US prepares battlefield in Iran

[jreeves]

No, she will die over in Iraq because she got drafted.

Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???

 

[jreeves]

They just did ...



-Justice Kennedy

Edit to add:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did rule that the commission system violated both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, which is what you asked me to show you ...

Well I disagree with the SCOTUS, this ruling will allow terrorist to file Habeus Corpus and be released. Are you telling me, you want KSM to have the same Habeus Corpus rights as yourself?

The laws for Gitmo was passed by Congress.....
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1] was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, what do you think GITMOs purpose is in the GWOT?

To protect national security information from being disclosed in open court. Also to be able to debrief suspected terrorist without the limitations of US criminal laws.

 

[jreeves]

Look up the Downing Street memos retard. I love how you say, "the entire world".

Is that why Canada told us to fuck off when we asked them to help? Along with the rest of the world? The coalition of the willing? Who? Poland? England? Pahleez.

We had the world on our side after 9-11. Bush blew them all off so he could.......

oh yea, bush has since admitted that Iraq was about Oil. Not wmd's, not spreading democracy, not fighting terrorist, but about money. He said, "sometimes money trumps piece". That blows your lie right there.

And did you hear that tape of Bush at a fund raiser joking about WMD's? He looked under a table and said, "any wmd's here? NO, any over here? NO, and the rich neo con crowd was dying laughing.

I don't think that's funny. Millions died in Iraq. MILLIONS. Bush should be tried for murder.

You are so misguided it is sick.

Sigh....such ignorance...I will only respond with facts

President Bush in early 2003, just months after 9/11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had indicted Osama bin Laden, citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected al Qaeda bio-weapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. Czech intelligence insists that 9/11 plotter Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam had invaded Kuwait a decade before and had used chemical weapons on his own people. One of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad and families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA Director, originally appointed by Clinton, tells you "it's a slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD. The French, strongly opposed to war with Iraq, say their intelligence service believes Iraq still has WMD. Russian President Putin, opposed to war with Iraq, tells you that Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults on the U.S. Most of the CIA's human assets in Iraq have been discovered and murdered. Do you wait to get more spies into the country to confirm the other intelligence? Or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use force?
While we may know today that some (but not all) of the intelligence related to Saddam's weapons programs was inaccurate, this was not known at the time President Bush decided to request the use of force resolution from Congress. In fact, many members of Congress had access to the same intelligence as the Bush administration prior to the war resolution and came to the same conclusions about the threat of Iraq's WMD. Their statements demonstrate this (the link contains numerous quotes, I have excerpted a few in the interest of brevity):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
Presidential Decisions - The Long War Journal

 

[Article 15]

Well I disagree with the SCOTUS, this ruling will allow terrorist to file Habeus Corpus and be released. Are you telling me, you want KSM to have the same Habeus Corpus rights as yourself?

The laws for Gitmo was passed by Congress.....
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006[1] was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]

Habeas corpus and be released? Eh? What makes you think that is the case?

You don't file habeas corpus and "get released." Habeas corpus is being able to produce a reason for them being held other than, "you are a terrorist because we say so." Sure some will be released ... the ones whom the US cannot produce any reason for which to hold them ... that's kinda ... you know ... against the law and such.

Kahlid Sheik Muhammad will be found to have just cause to be held if/when he has a has a habeas corpus hearing ... the man confessed to being behind 9/11. Pretty open and shut.

The problem I want to avoid is the U.S. setting a dangerous precedent by rounding up suspected "terrorists," labeling them as "enemy combatants," and then locking them up indefinitely with nothing other than, "because we say so," to justify it. Do you see what kind of an awful backlash such a policy can have on us? It would then allow other nations to round up American citizens and do the same ... and when the US comes a calling they will be met with "sorry, you can't have them, they wont be tried ... they are enemy combatants." Then what? Scream bloody murder for them and look like HUGE hypocrites in front of the world when you yourselves have hundreds locked up in a similar fashion?

I'd be willing to bet the farm that the same people here in the US who so vehemently disagree with the SCOTUS recent decision would the ones leading the campaign to wage war on "x" country that would dare do such a thing.

