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

[kaz]

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.

Telling me what I meant? See now, every guy reading this is saying wow, you are a nagging wife. Does that sound familiar or what? Don't worry, you wouldn't get it sweet heart, it's a guy thing

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, I'm sure it does make you giggle, honey. And I don't give a shit if you know what I was referring to. It was on the first page of the political section for days. If you can't find it that's your problem. I think you knew what I meant anyway and you were just being a dick. Or should I say a vagina?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Telling me what I meant? See now, every guy reading this is saying wow, you are a nagging wife. Does that sound familiar or what? Don't worry, you wouldn't get it sweet heart, it's a guy thing

You can't back up your claims. When I press you to show where military law allows for indefinite internment of non-prisoners of war without trial, charge, conviction or sentence....

.......you've got nothing. All while you ignore the US law, ignore the constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and ignore international law. International law like the Geneva Conventions which the US is a signatory to. Yet you insist is irrelevant.

Leaving us once again with you citing yourself, insisting it must be so because you say so.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, I'm sure it does make you giggle, honey. And I don't give a shit if you know what I was referring to. It was on the first page of the political section for days. If you can't find it that's your problem. I think you knew what I meant anyway and you were just being a dick. Or should I say a vagina?

Laughing.....so I'm 'silent' on a topic you can't even describe, let alone affirm any detail of. And when I press you to simply *discuss* the topic you brought up...

....we get excuses for why you can't. Since you're clearly incapable of backing up your claims, is this thread you were referring to?

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or will you continue to run from your own topic and make me giggle?

 

[Clementine]

You can't back up your claims. When I press you to show where military law allows for indefinite internment of non-prisoners of war without trial, charge, conviction or sentence....

.......you've got nothing. All while you ignore the US law, ignore the constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and ignore international law. International law like the Geneva Conventions which the US is a signatory to. Yet you insist is irrelevant.

Leaving us once again with you citing yourself, insisting it must be so because you say so.

The prisoners were going to get military tribunals fairly quickly until liberals intervened and delayed everything. Lawyers from Holder's old firm were heavily involved and wanted to stop the military tribunals and go for civilian trials here in the states. The left gets full credit for the long detentions of prisoners.

Funny to hear a liberal upset and accusing others of ignoring our constitution. I guess they pull that out only when it benefits them. Our constitution would not affect those arrested in foreign countries. Military tribunals and the Geneva convention would apply.

 

[Skylar]

Oh and gentlemen.......can you please elaborate on why you're ignoring the Supreme Court itself on the jurisdiction of the Constitution?

"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.

Why would I ignore Justice Kennedy and the majority of the USSC.....and instead believe you?

 

[kaz]

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.

Telling me what I meant? See now, every guy reading this is saying wow, you are a nagging wife. Does that sound familiar or what? Don't worry, you wouldn't get it sweet heart, it's a guy thing

You can't back up your claims. When I press you to show where military law allows for indefinite internment of non-prisoners of war without trial, charge, conviction or sentence....

.......you've got nothing. All while you ignore the US law, ignore the constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and ignore international law. International law like the Geneva Conventions which the US is a signatory to. Yet you insist is irrelevant.

Leaving us once again with you citing yourself, insisting it must be so because you say so.

Yes, of course, it's my job to prove you wrong, not your job to prove your claims. Since I did not do that, you clearly won. Wow, I tell me wife that all the time. I don't CARE! You won! Can I get peace now????

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, I'm sure it does make you giggle, honey. And I don't give a shit if you know what I was referring to. It was on the first page of the political section for days. If you can't find it that's your problem. I think you knew what I meant anyway and you were just being a dick. Or should I say a vagina?

Laughing.....so I'm 'silent' on a topic you can't even describe, let alone affirm any detail of. And when I press you to simply *discuss* the topic you brought up...

....we get excuses for why you can't. Since you're clearly incapable of backing up your claims, is this thread you were referring to?

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or will you continue to run from your own topic and make me giggle?

My God, be quiet woman

 

[Skylar]

You can't back up your claims. When I press you to show where military law allows for indefinite internment of non-prisoners of war without trial, charge, conviction or sentence....

.......you've got nothing. All while you ignore the US law, ignore the constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and ignore international law. International law like the Geneva Conventions which the US is a signatory to. Yet you insist is irrelevant.

Leaving us once again with you citing yourself, insisting it must be so because you say so.

The prisoners were going to get military tribunals fairly quickly until liberals intervened and delayed everything. Lawyers from Holder's old firm were heavily involved and wanted to stop the military tribunals and go for civilian trials here in the states. The left gets full credit for the long detentions of prisoners.

Funny to hear a liberal upset and accusing others of ignoring our constitution. I guess they pull that out only when it benefits them. Our constitution would not affect those arrested in foreign countries. Military tribunals and the Geneva convention would apply.

I think the issue had far more to do with the Supreme Court than Holder:

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2004)

But hey, blame Holder if you want. It doesn't actually change history a bit.

The tribunals set up by the Justice Department were illegally structured. As it was based on 'violations of the laws of war', while denying the prisoners any protections or rights under the laws of war.

And the accused could be convicted on evidence and testimony they were never allowed to see or hear. Which is a flagrant violation of both the USMC and the Geneva Conventions. And the tribunals recognized NO right to habeus corpus for any prisoner. The justice department *literally* argued that any of its decisions were beyond judicial review.

