Military to Build $100 mi. Courthouse for Guantanamo Trials

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.

are you advocating for the assination of a president?

msolga wrote:

Well I'm glad you like your own answer, LSM. That's the main thing, I guess.

Hey, I'm not asking you to lie at all. I just would have liked some comprehensive, more detailed responses from you ... you know, more than comments about nappies on heads & disembowelled troops. Something a bit more substantial, I guess ....

I mean, I'd expect you'd have reasons for holding the views that you do. I'm genuinely interested in hearing about them. In much more detail.

But sadly, I must go soon. I have many things to do today, including making an offering for a pre-Christmas get-together tomorrow night.
You know how busy it gets at this time of year, LSM!

If we can't be happy with ourself, who can we be happy with.
No, i know you didn't ask me to lie, I just said that i won't, so, again....
What again was it that you want to know?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

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.

Glad you oppose the death penalty, LSM. I don't know what your reasons are, but good for you.

However, I think this is quite meaningless, because you proclaim yourself to be willing to kill 26,000,000 Iraqis because you think that not all of them want your nation to survive.

That is an interesting and very telling statement. It tells us a lot about you. It tells us that you don't give a damn about a human life. You're willing to kill an entire people because you perceive some of them to be enemies of your country.

You know, we had an episode in the history of our country where people who thought like you actually got into a position of power. The only thing I can say is that I hope, for the sake of the United States and for the sake of the rest of the world, that someone like you will never be in a position where he can do more damage than post on an internet forum and advocate such a mentally deranged policy.

Thought like I do?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

msolga wrote:

Well I'm glad you like your own answer, LSM. That's the main thing, I guess.

Hey, I'm not asking you to lie at all. I just would have liked some comprehensive, more detailed responses from you ... you know, more than comments about nappies on heads & disembowelled troops. Something a bit more substantial, I guess ....

I mean, I'd expect you'd have reasons for holding the views that you do. I'm genuinely interested in hearing about them. In much more detail.

But sadly, I must go soon. I have many things to do today, including making an offering for a pre-Christmas get-together tomorrow night.
You know how busy it gets at this time of year, LSM!

If we can't be happy with ourself, who can we be happy with.
No, i know you didn't ask me to lie, I just said that i won't, so, again....
What again was it that you want to know?

Just a few solid answers to back up your one-liners, your jargon, your prejudices ... Something a more substantial.

But don't worry about it, LSM.

It's not going to happen, I can see. That's simply not you, is it?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

are you advocating for the assination of a president?

don't know about advocating per say, but i'd shed no tears if the creep got popped

.. I have answered your questions, just not the way you would like. Now, if there's nothing else....

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.

So, does that work both ways? If US Coalition soldiers in Iraq were captured, tortured, transported to Iran and detained without trial for several years by Iranian insurgents, would that same justification hold true for them? The coalition doesn't represent any one country either. So would the rules of the Geneva Conventions provide no protection or authority to dictate treatment of coalition soldiers, including US soldiers?

Butrflynet wrote:

So, does that work both ways? If US Coalition soldiers in Iraq were captured, tortured, transported to Iran and detained without trial for several years by Iranian insurgents, would that same justification hold true for them? The coalition doesn't represent any one country either. So would the rules of the Geneva Conventions provide no protection or authority to dictate treatment of coalition soldiers, including US soldiers?

Difference being our troops and the coalation troops where uniforms and do represent countries. The same can't be said about the people we pick up for terrorist activities. They don't claim an army and they don't wear uniforms.

Far and away, the majority of people incarcerated at Guantanamo were picked up in Afghanistan. They could well have been members of the Taliban, and not have been in uniform, but still meet Geneva Convention definitions for national military forces. Many others have alleged that they were just picked up because someone accused them of being members of the Taliban, and it is well known that U.S. authorities offered substantial sums in an impoverished country for anyone denouncing a member of the Taliban. The Geneva Conventions call for anyone picked up on the battlefield to be accorded all the protections of a prisoner of war until such time as their status is determined by a competent tribunal. No such competent tribunal has been convened.

Baldimo's statement presumes that everyone at Guantanamo is a terrorist. How does he know that? Does he claim that he is the competent tribunal?

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.