It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
When I went to college I had to wear pink undies during an initiation and that also never hurt me


The same goes for standing nude in front of others, they made me do that also in college during the initiation and it never hurt me one bit. Rumor has it my wife of almost 50 years...


All righty then...

(a little off-topic, your honour, but it goes to credibility)

50 years ago all underwear was white. Therefore, are we to assume you attended college as an adult re-entry student, or that you are a little confused with your time periods, or that you are lying?

I must say that for a septuagenarian you are remarkably deft with your use of the internet...

(bold mine)
edit: quotes


[edit on 9-7-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Yes I do think they have been granted the rights they are entitled too. I would also venture to guess the treatment they are getting from the US is also under far superior conditions then if they were held by Afgans or Iraqis.



What's your point then? That was a question. You are comparing the standards of the GC to the treatment of detainees of other countries? That's another question.

So, you're saying that the GC only applies to the extent that the opposing force uses? Still, a 3rd question.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
What's your point then? That was a question. You are comparing the standards of the GC to the treatment of detainees of other countries? That's another question.


Not really in the form of a question but I will answer it. I was not comparing them simply pointing out the differance between US standards and others.

So, you're saying that the GC only applies to the extent that the opposing force uses? Still, a 3rd question.

No not at all, I think you are trying to trick me into saying what you want and it will not work.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Not really in the form of a question but I will answer it. I was not comparing them simply pointing out the differance between US standards and others.


Which standards are those? The double ones?

You know, where the US State Department annual report criticises China for its continued use of detention without trial?

Or the one where the US demands Aung San Suu Kyi be released from years of house arrest?

Or the one where the US accuses Cuba of holding political prisoners?

Or the one where the US says Belarus routinely violates the human rights of its citizens?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

(a little off-topic, your honour, but it goes to credibility)

50 years ago all underwear was white. Therefore, are we to assume you attended college as an adult re-entry student, or that you are a little confused with your time periods, or that you are lying?


Nope I am not confused that would appear to be you
When in doubt use google kw vintage underwear and you will find links to peach, black white and various other colors for sale right now on eBay never used no less




Vintage Tap Pants Peach and black

Well there goes your creditability since it was clear you did not know what you were talking about.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Not really in the form of a question but I will answer it. I was not comparing them simply pointing out the differance between US standards and others.


No, 3 questions. Yes you were comparing them, see your evasion here:



Originally posted by intrepid So, you're saying that the GC only applies to the extent that the opposing force uses? Still, a 3rd question.


No not at all, I think you are trying to trick me into saying what you want and it will not work.


No, I'm trying to get the truth out there and YOU are afraid of showing the truth.

Thanks for playing, the readers will see ALL.

OR, show me the truth then. The ball's in your court.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No, I'm trying to get the truth out there and YOU are afraid of showing the truth.


OR, show me the truth then. The ball's in your court.


Be happy to when you put a question to me in the form of a question. You do know how to do that don't you? no offense meant here, but the way you sturcture your questions leaves a lot to be desired. I will be more then happy to answer with true answers if and when you put a question to me directly in the form of a well structured question. And no I was not avoiding anything



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

(a little off-topic, your honour, but it goes to credibility)

50 years ago all underwear was white. Therefore, are we to assume you attended college as an adult re-entry student, or that you are a little confused with your time periods, or that you are lying?


Nope I am not confused that would appear to be you
When in doubt use google kw vintage underwear and you will find links to peach, black white and various other colors for sale right now on eBay never used no less




Vintage Tap Pants Peach and black

Well there goes your creditability since it was clear you did not know what you were talking about.


So, when did you attend college?

When you were twenty? And lived in that sorority and met your wife of nearly 50 years?

Which would make you nearly 70 now, by any rough estimate.

Or did you mean that your wife is nearly 50 years old?

Rather quick of you to have Google's handy guide to old underwear there.

When in doubt, obfuscate and insult. How about addressing the other concerns there...

Just to place it in context, I attended uni a decade ago.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Which would make you nearly 70 now, by any rough estimate.


