The Term "Enemy Combatant"

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

The President isn't breaking any law, he has MADE some unconstitutional orders into law, and he should be acted against by the Legistlature and the Judiciary.

Jose Padilla was 'held' for some months and maybe even over a year WITHOUT legal representation in Guantanamoe Bay, in whatever sub Geneva convention standards that the Sec. of Def. has decided appropriate.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

What tyranical acts has our country performed that you think requires or excuses a citizen to rise up and oppose the government?

Specifically, HERE in this country...? I was referring to OUR Military actions in someone else's back yard, as in citizens fighting our presense in the Middle East.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Just as an informational note: armed revolution is rarely called for in a democratic country except by those who wish to overthrow the democratic system to put in....a tyranny maybe? Are even legitimate rebels authorized to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians in their rebellion?[?QUOTE]

Oppression is somewhatof a 'subjective' state, I'd say. Does a child have the right and or duty to raise up against a parent, if and when he or she feels at all 'oppressed'? Going to War and raising arms against another, in attack or defense of your home is appropriate, and that's all I'd have to say about that.

[/B]

Had to change your tune on the executive order did you? Do you think it's possible you don't understand the situation at all?

I'll conceed that point, if you would also?

[/B][/QUOTE]

If section 3 of the executive order directs the Secretary of Defense to treat prisoners in a humane manner, with adequate food, freedom to practice religion and so on, what exactly is the problem with letting him handle the other details? What is he doing that you think is illegal?

He is labeling them 'Enemy Combatants', refusing them to the rights of the Geneva Convention. Treating prisoners in a humane manner, WHILE they are being 'kinda' tortured, in the name of "looking for good intelligence", strikes me as "Illegal". I watch C-Span, I have heard the reports, and listened to what the Sec. of Def. has said on the matter. Making sure everyone has a Koran, isn't the same thing as insuring their right NOT to be tortured and threaten with death daily.

[/B][/QUOTE]

No the detention order is not evidence of your ridiculous assertions. The detention order is just that, an executive order. The courts have full power to rescind it on review, and congress can pass laws which override it.

Which is EXACTLY what I am calling for, HERE & NOW. This is an unlawful order and its execution endangers Americans themselves, and our standing in the world as defenders of freedom

[/B][/QUOTE]

Where exactly has the administration done these things again? As I said before, the detention order certainly isn't it.

I had to quote this bit:
[/b]
No, there is no peril at all involved in ignoring your stupid, ill-conceived claims. There are plenty of ways to legitimately argue some of the points you are ineptly trying to reach. Unfortunately it seems you are unaware of any of them and incapable of forming them on your own. Bring on the peril.

"Bring on the peril."...? Can I quote you on that later, without you wanting to take a swing at me? Ahh forget it, I've never been an "I told you so"- kind of guy.

 

[Cylinder]

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Because it is complete anathema to the entire word and spirit of the Geneva Conventions in toto?

Hopefully this bite-sized piece of common sense will save KOA the chore of actually reading through the text before commenting on it.

Acts of perfidy restrict the opposing forces' ability to protect non-combatants.

The rescue mission for Ms. Sgrena ended in disaster specifically because of the history of attacks against checkpoints using the cover over civilian vehicles.

The mosque shooting in Fallujah happened specifically because that Marine experienced another fighter faking wounds to mount an attack.

The LOAC and Convention are set up specifically to reward behavior that protects non-combatants.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

Ahh forget it, I've never been an "I told you so"- kind of guy. [/B]

You've never had occasion to find out.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

Congratulations on figuring out the quote button. You still don't have it quite right but it's better. Here's a hint...there's preview button at the bottom...use it before you use submit.

The President isn't breaking any law, he has MADE some unconstitutional orders into law, and he should be acted against by the Legistlature and the Judiciary.

He has made orders into law? Care to give a reference to the U.S.C. where he's done that? He has issued orders, he has not made them law. There is a difference. The orders may be unconstitutional, and that is an issue for the courts to decide not you. If they decide that they are the orders will be rescinded by court order. That's how the system works. Care to tell us how the orders are unconstitutional?

Jose Padilla was 'held' for some months and maybe even over a year WITHOUT legal representation in Guantanamoe Bay, in whatever sub Geneva convention standards that the Sec. of Def. has decided appropriate.

