#85) The fact that Aulaqi was not in custody is irrelevant to determining his status as an alleged "enemy combatant." Combatant status determination is not based on any time after capture. After capture they are detainees or prisoners. Combatant status is based on their status while on the field of combat as a member of the armed forces of a high contracting party. That is like saying the Mafia or pirates or the Bloods and Crips are field combatants because they have a uniform and a code and a structural command and thus covered under Geneva. All people have rights that are covered under the Article VII of the Helsinki Accords but I can't see Geneva applying to aQ. "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 Godwinson  posted on  2011-10-19   14:41:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: Godwinson, A K A Stone (#87) [81] Irregular forces is not applied to aQ. [87] All people have rights that are covered under the Article VII of the Helsinki Accords but I can't see Geneva applying to aQ. The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, by Yoram Dinstein, war's favorite Israeli legal authority, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, reprinted 2011, page 56, Al Qaeda forces constitute irregular forces. In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, USDC DCDC 08-442 (13 mar 2009) Doc 1689, Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay, by the Department of Justice, at page 4, Under international law, nations lawfully can use military force in an armed conflict against irregular terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, USDC DCDC 08-442 (13 mar 2009) Doc 1690, Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay, by Department of Justice, at page 4, Under international law, nations lawfully can use military force in an armed conflict against irregular terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. Antonio Cassese, Expert Opinion on Targeted Killing (in PCATI v Israel, HCJ) Irregular fighters are those persons who take a direct part in hostilities but do not comply with one or more combatant requirements set forth in art. 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. They are generally referred to as 'guerrilla fighters', as they often mix with the civilian population and adopt hit-and-run tactics. Because of their failure to qualify as combatants, irregular fighters are liable to attack for the duration of their participation in combat. Most importantly, when they lay down arms they may be arrested and tried for the acts committed. Hamdan, U.S. Supreme Court 05-184, Opinion at 6: On November 8, 2004, however, the District Court granted Hamdan.s petition for habeas corpus and stayed the commission.s proceedings. It concluded that the President.s authority to establish military commissions extends only to .offenders or offenses triable by military [commission] under the law of war,. 344 F. Supp. 2d, at 158; that the law of war includes the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, T. I. A. S. No. 3364 (Third Geneva Convention); that Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until adjudged, in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war, the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ 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. 344 F. Supp. 2d, at 158.172. The Bush nonsense that it was an armed conflict of an international character was squashed. The goofy notion, still pimped by some, that no laws of war or international apply to the conflict or the detainees was also squashed. Hamdan, U.S. Supreme Court 05-184, Opinion at 69-70, Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). While the term "regularly constituted court" is not specifically defined in either Common Article 3 or its accompanying commentary, other sources disclose its core meaning. The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines " 'regularly constituted' " tribunals to include "ordinary military courts" and "definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals." GCIV Commentary 340 (defining the term "properly constituted" in Article 66, which the commentary treats as identical to "regularly constituted"); [64] see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 44 (Rutledge, J., dissenting) (describing military commission as a court "specially constituted for a particular trial"). And one of the Red Cross' own treatises defines "regularly constituted court" as used in Common Article 3 to mean "established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country." Int.l Comm. of Red Cross, 1 Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005); see also GCIV Commentary 340 (observing that "ordinary military courts" will "be set up in accordance with the recognized principles governing the administration of justice"). The Government offers only a cursory defense of Hamdan's military commission in light of Common Article 3. See Brief for Respondents 49-50. As JUSTICE KENNEDY explains, that defense fails because "[t]he regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes." Post, at 8 (opinion concurring in part). At a minimum, a military commission "can be 'regularly constituted' by the standards of our military justice system only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice." Post, at 10. As we have explained, see Part VI.C, supra, no such need has been demonstrated here. []65] ____________________ [64] The commentary's assumption that the terms "properly constituted" and "regularly constituted" are interchangeable is beyond reproach; the French version of Article 66, which is equally authoritative, uses the term "régulièrement constitués" in place of "properly constituted." [65] Further evidence of this tribunal's irregular constitution is the fact that its rules and procedures are subject to change midtrial, at the whim of the Executive. See Commission Order No. 1, §11 (providing that the Secretary of Defense may change the governing rules "from time to time"). nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-19   21:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Godwinson, A K A Stone (#87) Combatant status is based on their status while on the field of combat as a member of the armed forces of a high contracting party. That is like saying the Mafia or pirates or the Bloods and Crips are field combatants because they have a uniform and a code and a structural command and thus covered under Geneva. Where did you ever see Mafia or pirates or Bloods and Crips on the field of battle as members of the uniformed services of a High Contracting Party? nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-19   21:31:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: stupid fat old wannabe lubber WOG FRAUD no nolu chan, A K A Stone (#86) yukonesque chants of victory are always amusing. In the Mad Dog realm of things, you are Gidget. LOL! In a world of MEN, you are a foul lying dick less little wannabe lubber WOG BITCH. I feel YOUR pain you wannabe WOG bitch. I would never expect YOU to act as if you actually had BALLS. That would make absolutely no sense at all. You miserable little wannabe lubber WOG bitch. Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms. Mad Dog  posted on  2011-10-19   21:46:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Mad Dog, A K A Stone (#90) In a world of MEN, you are a foul lying dick less little wannabe lubber WOG BITCH. The shameless lunatic phony veteran who was busted for phony war stories decides to show his face again. Mad Dog claims his weapons systems on a destroyer brought down three (3) migs and he has three Combat Action ribbons. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=169733&Disp=461#C461 #461. To: vrmc 0915, sneakypete, seen2much, Travis McGee, ALL (#450) [...] I AM A US NAVY VIETNAM vet, I hold three Combat actions two meritorious unit commendations and the rest of the gee dunks which mean s**t to me. My weapons systems splashed three (3) migs, 2 ob Parsons and one ob Horne. I don't owe you or any f**king body an explaination or excuse regarding my VIETNAM service. REALITY CHECK: http://www.usshorne.net/history.htm USS Horne CG-30/DLG-30 History Vietnam On her four Vietnam deployments, Horne served on "Yankee Station" in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam Conflict. Horne distinguished herself many times during these war zone deployments. In both 1968, during Horne's first deployment, and 1970 air controllers in Horne directed American fighter planes in action which resulted in the downing of two North Vietnamese MIG21 Interceptors. Also during Horne's first deployment, Horne's embarked SH2 helicopter conducted a dramatic night rescue of a downed U.S. Navy Pilot from a North Vietnamese beach, saving the pilot from capture. http://www.usshorne.net/awards.htm USS Horne CG-30/DLG-30 Awards Combat Action Ribbon (2) 17 JAN 1991 - 28 FEB 1991 OPNAV NOTICE 1650 of 18 Sept 2002 - MASTER LIST of Unit Awards and Campaign Medals USS Horne at pp. 208-209. USS Horne earned two (2) Combat Action Ribbons, both as a cruiser designated CG-30, on 17 Jan 1991 and 28 Feb 1991. USS Parsons at p. 339. USS Parsons earned Combat Action Ribbons for 23 Apr 1972 and 05 Dec 1972. