Hillary Clinton: How Bergdahl disappeared 'doesn't matter'

[Skylar]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

 

[Redfish]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

I agree, it would have been much better if we had killed those guys rather than capturing them.

but you are totally wrong on your constitutional rant. The US constitution does not apply to them in any way.

 

[kaz]

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

Who are all these people you think you are speaking for?

So when I ask you how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.....

......you've got nothing. So much for your one word answers.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the 'black bakers and the KKK' I am supposedly 'silent' on. What, pray tell, are you referring to? Surely you have a specific example in mind, an actual connection to reality.

Surely you do.

You are one bitchy, nagging wife, aren't you?

 

[Skylar]

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

Who are all these people you think you are speaking for?

So when I ask you how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.....

......you've got nothing. So much for your one word answers.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the 'black bakers and the KKK' I am supposedly 'silent' on. What, pray tell, are you referring to? Surely you have a specific example in mind, an actual connection to reality.

Surely you do.

You are one bitchy, nagging wife, aren't you?

And you've been reduced to silly personal insults. All while abandoning your argument.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

 

[Skylar]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

I agree, it would have been much better if we had killed those guys rather than capturing them.

but you are totally wrong on your constitutional rant. The US constitution does not apply to them in any way.

Pick your poison: US law, the US constitution, the Geneva Conventions, US military law, or International law.

We don't abide any of them with Guantanamo. Not our laws. Not anyone else's. Indefinite detainment with no charges is contrary to our values....and hurts us far more than it benefits us.

 

[kaz]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

 

[kaz]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

I agree, it would have been much better if we had killed those guys rather than capturing them.

but you are totally wrong on your constitutional rant. The US constitution does not apply to them in any way.

Pick your poison: US law, the US constitution, the Geneva Conventions, US military law, or International law.

We don't abide any of them with Guantanamo. Not our laws. Not anyone else's. Indefinite detainment with no charges is contrary to our values....and hurts us far more than it benefits us.

US law - Out of jurisdiction

The US constitution - Out of jurisdiction

the Geneva Conventions - Not uniformed soldiers

US military law - You have to be more specific, what prevents us from detaining prisoners while troops are in combat?

International law - Don't give a shit what the international leftists think

 

[Skylar]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

Or.....you can't possibly back your claims with evidence. So give us one word answers and then running. That would match your pattern much more closely.

Speaking of running, what ever happened to that 'black bakers and the KKK'? Given the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at my apparent 'silence' on the topic, its rather odd that you've completely abandoned it.

Shrugs.....apparently there's no much to you but the running.

 

[kaz]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

Or.....you can't possibly back your claims with evidence. So give us one word answers and then running. That would match your pattern much more closely.

Speaking of running, what ever happened to that 'black bakers and the KKK'? Given the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at my apparent 'silence' on the topic, its rather odd that you've completely abandoned it.

Shrugs.....apparently there's no much to you but the running.

Let me get this straight, this was supposed to rebut my calling you a nagging wife? Seriously?

 

[Skylar]

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

I agree, it would have been much better if we had killed those guys rather than capturing them.

but you are totally wrong on your constitutional rant. The US constitution does not apply to them in any way.

Pick your poison: US law, the US constitution, the Geneva Conventions, US military law, or International law.

We don't abide any of them with Guantanamo. Not our laws. Not anyone else's. Indefinite detainment with no charges is contrary to our values....and hurts us far more than it benefits us.

US law - Out of jurisdiction

How is US law 'out of jurisdiction' if they are being held by US forces? Does our law not apply to our own forces?

The US constitution - Out of jurisdiction

Says you. The Supreme Court held that prisoners held at Guantanamo had a right to Habeas Corpus under the constitution. Now how could they have ANY rights under the constitution if the constitution didn't apply?

What does Justice Kennedy, who delivered the court's ruling know that you don't?

The US constitution applies wherever US jurisdiction applies. And the US has complete jurisdiction over Guantanomo.

the Geneva Conventions - Not uniformed soldiers

Then any claim that they are 'prisoners of war' goes right out the window. Eliminating that lone exemption to the 'no indefinite incarceration without charges' in our law.