Are you willfully ignorant or lying? Padilla has never been held in Guantanamo. He is being held in the Brig at a naval station in South Carolina. He has had access to legal representation throughout the entire period, which manages to explain why he has cases pending before the courts now. If you are saying that the military brig in South Carolina is below Geneva Convention standards you are welcome to provide some evidence, not accusations. If you manage to do that you might follow up with some reasoning why you think Padilla might be eligible for Geneva Convention protection.

Specifically, HERE in this country...? I was referring to OUR Military actions in someone else's back yard, as in citizens fighting our presense in the Middle East.

And those military actions have been tyrannical how? Look up tyranny and then list some events you think qualify as tyrannical.

I'll conceed that point, if you would also?

Er what point are you asking me to concede? That I'm right and you're wrong? Okay, I'll concede that point.

He is labeling them 'Enemy Combatants', refusing them to the rights of the Geneva Convention. Treating prisoners in a humane manner, WHILE they are being 'kinda' tortured, in the name of "looking for good intelligence", strikes me as "Illegal". I watch C-Span, I have heard the reports, and listened to what the Sec. of Def. has said on the matter. Making sure everyone has a Koran, isn't the same thing as insuring their right NOT to be tortured and threaten with death daily.

The only person Bush has ever declared as an enemy combatant is Padilla under conditions of some urgency where he thinks it is necessary to protect the country from a person that wants to attack us with a weapon of mass destruction. The people you seem to be so concerned about in GITMO have mostly been classified as illegal combatants by a competent military panel. As such they are not eligible for Geneva Convention privileges, but can you tell me exactly what, if any, privileges they would receive under the convention have been denied to them? Trials by military tribunal for some of them are continuing now after a lengthy review by our civil court system to determine, among other things, the legality of the whole process.

Now as far as the torture and death threats accusations go... It's stupid to contend that there have not been prisoner abuses by Americans, we have tried and convicted several people for some of them already and investigations are ongoing. Abuse by individuals does not constitute systematic and regular torture or death threats unless you can somehow provide evidence that this is the case. Can you?

Which is EXACTLY what I am calling for, HERE & NOW. This is an unlawful order and its execution endangers Americans themselves, and our standing in the world as defenders of freedom

If it is an unlawful order then everyone who obeys it is guilty of the crimes committed in following it. It is the duty of every soldier, sailor, airman and marine to refuse to obey unlawful orders and to bring those orders to the attention of higher authority including judicial and I.G. authorities not subject to influence by the chain of command. So tell me again, since in your first paragraph you said the president isn't breaking any laws, what is illegal about this order? Simple citations to the U.S.C. will suffice along with a description of how the order violates the law.

"Bring on the peril."...? Can I quote you on that later, without you wanting to take a swing at me? Ahh forget it, I've never been an "I told you so"- kind of guy.

Listen up swifty... You've come into this forum spouting lie after stupid lie in order to push your own twisted agenda of revenge for being a failed politician or because your mommy didn't love you or whatever. You aren't getting away with it. Making accusations without proof makes you look stupid. Getting the facts wrong makes you look stupid. Refusing to read and understand source material makes you look stupid. And you're doing this to yourself, you don't need me to take a swing at you, you're doing fine all by yourself.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

Firstly, regardless of what you may think, I am not stupid, dull, dense, or any other word you'd choose to insult my intelligence.

That Jose Padilla was taken into custody AS an American citizen, IN America, and still catagorized or labeled an "Enemy Combatant", under the President's 'orders' strikes me as unconstitutional, to say the VERY least.

Now you'd like me to document as to exactly what laws have been broken to the execution of such orders, within the U.S. Criminal code?

Secondly, I have NO first hand knowledge of Padilla's case. I have only heard lawyers speak of his case on C-Span. From what I heard, he WAS shipped to GITMO after a holding period in America, and is NOW back in the U.S., and also isd NOW receiving regular counsel. Moreover, I understand that his first initial visits with counsel were monitered constantly, so even when he was getting counsel, it wasn't confidential. Padilla is an American citizen, captured on American soil. Regardless of what YOU may have heard about the case, I have heard something quite different.

He has made orders into law? Care to give a reference to the U.S.C. where he's done that? He has issued orders, he has not made them law. There is a difference. The orders may be unconstitutional, and that is an issue for the courts to decide not you. If they decide that they are the orders will be rescinded by court order. That's how the system works. Care to tell us how the orders are unconstitutional?