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-20   3:49:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: nolu chan (#89) Where did you ever see Mafia or pirates or Bloods and Crips on the field of battle as members of the uniformed services of a High Contracting Party? Why do you assume aQ is "composed of members of the uniformed services of a High Contracting Party"? "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 Godwinson  posted on  2011-10-20   9:23:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: fat old senile slimy wannabe lubber WOG lying FRAUD bitch nolu chan (#91) LOL! You are certainly the cut n paste QUEEN aren't you bitch? LOL! Repeatedly quoting me being WRONG about the CARS, just proves what I have already admitted, you foul no ball little dick less wannabe lubber WOG bitch; to wit; I enlisted in the US NAVY in November 1967, I got OUT january of 1974. That's 44 and 37 YEARS AGO. I mis-spoke and I did it on software that had no EDIT function. LMAO! Also you miserable dickless little slimey bitch, I was busy defending the US NAVY from miserable dickless little slimy bitches just like you, when I did it. LOL! You haven't proven a F ing thing about me, EXCEPT that my weapons systems (GMFCS-76), MY radar (AN/SPS-48u), MY division (FOX/4th,), MY department (DECK/Weapons), MY ships (DLG-30 USS HORNE/DDG-33 USS PARSONS), having PART of THREE MIGS you simpering cunt. LOL! In fact you dickless BITCH, you have proven that I/we ob HORNE have at least part of ONE MIG for sure. LOL! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! LOL! You feel free to lie about my service, yet you don't even have the balls to backup your CLAIMS to being a USN lifer??????? YOU PROVE HERE AGAIN WOG THAT YOU are nothing but a COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, gibbering dickless bitch wannabe lubber WOG. LMAOAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms. Mad Dog  posted on  2011-10-20   15:50:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: fat stupid lying hypocritical foul parsite wannabe lubber WOG nolu chan (#91) WOG; Wow, I am impressed. I only did twenty years active duty, you miserable stolen valor pissant. nolu chan,USN (Ret.) I can't think of anything that could possibly be more impressive than your talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, about your alleged DD-214. nolu chan posted on 2011-09-26 0:04:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply LOL! HYPOCRITE! LOL! LIAR! LOL! wannabe LUBBER WOG! WOG YOUR "alleged" Fleet reserve status and 20 years in service HAS no "PROOF". JUST your say so you cut n paste bitch. But we are all supposed to just believe you BITCH? Right BITCH? I mean YOUR words are different eh HYPOCRITE? Eh FOOL? Eh WOG? LMAO! LOL! What a simpering, gibbering, no dick wannabe lubber WOG HYPOCRITE and COWARD YOU are bitch. I mean, YOU wouldn't be LYING about YOU being a US NAVY lifer would you BITCH? And IF you are NOT, why do you side with those who attack the fleet and the rest of the NAV and OUR role in the Vietnam WAR, you foul gibbering HYPOCRITICAL bitch? WOG bitch. PROVE your CLAIM of being USN ret. you foul WOG bitch What are you afraid of you simpering dick breathed WOG bitch? You do remember your enlistment don't you simpering WOG bitch? You do remember what your rate was, what your NEC was, don't you slimy WOG bitch? You remember what your "rank" was don't you hypocritical WOG bitch? (See the quote marks WOG bitch?) You remember where and when you went to your RATE'S schools don't you shit for brains WOG bitch? You surely remember what SHIPS you served on and when don't you you dick sucking WOG bitch ? You definitely would remember your shore duty don't you you STD infected WOG bitch? You DO remember what RE-ENLISTMENT code that your final discharge was don't you you degenerate parasitic WOG bitch? You do know the difference between a HONORABLE DISCHARGE and a FLEET RESERVE don't you you foul LYING WOG bitch? I also must note that you feel free to attack me as an individual WHILE I was busy defending the US NAVY from dickless WOG bitches just like YOU YOU dickless WOG bitch. LOL! YOU sure turned out to be one F' ed up loser of a USN lifer, IF YOU really are a USN lifer you WOG bitch. (It must be that "love boat NAV" thang eh WOG bitch?) It has NEVER been about me as an individual, it WAS and IS about the entire US NAVY, at least until these WOG bitches TRIED to make it about me, you WOG bitch. One thing is for sure, YOU will NEVER be able to PROVE F'all about EITHER of us, or sh!t all about our service over the web, you gibbering WOG bitch. Only a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT would even try, a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT such as YOU, you simpering WOG bitch. From your behavior here I can assume, with little doubt, that you certainly ARE a dickless little lickspittle toady WOG bitch. l'm am happy beyond words that a pussy like you would have never made it in the 7th fleet of my day you WOG bitch. But YOU are without a doubt a true exemplar of the "love boat NAV", you ball less wannabe lubber WOG bitch. Do I rate a "red card" you HYPOCRITICAL WOG bitch? Do you need a hug you sh!t eating fat old WOG bitch? 