Once again I am typing slowly so you can understand. In many cases these terrorist have had access to the press once released. They tried to say they were tortured and video documentation was provided to prove it did not happen. None of the people who lied to the press made any statements that they were not allowed to communicate with family members. So they could have lied but did not in this case. If you bothered to read the right wing conservative New York Times you would have known this because it was widely reported. Also the AP news service wrote about it and retracted a lot of statements proven wrong.



Easily done! Once captured on the field of battle each person is searched and a tag is placed upon their person. The tag lists the date, time, and location of capture as well as the circumstances of the capture. A copy of this is given to the Red Cross and Red Crescent for family notification. Without this tag we can not legally transport anyone outside of the country of capture. It is against the Geneva Conventions. Records of the capture are also kept with the host country, and in our own records. As this person is sent up the chain of command they are interviewed several times to ascertain their status. Once the person is found out to be an illegal combatant then and only then can the person be taken out of the theater of operations i.e. sent to Gitmo.

To kidnap someone for any reason would mean the private who captured him would have to falsify the document, this is punishable by 20 years hard labor. The interviewer would have to falsify his documentation as well, also 20 years in prison. The second and third interviewer would also have to do the same thing. Just to allow you the drug induced fantasy of people being snatched off the streets for some sick pleasure. Sure they can pick people up off the streets for laughs but they can’t transport them outside the theater of operations without opening themselves up for major jail time. It is against international law to do so. Any country caught doing it will have to face the penalties set out in the Geneva Conventions. Now are you suggesting that four international bodies have turned a blind eye to the breaking of international law and not take the chance to rub our noses in it?

It was put to us this way in our yearly classes on combat law. “If you fudge a convention document in any way, they will put you so far under the jail they will have to mail you fresh air and sunlight.” I have been out of active service 20 years now and I still remember those classes. The conventions are posted where everyone can see them as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These are two things there is no leeway on.



The International Red Cross, would have to turn a blind eye to this as they interview our prisoners.

The international Red Crescent, the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross would have to turn a blind eye to Muslim brothers being illegally transported out of the country by non believers.

The Geneva Convention would also have to turn a blind eye to this.

The opposition party of our own government would have to turn a blind eye to this giving up the chance to impeach the president if he approved such a thing.

The liberal press would have to turn a blind eye to this as well giving up a chance to have Vice president Gore win the election.

Did any of that happen?

Look at how bad it was when a few rogue enlisted people in the local prison got stupid. They tried to pin it on the secretary of defense and the president. So a juicy chance like that would be hard to pass up if it were true.

PROVEN!

F

So you SAY, SO you cannot prove.



Oh just for giggles what form of brain damage must you have to believe that video documention proves it didn't happen?

If I videotape you and then shoot you after the tape is stopped does the video prove you were not shot?

Except Bush denies the Geneva convention applies.

Bush's junta has gone to court and argued that the constitutional protections exist at the whims of the president and that his decision to remove your constitutional rights is unreviewable.

And you have proof of this? Produce it.

Actually it is in the Geneva Conventions, have you ever read them or do you just say stupid things and hope no one catches you on them?



I guess the international conventions are brain dead because they investigated it as well as our own press and found the charges baseless. You see, it is easy to make false claims as you routinely do but when you have several organizations most of which want to hurt the US they would be happy to use the information if they could but would lose all credibility as you have.



Good analogy and it might work if the person was dead, but the people are alive and made their claims and it was investigated by congress, the press, and the Red Cross. All have said the people lied as you do on a regular basis.



How brain dead are you? Have you read the Geneva Conventions? I have told you more than once that they don’t apply to the illegal combatants picked up on the field of battle. It does not include terrorist. That is a fact and is easy to read, even you can read it if you try real hard, don’t worry no one will laugh if your lips move as you sound out the big words.



This is a lie, or at the very least a distortion of what he said. Terrorist caught outside of the US are not protected by our constitution, and international law does not encourage terrorism, also known as spying and sabotage also not covered by international law. This is why spies can be shot on sight and have no rights, terrorist fall under the same international laws. Try reading the laws before you make claims you can’t back up.



Doc, he can't prove it which is why he is dismissing what I wrote. If he accepted the truth it would mean that he was wrong and he can't do that.

Just because she cant accept her ignornance, does not make it any less of the truth. It matters not whether she accepts it or not. But denying it just makes her look like a moron.

First off your republican overlords are completely impressed by your lack of independent thought. But I ask you some simple questions

If there is all this undeniable evidence "proving" their guilt even though nobody has seen this evidence...

a) why is it not even a single trial has occurred, let alone a conviction?

why is it they are willing to allow heresay and coerced testimony to be used?

c) Why are they terrified of the evidence being evaluated.

Face facts the Republicans are telling you what they want to be true, you are buttoning up your brownshirt and snapping to a salute.

That is simple, Congress had put a stop to all tribunals before they could begin with legal challenges. They want the terrorist tried in civilian courts in the United States, instead of by tribunal as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. Until that is resolved no trials can begin, because if a person is found guilty in a civilian court they can’t be tried again in a military tribunal. As I said you should read them.



This is a falsehood, but you know this already. You have said before that no one has seen the evidence so how do you know hearsay is being used? I don’t mind you challenging the Government point of view because it is your right and it helps keep the government honest. Until you have seen the evidence you can not say with anything more that speculation what is and what is not being used as evidence.