Which of course is laughable bullshit.

There's no angle where the government's arguments weren't shit. They can't argue they were following military law. As the tribunals were structured in explicit and flagrant violation of military law. They can't claim the Geneva conventions, as the tribunal structure violated those too. And Congress can't arbitrarily turn the constitution on and off at will.

Both the acts of congress and those of the judiciary are subject to judicial review.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, I'm sure it does make you giggle, honey. And I don't give a shit if you know what I was referring to. It was on the first page of the political section for days. If you can't find it that's your problem. I think you knew what I meant anyway and you were just being a dick. Or should I say a vagina?

Laughing.....so I'm 'silent' on a topic you can't even describe, let alone affirm any detail of. And when I press you to simply *discuss* the topic you brought up...

....we get excuses for why you can't. Since you're clearly incapable of backing up your claims, is this thread you were referring to?

HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or will you continue to run from your own topic and make me giggle?

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Telling me what I meant? See now, every guy reading this is saying wow, you are a nagging wife. Does that sound familiar or what? Don't worry, you wouldn't get it sweet heart, it's a guy thing

You can't back up your claims. When I press you to show where military law allows for indefinite internment of non-prisoners of war without trial, charge, conviction or sentence....

.......you've got nothing. All while you ignore the US law, ignore the constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and ignore international law. International law like the Geneva Conventions which the US is a signatory to. Yet you insist is irrelevant.

Leaving us once again with you citing yourself, insisting it must be so because you say so.

Yes, of course, it's my job to prove you wrong, not your job to prove your claims. Since I did not do that, you clearly won. Wow, I tell me wife that all the time. I don't CARE! You won! Can I get peace now????

Its apparently your job to make claims you can't possible back up, and ignore the USSC when it explicitly contradicts you. Which appears to be the only job you've managed to succeed at in this thread.

You can present nothing in the US military law that permits it to hold non-prisoners of war indefinitely without charges.

You've been explicitly contradicted by the USSC on the jurisdiction of the Constitution, laughably ignoring the USSC when they shut your silly argument down.

And you have rejected the jurisdiction of ANY law, the application of ANY law to these prisoners. That's not how we operate. The US is a nation of laws. And our forces act in accordance with them.

Or should, according to me. The flagrant violation of our OWN standards, breaking our OWN word, ignoring our OWN ideals, wiping our asses with our OWN values is not beneficial to this country. And not acts consistent with our Constitution, our laws, or our agreements.

All of which we should be following.

 

[kaz]

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

 

[kaz]

Its apparently your job to make claims you can't possible back up

Yes, I claimed you are wrong. You told me to back that up. I said it's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. So you keep coming back now with that I won't prove my claims. It's the sort of crap you constantly post. You lace them with insults, you beg the question and you create endless strawmen while telling me what I think. And you're obsessed with emotions, gay boy

That's fine. I have two modes, serious and fun. You are in the fun mode. Just don't pretend you are making serious arguments, you're not. If you want to make a serious argument I'm here, I love those too

 

[Skylar]

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

 

[Skylar]

Its apparently your job to make claims you can't possible back up

Yes, I claimed you are wrong.

By your own admission you can't show us anything in the USMC or military law that allows for indefinite imprisonment of non-prisoners of war, without trial, conviction, or sentence.

Which is exactly my point.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. As you demonstrated for us so elegantly with your blithering ignorance about the prisoners and the jurisdiction of the constitution.

With the USSC explicitly contradicting you. But despite your spectacular failure, your obtuse ignorance of the law, your comic misunderstanding of basic legal principles, we're expected to just 'believe' you that military law allows for indefinite imprisonment without trial?

Laughing......um, no. Its just you citing you. And your source sucks.

You told me to back that up. I said it's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. So you keep coming back now with that I won't prove my claims. It's the sort of crap you constantly post. You lace them with insults, you beg the question and you create endless strawmen while telling me what I think. And you're obsessed with emotions, gay boy

Your only job is to show us how you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about nor can you back up any of your claims.

And you're quite simply brilliant at that job.

 

[kaz]

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

 

[Liminal]

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."

Evidently you're solution would have been to leave a US serviceman in enemy captivity, while denying him the right to defend himself in courts martial. That sounds very unAmerican.

 

[Skylar]

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

 

[Liminal]

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."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

Stupid, idiotic comparison.

 

[kaz]

My God, be quiet woman

Smiling....even when I do all the work for you Kaz, you still run from your own topic.

And are now 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised: 'black bakers and the KKK. And still, nothing.

Keep running.

You don't do any work. You write up a bunch of pompous, vacuous bullshit with so many shallow fallacies it isn't interesting to unwind

I ran you off your silly little claims. Though you may be right on one point, as that hardly required any effort at all.

I even provided you with the thread title that matched your description. And still you lay quivering and inert like a pig in mud, 'strangely silent' on the very topic you raised; black bakers and the KKK.

Odd that. Its almost like you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Which begs the question: if you didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, why bring it up at all?

Are you that pompous in real life?

Are you so easily routed in real life? I mean, Black bakers and the KKK is the topic you brought up. But now you're running with your tail between your legs, terrified to discuss your own topic.

That was easy.

OK, gay boy, I know you love talking about emotions, but you suck at it. I guess being a fag, sucking comes naturally to you.

I am curious, does that ever work? I mean has it worked since you were eight?