 

[Article 15]

To protect national security information from being disclosed in open court. Also to be able to debrief suspected terrorist without the limitations of US criminal laws.

So basically to skirt the rule of law ...

That is why they are getting shot down every time GITMO gets to the SCOTUS ....

 

[jreeves]

Habeas corpus and be released? Eh? What makes you think that is the case?

You don't file habeas corpus and "get released." Habeas corpus is being able to produce a reason for them being held other than, "you are a terrorist because we say so." Sure some will be released ... the ones whom the US cannot produce any reason for which to hold them ... that's kinda ... you know ... against the law and such.

Kahlid Sheik Muhammad will be found to have just cause to be held if/when he has a has a habeas corpus hearing ... the man confessed to being behind 9/11. Pretty open and shut.

The problem I want to avoid is the U.S. setting a dangerous precedent by rounding up suspected "terrorists," labeling them as "enemy combatants," and then locking them up indefinitely with nothing other than, "because we say so," to justify it. Do you see what kind of an awful backlash such a policy can have on us? It would then allow other nations to round up American citizens and do the same ... and when the US comes a calling they will be met with "sorry, you can't have them, they wont be tried ... they are enemy combatants." Then what? Scream bloody murder for them and look like HUGE hypocrites in front of the world when you yourselves have hundreds locked up in a similar fashion?

I'd be willing to bet the farm that the same people here in the US who so vehemently disagree with the SCOTUS recent decision would the ones leading the campaign to wage war on "x" country that would dare do such a thing.

Umm...we didn't just state they were enemy combatants. A military tribunal made the judgement, if a detain was an enemy combatant. So as it stands after the SCOTUS ruling in order to be able to hold a combatant we must divulge national security information in open court. That sounds like a great way to gain even more intelligence on terrorist and future terror plots. Considering there was legal review for the detains prior to the decision, I don't see us setting any precendence for our troops. Are you saying that US troops should receive US legal review when they become a POW? That's simply not going to happen.

 

[jreeves]

So basically to skirt the rule of law ...

That is why they are getting shot down every time GITMO gets to the SCOTUS ....

It was completely legal before SCOTUS issued new law from the bench. Remember, the military commissions act of 2006, the act was a way to provide judicial review for detains while protecting our national security interests.

 

[Article 15]

Umm...we didn't just state they were enemy combatants. A military tribunal made the judgement, if a detain was an enemy combatant. So as it stands after the SCOTUS ruling in order to be able to hold a combatant we must divulge national security information in open court. That sounds like a great way to gain even more intelligence on terrorist and future terror plots. Considering there was legal review for the detains prior to the decision, I don't see us setting any precendence for our troops. Are you saying that US troops should receive US legal review when they become a POW? That's simply not going to happen.

The detainees at GITMO are not POWs. Doing so gives them privileged status and inherently makes them "legal combatants." That would make it even harder to eventually try these guys ...

And what kind of national security information are we concerned about? The details of the so-called plot the detainee was involved in and how it was foiled? So what? To me, that's a lame excuse.

And I'm not concerned about US troops in as it relates to this because US troops fall into all categories that would make them POWs should the become captured ... "terrorists" don't. We all know what the terrorists do in these situations ... they brutally murder them ... we both know that Geneva has a problem with that.

I'll repeat what my concern is: Other gov'ts in the future seizing American citizens and labeling them "illegal combatants" and holding them against their will with out representation or just cause being given to our gov't.

 

[Article 15]

It was completely legal before SCOTUS issued new law from the bench. Remember, the military commissions act of 2006, the act was a way to provide judicial review for detains while protecting our national security interests.

Yes, and all the "secret squirrel" type of legal games the US gov't is playing here is what makes the whole process smell fishy to other counties.

It's saying to the world "we got 'em and we're not telling you why."

 

[AllieBaba]

The detainees at GITMO are not POWs. Doing so gives them privileged status and inherently makes them "legal combatants." That would make it even harder to eventually try these guys ...

And what kind of national security information are we concerned about? The details of the so-called plot the detainee was involved in and how it was foiled? So what? To me, that's a lame excuse.

