Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

LoneStarMadam wrote:

old europe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
old europe wrote:
Would that be a problem for you?

I asked you the question, I haven't advocated for the assination of any president. What did you mean?

I know.

You have merely advocated for the assassination of the entire population of Iraq, and of all the detainees of Camp Gitmo.

So far.

Which makes me wonder whether or not you would have a problem with the assassination of a president.

That dog won't hunt. I advocated for the killing, like dogs, of our enemy, you OTOH....tsk, tsk.

Oh. So you know who is guilty and who is not. I see. Who told you?

And when you advocated nuking Iraq, was that assuming that all 26 million Iraqis are your enemies and guilty and deserving death, or was that just because you post without using your brain?

0 Replies

I'm much more interested in your thoughts of having a president assinated than I am of talking about me.

0 Replies

That's news, to me. Anyways, I'm not interested in talking about you, either. Far from it. I'm interested in your opinion about what would be more severe and condemnable:

Assassinating 26 million people somewhere far away, or assassinating the President of the United States.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue. Only if you have any, of course.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I'm much more interested in your thoughts of having a president assinated than I am of talking about me.

WTF? Assinated? Bush does that to himself every time he appears in public. (Makes an ass of himself.)

0 Replies

That was funny, Roxxxanne.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

So, what do you think about spending $100 million to build a courthouse for 60 trials because it will take too long in the smaller courthouse?

Sounds like a delaying tactic to me. By the time this amazing courthouse is completed Bush will be long gone & it'll be someone else's problem.

And the "inmates" will be either dead or insane.

Problem solved! Rolling Eyes

To be locked up in that hell hole for 5 years with no charges laid, while waiting for some courthouse to be built (which will take years!) is outrageous!:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87880&highlight=

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

That's news, to me. Anyways, I'm not interested in talking about you, either. Far from it. I'm interested in your opinion about what would be more severe and condemnable:

Assassinating 26 million people somewhere far away, or assassinating the President of the United States.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue. Only if you have any, of course.

au contraire, it was you that engaged me. Are you afraid to talk about your thoughts on assinating a president? I would understand that, if that's the case, however, either you advocated for the assination or you didn't. Plain & simple.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

old europe wrote:
That's news, to me. Anyways, I'm not interested in talking about you, either. Far from it. I'm interested in your opinion about what would be more severe and condemnable:

Assassinating 26 million people somewhere far away, or assassinating the President of the United States.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue. Only if you have any, of course.

au contraire, it was you that engaged me. Are you afraid to talk about your thoughts on assinating a president? I would understand that, if that's the case, however, either you advocated for the assination or you didn't. Plain & simple.

I don't advocate assassinating a president. Not even an American president. That's because I generally oppose the use of force and violence. I oppose the death penalty, too.

I would argue against assassinating, murdering, killing anybody, even you.

However, whether this somebody was an Iraqi, a Japanese, a Brit or an American, or even the American president doesn't make any difference at all, IMHO.

So if I had the power to save either the life of 26 million Iraqis or the President of the United States and could, under no circumstances, save all, then I would decide in favour of the 26 million Iraqis.

How about you?

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:
So, what do you think about spending $100 million to build a courthouse for 60 trials because it will take too long in the smaller courthouse?

Sounds like a delaying tactic to me. By the time this amazing courthouse is completed Bush will be long gone & it'll be someone else's problem.

And the "inmates" will be either dead or insane.

Problem solved!

To be locked up in that hell hole for 5 years with no charges laid, while waiting for some courthouse to be built (which will take years!) is outrageous!:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87880&highlight=

What puzzles me, msolga, is that we just went through an election period where tax and spend Democrats, and proposed "wasteful" spending projects were some of the issues. Spending that much money on a new courthouse in another country when there are perfectly fine courthouses here seems very wasteful. Some might say there isn't enough room on the dockets for an influx of that many trials. If that is the case, then spend that $100 million building a new courthouse in one of our own cities where it will be of some use to the community afterwards.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
old europe wrote:
That's news, to me. Anyways, I'm not interested in talking about you, either. Far from it. I'm interested in your opinion about what would be more severe and condemnable:

Assassinating 26 million people somewhere far away, or assassinating the President of the United States.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue. Only if you have any, of course.

au contraire, it was you that engaged me. Are you afraid to talk about your thoughts on assinating a president? I would understand that, if that's the case, however, either you advocated for the assination or you didn't. Plain & simple.