I don’t know that the government is terrified of being evaluated, what I do think is that once the trials begin that evidence is going to be shared with our enemy. Not a wise thing to do in a time of war. Examples of this are when the Times reported that we were tracing bin Laden on his cell phone. Sure we were only 24 hours behind him at the time. Then we lost him because he stopped using the cell phone. We picked up his satellite phone and began to trace him again. This time we were only 48 hours behind him when the Times reported how we were tracing him down. He stopped using his sat phone and went on the internet. We started tracking him through that and the times again reported what we were doing. Now he only uses runners to pass his messages.

With that said you want us to start trials now? If the same holds true then our operatives, agents, and case officers will be at risk. How can you justify doing this when the Conventions that we are now forced to use because the Supreme Court has decreed that we must use them on the terrorist? The conventions state that we don’t have to try them until wars end. Why do you have a problem with this since it is what you want, a public trial.

A complete and utter lie. The courts put a stop to the Bush kangaroo courts when the litigants rightfully pointed out that under the Bush system of "fair" justice a defendant had about as many rights and about as much of a chance as a crippled jew in 1940's Auschwitz.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gitmo-terror_thujun05,0,519089.story
Gee then why does even the General running the trials say they will be used?



Because the "war on terror" is nothing more than jingoistic bullshit for wannabe brownshirts who are too fucking stupid to comprehend that the are being used for their ignorance and bloodthirst by the Bush junta. There will NEVER be an end to terror in the world because the definition of terrorist varies depending on who you ask and when you ask them.

I know the Bush junta would prefer that everyone believe that there is nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charge and summarily executing them without due process when WE do it but when others like Saddam Hussein do it then its somehow grounds to start an illegal war over oil. But too fucking bad, despite the best efforts of the traitors in the White House the constitution is still, for the most part, in force and there are still people capable of thinking for themselves.

If your blood pressure can stand it, you should check out this site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/yemen/

"Yemen is a friendly and hospitable Middle Eastern country on the southern rim of the Arabian Peninsula place where U.S. assistance workers and their projects are welcomed."

Also: http://www.yemenembassy.org/issues/ymusrelshp/index.htm

“Yemen is an active partner in combating terror”, said by President Bush, November 9th, 2005. See President Bush and President Ali Abdullah Saleh below.

Washington - Legal proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are set to begin Thursday in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, had been held in a secret CIA prison after his capture in March 2003, before his transfer in September 2006 to the Guantanamo Bay military prison along with the four other men.
All five could face the death penalty if convicted under the military commissions ordered by US President George W Bush for trying suspects in the war on terrorism.
The defendants will be tried together on 169 counts that include conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians and civilian objects, and terrorism. Other charges include causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property and providing material support for terrorism.
The four other defendants are Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the alleged point of contact between the hijackers and al-Qaeda's leadership, Walid bin Attash, believed to have trained some of the hijackers, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Mohammed's nephew and alleged deputy, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.
The five men are being held at a secret location at the US Navy base at Guantanamo, separately from the facility holding lower-level detainees.
Nineteen hijackers commandeered four airliners to strike two towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 2,973 people.

The men are expected to plead guilty to all charges. So I guess we are both wrong since the trial started this past Thursday



Do you have any proof of this?



Nice how you blend then confuse the two acts so it looks real bad, this is called distortion and you do it poorly.

The people held at Gitmo are not Iraqis unless they had been proven to be in violation of the Geneva conventions as I stated in an earlier post. The soldiers in the Iraq war that were captured were released long ago.
The war in Iraq was started by Saddam and that war has been over for years. I can see how you can easily confuse the two since you are in lockstep with the fascist liberal lie machine. Also as pointed out in previous articles you have engaged in the war was continued when Saddam failed to abide by the cease fire agreement. Once he did that any country was free to resume the war. What I am trying to tell you is that war was not over it was only paused, just like the Korean war is paused until the North surrenders.

The next lie you told was that the war was for oil. A lie that has been refuted for years.



A pity you are to one of them

What I mean by this is that the trials started which negates your entire argument, and the fact that the legal challenges are over allowing the trials to finally start, and I failed to notice this was where I was wrong.

Nope its your lord and savior GW Bush.

Proof of this by the standards of someone with a functioning brain or proof of this to the standard of you?

Well, let’s see. You have yet to produce any proof to back up any statement you have been challenged on. Instead you rely on sarcasm, childish insults, ignorance, and the hope that people will agree with your own self-inflated view of yourself. You challenged me to answer your three questions and I did. I challenge you to prove your own beliefs and statements and you don’t even try. Instead you rely on childish insults. Are you capable, are you able to answer an honest question posed to you sans sarcasm and insult? I asked you to prove your wild accusation and all you have done so far is dodge and evade. If you can do it, do it, if not then be quiet because you are fast proving yourself not worthy of doing more than being the court jester that is a little less capable than col Gene.

You cannot try POWs or Enemy combatants in a court of law in your country. That stupid thing called the Geneva Convention? remember it? Do you even know what it says? Doubtful.



Because it is not a criminal trial. Do you understand the difference?



They are not. They are worried about outing covert agents as well as revealing sources of information. If someone told you that your mother was spying on you, would you still confess to her?

Do you think before you post? or just throw silly infantile insults around in your vain attempt to make your non-points?

Why debate that with the clown? They have never provided proof of anything yet. And what things they have provided have been demonstrated to be false or fixed. - In other words - she lied.

and somehow this is new.