U.S. soldier to plead case as objector - Page 4

strandinthewind · #46 06-26-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Like I said, we can email him...

Al-Q has never fought along side any army, never openly displayed arms, never wore a uniform, never did the other things set forth above - do you think they qualify under that def. I do not. I cannot understand why people do. Al-Q and other terrorist groups do not fight openly. They fight in secret. Therefore, the GC cannot apply according to the plain meaning of the document

strandinthewind · #47 06-26-2004, 10:21 PM

I could not find where the GC says an independent judge needs to determine the POW status of questionable people. Can you - note: I am not saying this is wrong, just that I cannot find it? Also, the term "enemy combatant" comes from U.S. Sup. Ct. case law not the 1949 GC.

gldstwmn · #48 06-26-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Al-Q has never fought along side any army, never openly displayed arms, never wore a uniform, never did the other things set forth above - do you think they qualify under that def. I do not. I cannot understand why people do. Al-Q and other terrorist groups do not fight openly. They fight in secret. Therefore, the GC cannot apply according to the plain meaning of the document

I don't believe in the so called "Al Qaeda." I believe in terrorists. Not exactly sure who they're really working for though. I do know they seem to be bankrolled by certain sects in Saudi Arabia.

strandinthewind · #49 06-26-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I don't believe in the so called "Al Qaeda." I believe in terrorists. Not exactly sure who they're really working for though. I do know they seem to be bankrolled by certain sects in Saudi Arabia.

NOW your talkin' I think invading SA perhaps would have been better than Iraq. But, what do I know? How about the new Amnesty for terrorists who give themselves up by the end of month and promise not to do it anymore - I mean please.

gldstwmn · #50 06-26-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I could not find where the GC says an independent judge needs to determine the POW status of questionable people. Can you - note: I am not saying this is wrong, just that I cannot find it? Also, the term "enemy combatant" comes from U.S. Sup. Ct. case law not the 1949 GC.

Which post are you referring to? Have you read #45 yet?

gldstwmn · #51 06-26-2004, 10:29 PM

Try here: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Look under Section IV. It's pretty long.

strandinthewind · #52 06-26-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Try here: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Look under Section IV. It's pretty long.

I posted sevtion IV above. It does not mention this?

gldstwmn · #53 06-26-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I could not find where the GC says an independent judge needs to determine the POW status of questionable people. Can you - note: I am not saying this is wrong, just that I cannot find it? Also, the term "enemy combatant" comes from U.S. Sup. Ct. case law not the 1949 GC.

Just so you know, I found that phrase in a lot of those articles I posted. I think it's probably correct.

strandinthewind · #54 06-26-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Just so you know, I found that phrase in a lot of those articles I posted. I think it's probably correct.

I know - I read that. But, you know me, I gotta see it for myself

It makes sense that they would have such a provision. Although, it would not be hard for the US to get some country to say it. So, the argument is a little academic.

Also, the Ct. may have gotten it from the 1929 GC. It was an interesting case dealing with Nazi spies who snuck into the country.

gldstwmn · #55 06-26-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I posted sevtion IV above. It does not mention this?

You posted ARTICLE 4- of what section I do not know. Section IV is pretty lengthy as I'm guessing the rest of it is. but if you want to-go ahead and look at that link I gave you. The Conventions are there in their entirety. It could take a while.

strandinthewind · #56 06-26-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

You posted ARTICLE 4- of what section I do not know. Section IV is pretty lengthy as I'm guessing the rest of it is. but if you want to-go ahead and look at that link I gave you. The Conventions are there in their entirety. It could take a while.

I looked there as well. I could not find it. It very well could say it. Again, it makes sense, although it would be hard to do until a leter date than the capture, etc.

gldstwmn · #57 06-26-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

NOW your talkin' I think invading SA perhaps would have been better than Iraq. But, what do I know?

Well, I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia. I think that the gummint should have investigated it but they can't you see...because I think Bush is complicit in 9/11.

Quote:

How about the new Amnesty for terrorists who give themselves up by the end of month and promise not to do it anymore - I mean please. :shocked

I'm sickened by that. It will do absolutely nothing. I have to wonder why they are doing this-timing and all.

strandinthewind · #58 06-26-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia. I think that the gummint should have investigated it but they can't you see...because I think Bush is complicit in 9/11.

I'm sickened by that. It will do absolutely nothing. I have to wonder why they are doing this-timing and all.

I just cannot believe W was complicit in 9/11 - I have too much faith in the word - I do think he and his idiot staff should have listened to Clinton and his people and worried a whole hell of a lot more about OBL and maybe with a little luck it could have been prevented. So, from that vantage point, W was involved farting around about SH, who had not really been active in years and was already being somewhat closely watched. Yet, according to ALL sources, W was hell bent on SH. Perhaps we will give Iraq to the Saudi's even though they opposed our invasion. It is all so inter-related to me at least.

gldstwmn · #59 06-26-2004, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I just cannot believe W was complicit in 9/11 - I have too much faith in the word - I do think he and his idiot staff should have listened to Clinton and his people and worried a whole hell of a lot more about OBL and maybe with a little luck it could have been prevented. So, from that vantage point, W was involved farting around about SH, who had not really been active in years and was already being somewhat closely watched. Yet, according to ALL sources, W was hell bent on SH. Perhaps we will give Iraq to the Saudi's even though they opposed our invasion. It is all so inter-related to me at least.

His father had breakfast with the Bin Ladens on the morning of 9/11. He now dodges this question by saying he was "on the ground in Milwaukee" (true, he was in a plane grounded at the airport at one point on that day).
If Bush had in fact read the PDB of August 6, 2001 he would have known we were going to be attacked.
Ashcroft didn't even want to hear about terrorism.
Who gave the order to the military fighter jets to stand down? Nope, way too many coincidences for me.
Who had the most to gain from this?
I can understand why people have a hard time believing this. It is a very, very hard thing to swallow. And I respect your opinion. But this is all in the Projoct For A New American Century doctrine written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker (who is defending the Saudi's against the families of 9/11) and company that was written before W was ever selected. I'm not sure he even realized why they chose him as their man. But I think you can see it on his face in the video of Booker Elementary that day.

strandinthewind · #60 06-26-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

His father had breakfast with the Bin Ladens on the morning of 9/11. He now dodges this question by saying he was "on the ground in Milwaukee" (true, he was in a plane grounded at the airport at one point on that day).
If Bush had in fact read the PDB of August 6, 2001 he would have known we were going to be attacked.
Ashcroft didn't even want to hear about terrorism.
Who gave the order to the military fighter jets to stand down? Nope, way too many coincidences for me.
Who had the most to gain from this?
I can understand why people have a hard time believing this. It is a very, very hard thing to swallow. And I respect your opinion. But this is all in the Projoct For A New American Century doctrine written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker (who is defending the Saudi's against the families of 9/11) and company that was written before W was ever selected. I'm not sure he even realized why they chose him as their man. But I think you can see it on his face in the video of Booker Elementary that day.

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11

And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?) - there is no connection between OBL and his family. I mean I can see your set of facts, but they are loose and can be seen in many different ways. As for Wolfowitz - what a jerk

A Ha!!!! NOW I know why you are so hell bent on the video of Booker Elementary that day. I never got that because I think he probably should have gotten up, but am not all in arms about it.