I don't advocate assassinating a president. Not even an American president. That's because I generally oppose the use of force and violence. I oppose the death penalty, too.

I would argue against assassinating, murdering, killing anybody, even you.

However, whether this somebody was an Iraqi, a Japanese, a Brit or an American, or even the American president doesn't make any difference at all, IMHO.

So if I had the power to save either the life of 26 million Iraqis or the President of the United States and could, under no circumstances, save all, then I would decide in favour of the 26 million Iraqis.

How about you?

Good, glad you cleared that up.
I too oppose the death penalty, however, in a kill or be killed situation, I am fully in favor of the law of self preservation, & whether you admit that or not, is of no matter, because it is a law of life.
As for your comment of against assinating, murder, killing, even you, that's very kind of you, I'm not sure about your outlook on the US or it's citizens, so i really acn't say if your life matters to me or not.
I would choose to save the life of our president, even that of Clinton, if he were still POTUS, because I don't believe all of those 26,000,000 Iraqis want this nation to survive.

0 Replies

It is a waste, I agree, Butrflynet.

But really, as I said, I'm more concerned about the delays in justice to the incarcerated. No American detainee would be allowed to be treated in this way. Say nothing of UK, Spanish & other citizens.They are all out of there.

And why can't the trials be held in the US, for heaven's sake? That would certainly save the US taxpayers lots of money.

I reckon that 5 years at Guantanamo Bay is more than sufficient punishment for a "crime" that hasn't been properly defined, say nothing of brought to trial.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I would choose to save the life of our president, even that of Clinton, if he were still POTUS, because I don't believe all of those 26,000,000 Iraqis want this nation to survive.

I would say they're much more interested in their own safety & survival, LSM. :wink:
....and frevently wished the US had never invaded their country in the first place!

0 Replies

I don't think anyone should be surprised that this administration doesn't want the Guantanamo prisoners tried on U.S. soil. They don't want to have to deal with the flurry of habeas corpus petitions they'd be facing if they bring those boys into the U.S.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
I would choose to save the life of our president, even that of Clinton, if he were still POTUS, because I don't believe all of those 26,000,000 Iraqis want this nation to survive.

I would say they're much more interested in their own safety & survival, LSM. :wink:
....and frevently wished the US had never invaded their country in the first place!

That could be, however, the media paints a different picture....al sadr, malaki. I think they're strictly interested in being the power & would & do kill their own countrymen to get & keep that power.
As for the invasion, you can't unring a bell. Malaki could order us out anytime he chooses.

0 Replies

It is of further interest that the Senate voted last night (can you hear the lame ducks quacking?) to strip the prisoners at Guantanamo of the right to file habeas corpus petitions. The Geneva Conventions require that people taken on the field of battle are entitled to all of the protections of regular prisoners of war until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. That's not what the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad want to see done, though. So long as these prisoners remain in a legal limbo, they won't have to deal with the fact that they have little to no basis for many, if not most, of the detentions.

0 Replies

What country do the terrorists represent? The GC doesn't say anything about a pip squeek murderer wearing a diaper on his head & using camel dung for salad.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is of further interest that the Senate voted last night (can you hear the lame ducks quacking?) to strip the prisoners at Guantanamo of the right to file habeas corpus petitions. The Geneva Conventions require that people taken on the field of battle are entitled to all of the protections of regular prisoners of war until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. That's not what the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad want to see done, though. So long as these prisoners remain in a legal limbo, they won't have to deal with the fact that they have little to no basis for many, if not most, of the detentions.

Do you think the Dems likely can/will reverse that soon, Set?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So long as these prisoners remain in a legal limbo, they won't have to deal with the fact that they have little to no basis for many, if not most, of the detentions.

Yes, Setanta!

That is precisely what the ongoing delays are about!

It's not about getting an elaborate courthouse built, or whatever the next (& previous) stated reasons for delays might be .... it's about stalling, in the hope of avoiding being answerable! I suspect the US authorities just wish the Guantanamo issue would just go away! It's a time bomb, just ticking away, for them.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What country do the terrorists represent? The GC doesn't say anything about a pip squeek murderer wearing a diaper on his head & using camel dung for salad.

Go read up about it, LSM.
Educate yourself.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
What country do the terrorists represent? The GC doesn't say anything about a pip squeek murderer wearing a diaper on his head & using camel dung for salad.

Go read up about it, LSM.
Educate yourself.

I have, they do not represent any one country & therefore do not come under the rules of war.

0 Replies

Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know