There is no other.

US military law - You have to be more specific, what prevents us from detaining prisoners while troops are in combat?

US military law allows for the detention for prisoners of war. It allows for the detention of criminals. It allows for detention of those charged with crimes.

It has no provision for detention 'because we can', with no trial, no charges, no sentence, no conviction. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

International law - Don't give a shit what the international leftists think

Apparently you don't give a shit about the US constitution either. As it clearly applies and you ignore it. US law, US military law are similarly tossed onto the midden heap by your ilk.

So international law has excellent company. As its the rule of law itself that you seem to have no use for.

 

[Skylar]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

Or.....you can't possibly back your claims with evidence. So give us one word answers and then running. That would match your pattern much more closely.

Speaking of running, what ever happened to that 'black bakers and the KKK'? Given the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at my apparent 'silence' on the topic, its rather odd that you've completely abandoned it.

Shrugs.....apparently there's no much to you but the running.

Let me get this straight, this was supposed to rebut my calling you a nagging wife? Seriously?

This is related to both your constitutional claims...and your whining about 'black bakers and the KKK'. The latter of which you now remain strangely 'silent' on, refusing to discuss it.

The 'nagging wife' silliness is just your awkward attempt to run.

Shrugs.....run.

 

[Redfish]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

US law certainly applies to the US government and our military. And there's no provision for indefinite incarceration of people without charges, trial, conviction or sentence save as prisoners of war. Prisoners which possess specific rights under the Geneva conventions.

By we don't extend those rights to the Guantanomo prisoners. Or the protections of our law. Or the constitution. Or international law. They are in a 'law free zone' where we make a mockery of empty lip service to 'rights' and 'freedoms' and the 'rule of law' by demonstrating that we really don't believe in them.

And it is this gross act of hypocrisy that our enemies use to recruit orders of magnitude more men than we've imprisoned. We're allowing the barbaric acts of others to make us abandon our own ideals. And that's a fool's game.

I agree, it would have been much better if we had killed those guys rather than capturing them.

but you are totally wrong on your constitutional rant. The US constitution does not apply to them in any way.

Pick your poison: US law, the US constitution, the Geneva Conventions, US military law, or International law.

We don't abide any of them with Guantanamo. Not our laws. Not anyone else's. Indefinite detainment with no charges is contrary to our values....and hurts us far more than it benefits us.

US law------no
US constitution----------no
US military law-----------sure, try them in a military tribunal. Why doesn't obama want to let this happen?
Geneva convention-------------LOL, who enforces it?
International law-----------there is no such thing. If you think there is, tell us where to find the statutes and which court enforces them.

 

[Skylar]

US law------no

Why not? These men are held by US forces. Do our laws not apply to our own forces?

US constitution----------no

The Supreme Court says otherwise, finding that the prisoners at Guantanamo do have rights under the constitution. Establishing its jurisdiction rather elegantly.

US military law-----------sure, try them in a military tribunal. Why doesn't obama want to let this happen?

Probably for the same reason that Bush didn't. Yet there are no tribunals. There are no charges, no trials, no convictions, no sentences.

Just indefinite incarceration. If we're going to ignore the rule of law, then we're inviting everyone else to. Our values and ideals matter. And these men are a poor currency to trade them for.

Geneva convention-------------LOL, who enforces it?

As signatories of the Geneva Conventions and one of the major powers that helped write them.....wouldn't we?

Or do our agreements and our word mean so little?

 

[Redfish]

US law------no

Why not? These men are held by US forces. Do our laws not apply to our own forces?

US constitution----------no

The Supreme Court says otherwise, finding that the prisoners at Guantanamo do have rights under the constitution. Establishing its jurisdiction rather elegantly.

US military law-----------sure, try them in a military tribunal. Why doesn't obama want to let this happen?

Probably for the same reason that Bush didn't. Yet there are no tribunals. There are no charges, no trials, no convictions, no sentences.

Just indefinite incarceration. If we're going to ignore the rule of law, then we're inviting everyone else to. Our values and ideals matter. And these men are a poor currency to trade them for.