*When such orders banish, undo, or otherwise confine and or limit an American's right to counsel, then 'I' deem them to be unlawful, and call upon other Americans to do so aswell. To be perfectly honest, I don't know where in the Criminal Code, actual Law has been broken. From what I understood, an Executive Order is 'emergency law', that can be either unheld or striken down by the Courts. Additionally, the Legislature can act against an executive order as well. For the life of me I can't understand why you are bing such and ignorant ass about this. An American had his rights all but completely eliminted, and you want me to define the water he is drowning in. The guy deserves the life vest that IS Our Constitution, and the rights included therein.

Are you willfully ignorant or lying? Padilla has never been held in Guantanamo. He is being held in the Brig at a naval station in South Carolina. He has had access to legal representation throughout the entire period, which manages to explain why he has cases pending before the courts now. If you are saying that the military brig in South Carolina is below Geneva Convention standards you are welcome to provide some evidence, not accusations. If you manage to do that you might follow up with some reasoning why you think Padilla might be eligible for Geneva Convention protection.

*Padilla is 'eligible' for the American Criminal Courts, not just Geneva Convention protections. This link provides evidence as to MY inaccuracies as to the case. I urge you to review the link for a better understanding of exactly who said what about whom and what the Administration said bout the case.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/jose_padilla/1.html

And those military actions have been tyrannical how? Look up tyranny and then list some events you think qualify as tyrannical.

*How about our proping up a Monarchy to get cheap oil, while the common people in said country live in squaller??? How is supporting a NON-Democratic state not 'tyranical'? I'd like it if you considered the nature of Freedom, and how it is We came to be free. No do-gooder nation came in and 'told' us that we need to be free from King George. Nor did any nation come in and forcibly free us. WE decided that we needed to be free. I believe that forcing someone to live as you do is tryanical. People should be free to choose whatever form of government they want. If they want for the kind of democratic freedom that we enjoy, then it is up to 'them' to fight for it. Tryanny comes in many forms, only one of which is Democratic Imperialism. Funnily enough, Americans themselves have resorted back to a form of the feudal system. WE find confidence in people just because of who their parents were, as with our election of George W. Bush. Some would say that this President's son is tryanical in his over-reaching for power and authority... I see no need to impress our beliefs and standards upon an unwilling and uncooperative world.

Er what point are you asking me to concede? That I'm right and you're wrong? Okay, I'll concede that point.

I'd like you to conceed the possibility that YOU may be absolutely and totally wrong, about this, and that 'I' may very well have a more insightful bead on things there...? Can you do that? Can you consider that YOU may be wrong?

The only person Bush has ever declared as an enemy combatant is Padilla under conditions of some urgency where he thinks it is necessary to protect the country from a person that wants to attack us with a weapon of mass destruction. The people you seem to be so concerned about in GITMO have mostly been classified as illegal combatants by a competent military panel. As such they are not eligible for Geneva Convention privileges, but can you tell me exactly what, if any, privileges they would receive under the convention have been denied to them? Trials by military tribunal for some of them are continuing now after a lengthy review by our civil court system to determine, among other things, the legality of the whole process.

*The President 'denied' the rights and priviledges alotted to ALL citizens of the U.S., period. This concerns me because this could happen to ANY American now. Wrongful claims, and a few mis-steps on the Internet, with the wrong color skin, and a few trips to the Middle East could render your Constitutionally Right, null and void. That we would paint with a broad brush, ALL captives taken in the name of this War on Terrorism- Enemy Combatants, troubles me moreover, because we are being seen as 'removing' people's right to free and fair trials. Rather than delivering swift justice to wrong doers, and freedom to the innocent, we are seen as bloodthrusty tyrants, bent on forcing our will upon whoever crosses us, or our path. Again, I'd like to make the point that we aren't going to 'win' this war, without winning the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East. We are asking them to lay down their arms and relent to OUR style of governing. In order for them to do so, THEY are going to have to trust us and the protection we offer... Denying prisoners for whatever reason, POW status, doesn't 'help' us win. It hurts us, and is damaging to our credibility. Whatever "good intelligence" we get out of "kinda torturing" people isn't worth slide in stature that we suffer.

Now as far as the torture and death threats accusations go... It's stupid to contend that there have not been prisoner abuses by Americans, we have tried and convicted several people for some of them already and investigations are ongoing. Abuse by individuals does not constitute systematic and regular torture or death threats unless you can somehow provide evidence that this is the case. Can you?