Bingo give the kid a cigar. Now can you kindly stick to the topic at hand

Thank you



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Be happy to when you put a question to me in the form of a question. You do know how to do that don't you? no offense meant here, but the way you sturcture your questions leaves a lot to be desired. I will be more then happy to answer with true answers if and when you put a question to me directly in the form of a well structured question. And no I was not avoiding anything


I've come across this with both neo cons and ultra libs, you both play this game of, "I don't know what you're asking of me". Your incredible powers of disimination go to pot when asked to face the issues. I'm not sweating it though, the thinking individual is out there and they are seeing this.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
So you were around to witness the interning of thousands of Japanese Americans, despite the fact it was later proven there was no sophisticated Japanese intelligence ring working in the US? Even as the US fought the Nazis and all they stood for, which included detention without trial in concentration camps and torture of "enemies of the state".

You were around to witness McCarthy's attacks on "reds" and "commies", and presumably also witnessed his downfall after it was revealed he had no evidence.

You were around to witness "Bombingham" and all that went with it.

You were around to witness the US get dragged into the Vietnam War as a direct result of the "Tonkin Incident".

And despite all this, you have no problem with current US policy.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I've come across this with both neo cons and ultra libs, you both play this game of, "I don't know what you're asking of me". Your incredible powers of disimination go to pot when asked to face the issues. I'm not sweating it though, the thinking individual is out there and they are seeing this.

Thanks for playing.


I am not playing any game I have tried to give you honest answers, but I will chalk that one up in the win column since you gave up


[edit on 7/9/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


I am not playing any game I have tried to give you honest answers, but I will chalk that one up in the win column since you gave up


[edit on 7/9/2006 by shots]




Sorry for the 1 liner but it says it all.

You ready to go Head 2 Head?

Personally, I can't wait.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Sorry for the 1 liner but it says it all.

You ready to go Head 2 Head?

Personally, I can't wait.


Nah Subz already sent me a u2 regarding a debate and I am not interested in any fancy titles or awards. But thanks for asking.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Which standards are those? The double ones?

You know, where the US State Department annual report criticises China for its continued use of detention without trial?

Or the one where the US demands Aung San Suu Kyi be released from years of house arrest?

Or the one where the US accuses Cuba of holding political prisoners?

Or the one where the US says Belarus routinely violates the human rights of its citizens?


Those situations are not the same. Too the best of my knowledge they were not captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people. Sad that you cannot see the difference.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Nah Subz already sent me a u2 regarding a debate and I am not interested in any fancy titles or awards. But thanks for asking.

Shall I chalk that up as a win also? By the way, thanks for replying and letting me know you werent interested shots...



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Which standards are those? The double ones?

You know, where the US State Department annual report criticises China for its continued use of detention without trial?

Or the one where the US demands Aung San Suu Kyi be released from years of house arrest?

Or the one where the US accuses Cuba of holding political prisoners?

Or the one where the US says Belarus routinely violates the human rights of its citizens?


Those situations are not the same. Too the best of my knowledge they were not captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people. Sad that you cannot see the difference.


Aha, so every situation must be examined in isolation, not seen as part of a larger pattern in which the US loses all credibility?

As for your other assertion. I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people." If you can.

If you can't, I suggest you pause, however briefly, and ask yourself why. At the same time I suggest you cease using such a line of argument.

Once you've done that I suggest you examine what other instances of baseless hyperbole you've indulged in and examine them.

As for situations not being the same, unlawful detention without charge is unlawful detention without charge. I'm still waiting for the legal basis of the US' continued detention of Afghanis. How long has Hamid Karzai been president now? How long did it take us to repatriate the German, Italian and Japanese prisoners of war after the signing of the unconditional surrenders and the creation of an occupation force?

Why is the US so afraid of the ICC at the Hague, an institution whose sole purpose is to prosecute offenders under the Geneva Convention?

(bold mine)



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As for your other assertion. I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people."


I would assume most of them, to be honest I am not sure, but I am also sure that some were picked up after being turned in as collaborators by others and then detained as were many during wwI and wwII. Now since you seem to have all the facts, why don't you tell us how many it was? And please be exact. Names addresses and telephone numbers would also help




[edit on 7/10/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As for your other assertion. I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people."


Now since you seem to have all the facts, why don't you tell us how many it was? And please be exact. Names addresses and telephone numbers would also help


You made the claim, you back it up.

And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.

I'm tempted to use little bouncing smiley faces, but, actually, I don't find this very funny.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You made the claim, you back it up.



Show me where I have made any claims that contained any numbers? You can't do it oh wise one! The only claim I have made is that they were detained as enemy combatents nothing more.




And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.


As for how many were held during WWII it numbers in the thousands. Don't believe me look it up.

Source





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join