Geneva convention-------------LOL, who enforces it?

As signatories of the Geneva Conventions and one of the major powers that helped write them.....wouldn't we?

Or do our agreements and our word mean so little?

under your flawed rationalization, US troops would be subject to murder charges for killing the enemy in a war.

Rules do not apply in wars-------------when will you libs wake up and smell reality?

Do the muslim radicals follow the geneva convention? Does anyone bring them up on charges in the "geneva convention" court?

your entire thinking process on this topic is based on ignorance.

and I am still waiting for you to tell us where this body of "international law" exists and where we can read its statutes.

 

[kaz]

How is US law 'out of jurisdiction' if they are being held by US forces? Does our law not apply to our own forces?

Yes, when they are in the United States, else military law applies to them. See below

The US constitution - Out of jurisdiction

Says you. The Supreme Court held that prisoners held at Guantanamo had a right to Habeas Corpus under the constitution. Now how could they have ANY rights under the constitution if the constitution didn't apply?

What does Justice Kennedy, who delivered the court's ruling know that you don't?

Kennedy knows that 5/9 justices in reality can change the Constitution at will since there is no way to stop them

The US constitution applies wherever US jurisdiction applies. And the US has complete jurisdiction over Guantanomo.

Begging the question

the Geneva Conventions - Not uniformed soldiers

Then any claim that they are 'prisoners of war' goes right out the window. Eliminating that lone exemption to the 'no indefinite incarceration without charges' in our law.

There is no other.

Right, we couldn't hold Germans in war zones (if the Convention had been in place then) unless they were uniformed soldiers. No, they only get Geneva convention rights if they are uniformed

US military law - You have to be more specific, what prevents us from detaining prisoners while troops are in combat?

US military law allows for the detention for prisoners of war. It allows for the detention of criminals. It allows for detention of those charged with crimes.

It has no provision for detention 'because we can', with no trial, no charges, no sentence, no conviction. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

Hand waiving

International law - Don't give a shit what the international leftists think

Apparently you don't give a shit about the US constitution either. As it clearly applies and you ignore it. US law, US military law are similarly tossed onto the midden heap by your ilk.

So international law has excellent company. As its the rule of law itself that you seem to have no use for.

Begging the question

 

[Skylar]

US law------no

Why not? These men are held by US forces. Do our laws not apply to our own forces?

US constitution----------no

The Supreme Court says otherwise, finding that the prisoners at Guantanamo do have rights under the constitution. Establishing its jurisdiction rather elegantly.

US military law-----------sure, try them in a military tribunal. Why doesn't obama want to let this happen?

Probably for the same reason that Bush didn't. Yet there are no tribunals. There are no charges, no trials, no convictions, no sentences.

Just indefinite incarceration. If we're going to ignore the rule of law, then we're inviting everyone else to. Our values and ideals matter. And these men are a poor currency to trade them for.

Geneva convention-------------LOL, who enforces it?

As signatories of the Geneva Conventions and one of the major powers that helped write them.....wouldn't we?

Or do our agreements and our word mean so little?

under your flawed rationalization, US troops would be subject to murder charges for killing the enemy in a war.

This isn't combat. This is internment. And these prisoners most definitely DO have constitutional rights, with the constitution applying to them. The USSC itself has affirmed this.

You say the constitution doesn't apply. And you have to ignore the Supreme Court to do it. All so you can hold people indefinitely with no trial, no charges, no conviction and no sentence.

Apparently, for their entire life.

Rules do not apply in wars-------------when will you libs wake up and smell reality?

So the Geneva Conventions and the USMC don't apply? Um, why?

Because there's no power strong enough to make us keep our word, follow our own laws, or demonstrate integrity?

Do the muslim radicals follow the geneva convention?

Do they define our actions? Are we mere meat puppets that are forced to mirror the barbarity of those we fight? Of course not?

We're BETTER than they are. And its our ideals and values that make us better. They believe in brutality, barbarity, and wholesale slaughter. We at least claim to value rights, freedom and the rule of law.

