Abuse of Iraqi children by British forces

In all of your posts about this GTech, they say the same thing over and over - he still gets a trial and it doesn't say they can keep him locked up for as long as they want without one... I wonder why

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/

 

Wonder why he wasn't charged for the serious crimes the Bush admin used as excuses to lock him up without a trial or rights for 3 years.

Gotta love that Bush Admin

Sounds right to me, the Bush admin has no regard for constitutional rights, his or ours.

 

from the article I posted...

 

No, it doesn't. You assume it does. There is no reference to any time frame. And as pointed out, he has been charged.

I have no doubt al qaida appreciates your support yo-yo. They are always looking out for people to make their operatives victims. You've done a fine job for them

 

The 6th Amendment is the only reference I need

After his constitutional rights were violated, yes.

I'm not support al queda or terrorists, I'm supporting our countries constitution (you know, that paper that has no meaning to you?), thanks for supporting Bush violating civil rights, I'm sure our founding fathers would be proud of you

 

Yawn... Like NASCAR.... Just going in circles...

 

No, you need a number of things, including the laws of war which define an enemy combatant which padilla clearly met, and was held under, and in which (as I've clearly pointed out), the Supreme Court has established a clear precedent.

Enemy combatants do not have constitutional rights. He was held under military law and precedent clearly exists for doing such.

You should check our country's constitution then, and let me know where enemy combatants are afforded the rights and protections of our constitution. Perhaps you are trying to give al qaida something it is not entitled to? Then refer to the Supreme Court ruling I posted earlier. Just because you are willing to give the enemies of our country aid and comfort doesn't mean the law requires it.

It seems some only support our Constitution when trying to find a way to use it to a terrorist's benefit. Other times, they never mention it.

 

And that's pretty worrisome!!

 

Just read on Al jazeera, Al Qaeda is mounting a new round of attacks, saying their prophet Yo-Yo has blessed it and offers his support against victimization by the infidel dogs.




P.S. Sorry Gtech, this discussion was getting too serious, had to break the cycle. Beside, even if we all become convinced how things should be, I think it has little bearing on what will happen in the real world. Peace.

 

Can you show us anywhere in Constitution that offers rights to red heads, women with small breast or midgets? Does this mean people who are red head, midget or female with small breast have no constitutional rights?

Constitution refers to American citizens and as long as the person is an American citizen, that person has rights and those rights are protected by US Constitution independent if you like to accuse them of being red head, midget or enemy combatant.

 

As far as I know, the laws of war do not define a persons hair color, body size or breast size as criteria for enemy combatant. Nor am I aware of any Supreme Court ruling on such.

But as pointed about above, enemy combatants are clearly defined, your bud jose met that definition, and the Supreme Court has ruled on such in the past.

Perhaps they didn't teach you this at collage?

 

I was not talking about the laws of war which by the way you are wrong about that too, I was talking about U.S. Constitution.

If you like to discuss about laws of war, may be you like to look at later amendment to Geneva convention that USA has signed and also look at US law about who has the authority to declare war and the laws regarding the operation of US military on US soil.

 

Are you off your meds again? I thought you got that stuff for free up there.

Like Ron White says... "You can't fix stupid".

 

Just because we don't go around thanking Bush for giving us a house through welfare checks, doesn't mean we are stupid. It only means that we were not living in trailer park before Bush presidency, so we don't have anything to thank him for.

 

^^ This is not nice

 

What the hell are you talking about... What is this childish Bush vs. House crap about? Do not mix drugs and booze man.. Pick one and stick to it.

I had no idea that Bush financed your double wide through welfare. Is this some new Canadian entitlement program that those nasty right wingers slipped into the latest budget?

Don't drink a post Gworld.. Drink and drive instead.

 

Let's all take a moment of silence to support our troops and the great job they've done torturing men and women who have no rights or fair trials.

PS: Escpecially you noppid, take 5 and watch it several times

 

That is clearly just propaganda, It should be clear to anyone that these images are as fake as a three dollar bill. It is just some wise guys pretending to be US and UK soldiers. And those torture images, give me a break, it is just kids doing jackass stunts.

 

Just the same images being re-printed again. Nothing new here. I guess it is more popular to publish this than cartoons...