2 F ing bad. YOU don't know sh!t all about "CAN DO!" do ya', ya pitiful WOG bitch? YOU don't know sh!t all about being one of "the CREW" do YOU F wad? YOU pitiful, deeply HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, FRAUD WOG bitch piece of sh!t. YOU ARE A MISERABLE, COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNABE LUBBER NO DICK WOG BITCH. You are PITIFUL beyond mere words bitch. Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms. Mad Dog  posted on  2011-10-21   16:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: Mad Dog (#94) STOLEN VALOR The shameless lunatic phony veteran who was busted for phony war stories decides to show his face again. Mad Dog claims his weapons systems on a destroyer brought down three (3) migs and he has three Combat Action ribbons. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=169733&Disp=461#C461 #461. To: vrmc 0915, sneakypete, seen2much, Travis McGee, ALL (#450) [...] I AM A US NAVY VIETNAM vet, I hold three Combat actions two meritorious unit commendations and the rest of the gee dunks which mean s**t to me. My weapons systems splashed three (3) migs, 2 ob Parsons and one ob Horne. I don't owe you or any f**king body an explaination or excuse regarding my VIETNAM service. REALITY CHECK: http://www.usshorne.net/history.htm USS Horne CG-30/DLG-30 History Vietnam On her four Vietnam deployments, Horne served on "Yankee Station" in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam Conflict. Horne distinguished herself many times during these war zone deployments. In both 1968, during Horne's first deployment, and 1970 air controllers in Horne directed American fighter planes in action which resulted in the downing of two North Vietnamese MIG21 Interceptors. Also during Horne's first deployment, Horne's embarked SH2 helicopter conducted a dramatic night rescue of a downed U.S. Navy Pilot from a North Vietnamese beach, saving the pilot from capture. http://www.usshorne.net/awards.htm USS Horne CG-30/DLG-30 Awards Combat Action Ribbon (2) 17 JAN 1991 - 28 FEB 1991 OPNAV NOTICE 1650 of 18 Sept 2002 - MASTER LIST of Unit Awards and Campaign Medals USS Horne at pp. 208-209. USS Horne earned two (2) Combat Action Ribbons, both as a cruiser designated CG-30, on 17 Jan 1991 and 28 Feb 1991. USS Parsons at p. 339. USS Parsons earned Combat Action Ribbons for 23 Apr 1972 and 05 Dec 1972. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-21   19:32:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD nolu chan (#95) Mad Dog; And bitch, I don't have a Fleet Reserve Certificate, I earned a HONORABLE RE-R1 Discharge, (form DD256N (Rev.5-50)); I did ALL of my time active except for my 3 months delayed entry before going to boot WOG. fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD nolu chan; Wow, I am impressed. I only did twenty years active duty, you miserable stolen valor pissant. lying piece of sh!t coward hypocrite wannabe lubber bitch nolu chan, USN (Ret.) I can't think of anything that could possibly be more impressive than your talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, about your alleged DD-214. nolu chan posted on 2011-09-26 0:04:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply LOL! You, wannabe lubber bitch WOG, are the very definition of a COWARDLY HYPOCRITE LIAR. LOL! WOG YOUR "alleged" Fleet reserve status, and your claimed 20 years in service, HAVE NO "PROOF". JUST your "say so", you stoooopid cut n paste bitch. LOL! But we are all supposed to just believe you BITCH? Right BITCH? LOL! I mean YOUR words are "different" eh HYPOCRITE? Eh FOOL? Eh WOG? LMAO! LOL! What a simpering, gibbering, no dick wannabe lubber WOG HYPOCRITE and COWARD YOU are bitch. I mean, YOU wouldn't be LYING about YOU being a US NAVY lifer would you BITCH? And IF you are NOT, why do you side with those who attack the fleet and the rest of the NAV and OUR role in the Vietnam WAR, you foul gibbering HYPOCRITICAL bitch? You wannabe lubber WOG