And we're wiping our ass with our own values while demonstrating a profound hypocrisy that our enemies are quite literally using against us. They are recruiting troops on our hypocrisy.

 

[kaz]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

Or.....you can't possibly back your claims with evidence. So give us one word answers and then running. That would match your pattern much more closely.

Speaking of running, what ever happened to that 'black bakers and the KKK'? Given the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at my apparent 'silence' on the topic, its rather odd that you've completely abandoned it.

Shrugs.....apparently there's no much to you but the running.

Let me get this straight, this was supposed to rebut my calling you a nagging wife? Seriously?

This is related to both your constitutional claims...and your whining about 'black bakers and the KKK'. The latter of which you now remain strangely 'silent' on, refusing to discuss it.

The 'nagging wife' silliness is just your awkward attempt to run.

Shrugs.....run.

Ohh, sorry about making you cry, guy. It's only an internet discussion, don't get upset. Here's a tissue, calm down. Maybe you should play in your room a little bit before coming back

 

[Skylar]

Kennedy knows that 5/9 justices in reality can change the Constitution at will since there is no way to stop them

Laughing....so the Supreme Court is wrong about the jurisdiction of the constitution....but you're' right, because you says so?

Do you have any idea how many of your arguments degenerate into you citing yourself?

Begging the question

No, that would be the finding of the United States Supreme Court in BOUMEDIENE v BUSH;

"Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.....

...The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The Government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected.

The Government’s sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns, which are illustrated by Guantanamo’s political history. Although the United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over 100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.....

....... In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

Just because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about doesn't mean I'm similarly limited.

Right, we couldn't hold Germans in war zones unless they were uniformed soldiers. No, they only get Geneva convention rights if they are uniformed

Guantanamo isn't a 'war zone'. Instantly killing your entire argument.

Any prisoner of war argument is thus invalid.

Hand waiving

Translation: you know of no such passages in military law that allow for indefinite detention of someone who isn't a prisoner of war or has not been charged or convicted of any crime.

Which is exactly my point.

Apparently you don't give a shit about the US constitution either. As it clearly applies and you ignore it. US law, US military law are similarly tossed onto the midden heap by your ilk.

So international law has excellent company. As its the rule of law itself that you seem to have no use for.

Begging the question.

Nope. You've already rejected the Supreme Court's assessment that the Constitution applies. And dismissed US law and military law, and international law.

You've rejected every jurisdiction, rejected the application of ANY law to these prisoners. Demonstrating my point elegantly. And similarly demonstrating how little your ilk actually care for rights, freedoms, the constitution, the rule of law, or any of the principles you give empty lip service to.

 

[Skylar]

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Touche. You have repeatedly proven you are fully capable of nagging on nits while not grasping the overall point endlessly until I don't give a shit about anything anymore. Hence my referring to you as a nagging wife

Or.....you can't possibly back your claims with evidence. So give us one word answers and then running. That would match your pattern much more closely.

Speaking of running, what ever happened to that 'black bakers and the KKK'? Given the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at my apparent 'silence' on the topic, its rather odd that you've completely abandoned it.

Shrugs.....apparently there's no much to you but the running.

Let me get this straight, this was supposed to rebut my calling you a nagging wife? Seriously?

This is related to both your constitutional claims...and your whining about 'black bakers and the KKK'. The latter of which you now remain strangely 'silent' on, refusing to discuss it.

The 'nagging wife' silliness is just your awkward attempt to run.

Shrugs.....run.

Ohh, sorry about making you cry, guy. It's only an internet discussion, don't get upset. Here's a tissue, calm down. Maybe you should play in your room a little bit before coming back

Laughing.....still won't touch your claims about 'black bakers and the KKK' will you? You're suddenly and strangly silent on the topic, despite the fact that you raised it.

Keep running, Kaz. It makes me giggle.

 

[Clementine]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

Right, what is the difference between the Christians being held and a deserting traitor who happens to be Muslim? Only difference is that Obama will rescue the Muslim to help other Muslims and leave the Christians to be tortured and killed by their captors.