And I'm not concerned about US troops in as it relates to this because US troops fall into all categories that would make them POWs should the become captured ... "terrorists" don't. We all know what the terrorists do in these situations ... they brutally murder them ... we both know that Geneva has a problem with that.

I'll repeat what my concern is: Other gov'ts in the future seizing American citizens and labeling them "illegal combatants" and holding them against their will with out representation or just cause being given to our gov't.

They already do that, and they've figured out that the way to get around being killed for it is to refuse to wear uniforms, to blend in with non-combatants, and to use non-combatants as shields. Hence "illegal combatants". Otherwise, you can never catch them because they do not fit the description for POW.

 

[sealybobo]

Sigh....such ignorance...I will only respond with facts

[/url]

So then why did Bush use false intelligence to invade? No doubt Saddam, Amadenijad, and the leader of N. Korea are no angels, but you want facts?

We all know Bush lied us into Iraq. He also admitted that it was about money.

Bush picked bad intelligence and ignored more credible evidence.

Saddam tried to make a last minute deal and Chaney rejected it.

Of course you have the White House position on why they did what they did. Sounds real good. But it is debatable.

Everything is debatable. But some facts I just can't overlook. Apparently you can.

 

[sealybobo]

Well I think I'm safe considering your past assumptions and predictions. At age 8 she has a lot more sense than you do at age???

She will need it when she's in combat. 10 more years she'll be in a fox hole. And just think, then only 90 more years and we'll be out of there. If she makes it, maybe she will give you grandkids, who will still be paying off this war, and fighting in it.

So would you pay $30,000 for this war? That's how much it is costing each American, so far.

How about $10 a gallon? That's what it will be if we invade Iran. Dummy.

 

[Article 15]

They already do that, and they've figured out that the way to get around being killed for it is to refuse to wear uniforms, to blend in with non-combatants, and to use non-combatants as shields. Hence "illegal combatants". Otherwise, you can never catch them because they do not fit the description for POW.

Let's be real here ...

The reason why they are fighting the way they are in Iraq is because they know full well they can't stand toe to toe with the U.S. military. To do so would be a huge folly on their part. In the grand scheme of things, can you really blame them? I know it's a taboo thing to even bring up but it's the reality of the situation over there. They are fighting the only way they know how "to win."

I

 

[AllieBaba]

It will cost us less when we use our own oil.

I remember when you could only get gas on odd or even days, depending upon your license plate number.

Quit panicking. It's going to be ok. Despite what the people who hate America say.

 

[bush lover]

Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.

 

[sealybobo]

Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.

sometimes we love our family but hate certain relatives.

I love america but hate americans like you.

your like the uncle who molested his niece for 8 yrs. lol

 

[Taomon]

Our President will soon declare war on the Bin Laden loving Irans. Shock and Awe and thank Jesus Christ. Hussein will never get elected because our Senator McCain, who was a valiant and brave war hero while a POW, understands war and why we need to decimate Iran, which is on our President's Axis of Evil.

You seriously believe war is the solution?

 

[Charles_Main]

Good god I hope we don't go to war with Iran.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us do something, to make sure they never get nukes, But and invasion would be a disaster. Sure we would take apart their military easy enough, but try occupying that land, and if you think 4 dollar gas is bad, you have a big shock coming if we have an all out war with Iran, Try 15 or 20 dollars a gallon.

I think even Bush is smart enough not to invade Iran, he may attack them, but it will be a limited air attack if anything at all. Not a full scale invasion. I hope at least.

 

[Paulie]

Good god I hope we don't go to war with Iran.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see us do something, to make sure they never get nukes, But and invasion would be a disaster. Sure we would take apart their military easy enough, but try occupying that land, and if you think 4 dollar gas is bad, you have a big shock coming if we have an all out war with Iran, Try 15 or 20 dollars a gallon.

I think even Bush is smart enough not to invade Iran, he may attack them, but it will be a limited air attack if anything at all. Not a full scale invasion. I hope at least.

What makes you think that merely an air attack, which would apparently have to include tactical nukes, would have any less blowback effect economically? Or even geopolitically?