A federal appeals court has upheld the use of military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay resort. Earlier a Clinton-appointed (liberal) Judge had halted the military trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan (we'll just call him Dick Breath for short) was in violation of federal and international law. The federal appeals court - three judges in a unanimous vote - ruled that claim was wrong and the government had the right to try Dick Breath in a military trial. Dick Breath is a bad person - charged with conspiracy (as an al Qaeda member) to commit war crimes, including attacking civilians and civilian targets, murder, destroying property and terrorism.The appeals court ruled that Congress allowed military tribunals when it gave authority to use force after the Sept. 11 attacks and through two laws it enacted. In upholding President George W. Bush's decision to use the panels to try terrorism suspects, the appeals court also said the Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of prisoners in wars between nations, doesn't apply to members of bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. (Bloomberg)
It's about time we get some rational thought processes involved instead of following some socialist agenda and letting these Jihad-o-thugs free. Personally I'd rather these Jihad-O-Thugs be in a prison in Afghanistan instead of the nice air conditioned resort they are in now (and take away their cartoon books!). It's such a joke when these Jihad-o-thugs, hating America and Americans, suddenly cry to use the American justice system like a get-out-of-jail free card. Too bad Dick Breath - looks like your Jihad days are numbered.
BTW - just heard that those involved in the London terrorist attacks have a potential link to the USA - some being educated in biochemistry - during the Clinton years, of course.
17 comments:
we'll just call him Dick Breath for short
You have claimed several times that you are not motivated by hate, just the facts. Since you already KNOW the defendant's name is Salim Ahmed Hamdan (the fact), what other Karl Rove-like explanation do you have for referring to him by a vulgar moniker?
A lure - to see who would focus on the name and not on the evil this person has been responsible for. I find what this worthless scum does and his objections to be vulgar - you don't?
BTW - many people in the world are named "Dick" - so do you really think it is nice of you to refer to their given names as "vulgar"? Also, there is nothing vulgar about "Breath". I do believe that the Tao religion speaks of breath - of breathing - often to relax.
Perhaps you see something vulgar (a Ted Kennedyish mentality) that my innocent mind does not see. Names are not vulgar but some people's actions are.
I find what this worthless scum does and his objections to be vulgar - you don't?
Remember this person is a "suspect". Under US principles, a SUSPECT is innocent until proven guilty!
Perhaps you see something vulgar (a Ted Kennedyish mentality) that my innocent mind does not see.
You MUST have loved Clinton's idiotic argument concerning the definition of the word "is". Your pathetic defense would make both Clinton and Karl Rove proud. It's about as convincing as Trent Lott trying to explain he isn't a racist.
Perhaps you don't watch the news but under the US principles the court has found this murderer and terrorist to be guilty and subject to a military trial. I know you hate when terrorist go free, and your recent comment to a previous post of mine protecting J.E. Duncan - a murderer and child molester - makes me wonder if all Taoists think as you do?
pathetic defense - I still don't know what words or concepts you are trying to accuse me of - but you do seem to be desperately trying.
If you post again on this topic how about enlightening my readers about this Dick Breath - do you support his ideology? Do you support the al Qaeda ideology and their goals?
If you post again on this topic how about enlightening my readers about this Dick Breath - do you support his ideology? Do you support the al Qaeda ideology and their goals?
That's an idiotic question. I've stated before that I'm a pacifist. I don't condone violence by zealot Muslims nor quasi-elected [P]residents.
your recent comment to a previous post of mine protecting J.E. Duncan
Don't know which one you're referring to as you DELETED most of them, particularly the one which stated you & I are in agreement re pedophilia except for the issue of the death penalty. You think he should be fried; I think he should be locked up forever and ever.
To a Taoist Priest: Love your website and blogger profile. Both are SO informative.
Just ignore him everyone - trey is mad at the world. He blames the world for his poor choices in life. He recently posted he is without a job, so maybe he's getting desperate - desperate people say and do desperate things. He purports to be a Taoist yet slams a priest of his own religion. Again, just ignore this sick psychopath.
yet slams a priest of his own religion.
I'm NOT a religious Taoist. Religious Taoism was founded 700 years AFTER philosophical Taoism, the belief system I'm a member of. It's far closer to Secular Humanism than it is to a religion.
BTW, I think you meant a SOCIOPATH, not a psychopath. The uneducated often get these two mixed up.
Pundit,
You raise some great points. Thanks for doing the necessary research on the Geneva Conventions. For others who'd like to read the conventions, you can go here.
Sorry Pundit, but the terrorists are not playing by the rules that you think we should be following. Now if you can get them to play by some set of rules then I suppose we could have a fair game huh?
What rules have terrorists followed/break when they kidnap innocent people then behead them? What rules do terrorists follow/break when they trick little children to come near - then blow up their little bodies?
I find it rather sad the real evil is not addressed by those that find attacking the morals of our country an easier target.
Actually Trey, I think Justadog meant to say "psychopath", not SOCIOPATH as you hoped for. From what I've read from your comments it is obvious who the uneducated one is!
Pundit, what part of they want to kill us don't you understand
Now if you can get them to play by some set of rules then I suppose we could have a fair game huh?
The actions or behaviors of others never gives us permission for our own misconduct. For example, if someone is mad at you, you can CHOOSE to get mad in return OR not to be mad. Just because one side refuses to follow established rules and/or protocols, doesn't mean that this gives us a license to renounce the same rules and/or protocols. If we do, we lose the moral/ethical high ground and we're no better than they are.
What's the point in having laws, treaties or agreements if NO ONE follows them?
Pundit,
That was very well put! I agree that consistency in the application of principles is of paramount importance. I often criticize my own side of the fence (the left side) for NOT understanding this KEY point. Regardless of one's perspective, if you're going to talk the talk, you damn well need to walk the talk too.
Pundit: what you and Trey seem to overlook is that the actions at Gitmo were not government sanctioned. They were the actions of a few rogue soldiers. The Bush administration did not instigate this, nor applaud it when the wrongdoings were revealed. I agree that we cannot sink to the level of the terrorists, but at the same time, do understand that the playing field is not level, and while the rest of us armchair philosophers argy bargy about the niceties of the Geneva Convention, the soldiers actually dealing with this scum might have a slightly different view. Not to say that this should be publicly tolerated...as it was not.
Cat
They were the actions of a few rogue soldiers.
There's a nice paper trail that would indicate otherwise. I actually feel sorry for the soldiers taking the rap. From my perspective, they found themselves in a horrible bind. Not follow orders (explicit or implicit) and face internal disciplinary action OR follow orders and then get labeled a "rogue" soldier.
BTW - just heard that those involved in the London terrorist attacks have a potential link to the USA - some being educated in biochemistry - during the Clinton years, of course.
If a later terroist attack is committed by suspects educated in the U.S. during the Bush years, please be sure to point out and underscore THAT point in a later post!
Post a Comment