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: 73355
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Wah Wah...
No. War is to stupid or he can't spin the question. You still don't know the answer. Or you wont admit it because it will affect your ability to spin.
The issue isn't about answering your stupid question about the presumption of innocence that a person is afforded after they have been charged with a crime and the issue goes to adjudication - no one is arrested on a presumption of innocence. The issue is what powers the Commander in Chief has in ordering the killing of a specific enemy combatant.
Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people. The founding fathers would be considered enemy combatants. You really hate the constitution don't you! It wasn't a question.
Why do you spout this bullshit? 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.
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.
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.
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".
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:
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.
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: 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, 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, 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, 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, Parhat v. Gates, DC Cir 06-1397, Opinion at 28-29, Bostan v. Obama, DC Cir 05-883, Opinion of 8/19/2009 at 1112, 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, 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.
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.
Good point.
A point that I have made from the onset, btw. 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.
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.
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.
#99. To: nolu chan (#98)
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.
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
war didn't answer my specious,
spurious and stupid question...
wah wah wah
#3. To: war (#2)
war didn't answer my specious,
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: war (#5)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people.
#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.
#63. To: war (#60)
That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it.
#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.
#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."
#75. To: nolu chan (#71)
You have currently cited the detainees being "enemy combatants,"
#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.
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.
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").
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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)).
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."
#82. To: nolu chan (#79)
The term "enemy combatant" is dead with regards to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.
#83. To: war (#82)
Al-Awlki was not in custody.
#84. To: Thunderbird (#83)
#86. To: war, A K A Stone (#84)
Nolo knows he lost on this point 2-3 posts in.
#97. To: nolu chan (#86)
(Edited)
yukonesque chants of victory are always amusing. In the Mad Dog realm of things, you are Gidget.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 98. Just keep telling yourself that.
#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)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]