bitch. "PROVE" your CLAIM of being USN ret. you foul simpering HYPOCRITICAL WOG bitch What are you afraid of you simpering dick breathed WOG bitch? You do remember your enlistment don't you simpering WOG bitch? You do remember what your rate was, what your NEC was, don't you slimy WOG bitch? You remember what your "rank" was don't you hypocritical WOG bitch? (See the quote marks WOG bitch?) You remember where and when you went to your RATE'S schools don't you shit for brains WOG bitch? You surely remember what SHIPS you served on and when don't you you dick sucking WOG bitch ? You definitely would remember your shore duty don't you you STD infected WOG bitch? You DO remember what RE-ENLISTMENT code that your final discharge was don't you you degenerate parasitic WOG bitch? You do know the difference between a HONORABLE DISCHARGE and a FLEET RESERVE don't you you foul LYING WOG bitch? I also must note that you feel free to attack me as an individual WHILE I was busy defending the US NAVY from dickless WOG bitches just like YOU YOU dickless WOG bitch. LOL! YOU sure turned out to be one F' ed up loser of a USN lifer, IF YOU really are a USN lifer you WOG bitch. (It must be that "love boat NAV" thang eh WOG bitch?) It has NEVER been about me as an individual, it WAS and IS about the entire US NAVY, at least until these WOG bitches TRIED to make it about me, you WOG bitch. One thing is for sure, YOU will NEVER be able to PROVE F'all about EITHER of us, or sh!t all about our service over the web, you gibbering WOG bitch. Only a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT would even try, a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT such as YOU, you simpering WOG bitch. From your behavior here I can assume, with little doubt, that you certainly ARE a dickless little lickspittle toady WOG bitch. l'm am happy beyond words that a pussy like you would have never made it in the 7th fleet of my day you WOG bitch. But YOU are without a doubt a true exemplar of the "love boat NAV", you ball less wannabe lubber WOG bitch. Do I rate a "red card" you HYPOCRITICAL WOG bitch? Do you need a hug you sh!t eating fat old WOG bitch? 2 F ing bad. YOU don't know sh!t all about "CAN DO!" do ya', ya pitiful WOG bitch? YOU don't know sh!t all about being one of "the CREW" do YOU F wad? YOU pitiful, deeply HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, FRAUD WOG bitch piece of sh!t. YOU ARE A MISERABLE, COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNABE LUBBER NO DICK WOG BITCH. You are PITIFUL beyond mere words bitch. Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms. Mad Dog  posted on  2011-10-21   23:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: nolu chan (#86) (Edited) yukonesque chants of victory are always amusing. In the Mad Dog realm of things, you are Gidget. Oh geezus fuck...please tell me you copied and pasted the above as well...you truly can't be that witless...had you added a (chuckle) at the end it would have RISEN to the level of Boofer... Back to the topic. you have provided absolutely NOTHING that shows that Obama violated any law - statutory or treaty - in ordering the elimination of a command and control element of AL Qaeda. ON the other hand, you have provided TONS of extrinsic material detailing how the US would have had to have acted had Al-Awlki been taken into custody. I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one... war  posted on  2011-10-24   10:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: war (#97) Back to the topic. you have provided absolutely NOTHING that shows that Obama violated any law - statutory or treaty - in ordering the elimination of a command and control element of AL Qaeda. ON the other hand, you have provided TONS of extrinsic material detailing how the US would have had to have acted had Al-Awlki been taken into custody. Just keep telling yourself that. nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-24   22:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: nolu chan (#98) Just keep telling yourself that. Qaeda From a lack of being told anything to the contrary, I will. Every single one of your responses has been what the executive must do once a person is in custody. You've provided not one ounce of authority to support your claims that a) the CIA is disbarred from engaging in non-domestic activity that is of a military, rather than civilian, nature and b) that Obama cannot order a strike on any active member of Al Qaeda outside of the borders of the US. I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one... war  posted on  2011-10-25   8:24:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD bitch nolu chan (#98) to: fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD nolu chan (#95) Mad Dog; And bitch, I don't have a Fleet Reserve Certificate, I earned a HONORABLE RE-R1 Discharge, (form DD256N (Rev.5-50)); I did ALL of my time active except for my 3 months delayed entry before going to boot WOG. fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD nolu chan; Wow, I am impressed. I only did twenty years active duty, you miserable stolen valor pissant. lying piece of sh!t coward hypocrite wannabe lubber bitch nolu chan, USN (Ret.) I can't think of anything that could possibly be more impressive than your talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, about your alleged DD-214. fat old senile wannabe lubber WOG LIAR, COWARD, and FRAUD bitch nolu chan posted on 2011-09-26 0:04:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply YOU pitiful, deeply HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, FRAUD WOG bitch piece of sh!t. YOU ARE A MISERABLE, COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNABE LUBBER NO DICK WOG BITCH. You are PITIFUL beyond mere words bitch. You, wannabe lubber bitch WOG, are the very definition of a COWARDLY HYPOCRITE LIAR. LOL! WOG YOUR "alleged" Fleet reserve status, and your claimed 20 years in service, HAVE NO "PROOF". JUST your "say so", you stoooopid cut n paste bitch. LOL! But we are all supposed to just believe you BITCH? Right BITCH? LOL! I mean YOUR words are "different" eh HYPOCRITE? Eh FOOL? Eh WOG? LMAO! LOL! What a simpering, gibbering, no dick wannabe lubber WOG HYPOCRITE and COWARD YOU are bitch. I mean, YOU wouldn't be LYING about YOU being a US NAVY lifer would you BITCH? And IF you are NOT, why do you side with those who attack the fleet and the rest of the NAV and OUR role in the Vietnam WAR, you foul gibbering HYPOCRITICAL bitch? You wannabe lubber WOG bitch. "PROVE" your CLAIM of being USN ret. you foul simpering HYPOCRITICAL WOG bitch What are you afraid of you simpering dick breathed WOG bitch? You do remember your enlistment don't you simpering WOG bitch? You do remember what your rate was, what your NEC was, don't you slimy WOG bitch? You remember what your "rank" was don't you hypocritical WOG bitch? (See the quote marks WOG bitch?) You remember where and when you went to your RATE'S schools don't you shit for brains WOG bitch? You surely remember what SHIPS you served on and when don't you you dick sucking WOG bitch ? You definitely would remember your shore duty don't you you STD infected WOG bitch? You DO remember what RE-ENLISTMENT code that your final discharge was don't you you degenerate parasitic WOG bitch? You do know the difference between a HONORABLE DISCHARGE and a FLEET RESERVE don't you you foul LYING WOG bitch? I also must note that you feel free to attack me as an individual WHILE I was busy defending the US NAVY from dickless WOG bitches just like YOU YOU dickless WOG bitch. LOL! YOU sure turned out to be one F' ed up loser of a USN lifer, IF YOU really are a USN lifer you WOG bitch. (It must be that "love boat NAV" thang eh WOG bitch?) It has NEVER been about me as an individual, it WAS and IS about the entire US NAVY, at least until these WOG bitches TRIED to make it about me, you WOG bitch. One thing is for sure, YOU will NEVER be able to PROVE F'all about EITHER of us, or sh!t all about our service over the web, you gibbering WOG bitch. Only a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT would even try, a TRUE FOOL/IDIOT such as YOU, you simpering WOG bitch. From your behavior here I can assume, with little doubt, that you certainly ARE a dickless little lickspittle toady WOG bitch. l'm am happy beyond words that a pussy like you would have never made it in the 7th fleet of my day you WOG bitch. But YOU are without a doubt a true exemplar of the "love boat NAV", you ball less wannabe lubber WOG bitch. Do I rate a "red card" you HYPOCRITICAL WOG bitch? Do you need a hug you sh!t eating fat old WOG bitch? 2 F ing bad. YOU don't know sh!t all about "CAN DO!" do ya', ya pitiful WOG bitch? YOU don't know sh!t all about being one of "the CREW" do YOU F wad? YOU pitiful, deeply HYPOCRITICAL, LYING, FRAUD WOG bitch piece of sh!t. YOU ARE A MISERABLE, COWARDLY, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNABE LUBBER NO DICK WOG BITCH. You are PITIFUL beyond mere words bitch. Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms. Mad Dog  posted on  2011-10-25   15:54:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (101 - 107) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com