*Indeed, a few 'scapegoats' have been hung out to dry. However, to ignore that EVERY one of these persons have testified that their orders came from 'higher up', IS stupid. Moreover, when you take into consideration that the Sec. of Def.'s position has been NOT to defend prisoners against "uncomfortable holding procedures" and or "somewhat torture" IS evidence that this is a systimatic problem. When the system is set up NOT to provide protections, you can hardly solely blaim individual jailers for misdeeds against captives.

If it is an unlawful order then everyone who obeys it is guilty of the crimes committed in following it. It is the duty of every soldier, sailor, airman and marine to refuse to obey unlawful orders and to bring those orders to the attention of higher authority including judicial and I.G. authorities not subject to influence by the chain of command. So tell me again, since in your first paragraph you said the president isn't breaking any laws, what is illegal about this order? Simple citations to the U.S.C. will suffice along with a description of how the order violates the law.

*I believe that ANY order that violates or treads upon the rights innumerated in the Consititution, are 'illegal', and or should be struck down. Granted, I am NOT a Judge or Justice. I am just a simple citizen, but that doesn't mean my rights can or should be subject to ONE man's authority, even if it is the President's. I believe the courts inaction in regards to this order are no less than criminal, themselves. But they are the lawmakers, and I am but a subject. I don't get why you are still fighting me on this issue. An exective order IS law, until it is struck down. How this law violates the law, will have to be decided by an actual court.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

Firstly, regardless of what you may think, I am not stupid, dull, dense, or any other word you'd choose to insult my intelligence.

And I disagree with you. Your tirade in this thread has not been a shining example of well-balanced and reasoned thought, rather the opposite I think. What would you call that?

That Jose Padilla was taken into custody AS an American citizen, IN America, and still catagorized or labeled an "Enemy Combatant", under the President's 'orders' strikes me as unconstitutional, to say the VERY least.
Now you'd like me to document as to exactly what laws have been broken to the execution of such orders, within the U.S. Criminal code?

I simply asked you to back up your assertion. If you say someone is breaking the law you should be able to tell us which law is being broken. You can't do that so all you have is baseless assertion. Sounds very much like what you're accusing the adminstration of doing doesn't it?

Secondly, I have NO first hand knowledge of Padilla's case. I have only heard lawyers speak of his case on C-Span. From what I heard, he WAS shipped to GITMO after a holding period in America, and is NOW back in the U.S., and also isd NOW receiving regular counsel. Moreover, I understand that his first initial visits with counsel were monitered constantly, so even when he was getting counsel, it wasn't confidential. Padilla is an American citizen, captured on American soil. Regardless of what YOU may have heard about the case, I have heard something quite different.

Even the link you provided didn't say Padilla was sent to GITMO. So let's clear this up: To date one American Citizen was held at GITMO, Yaser Hamdi. We did not know he was an American Citizen at the time of his capture and learned only during a background investigation performed at GITMO. He was transferred to a stateside detention facility and later released to Saudi Arabia where he also holds citizenship after renouncing his U.S. Citizenship. The courts have held that they have the authority to review the cases of all detainees and that the detainees have the right to bring cases before them.

Padilla admits that he attended Al Qaeda training and many many other things including the plot to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States. For a change of pace why don't you read the Assistant Attorney General's statement on the Padilla case:

Remarks of Deputy Attorney General James Comey Regarding Jose Padilla

*When such orders banish, undo, or otherwise confine and or limit an American's right to counsel, then 'I' deem them to be unlawful, and call upon other Americans to do so aswell. To be perfectly honest, I don't know where in the Criminal Code, actual Law has been broken. From what I understood, an Executive Order is 'emergency law', that can be either unheld or striken down by the Courts. Additionally, the Legislature can act against an executive order as well. For the life of me I can't understand why you are bing such and ignorant ass about this. An American had his rights all but completely eliminted, and you want me to define the water he is drowning in. The guy deserves the life vest that IS Our Constitution, and the rights included therein.

As I've said before, nobody has been denied the right to council. That dog won't hunt. Again, since you can't say which law the order breaks that means you don't know enough to make the accusation. Leave it to the lawyers in the ACLU why don't ya? Why am I being such an ass? Perhaps it's because I'm not drinking the kool-aide you're pushing.

*Padilla is 'eligible' for the American Criminal Courts, not just Geneva Convention protections. This link provides evidence as to MY inaccuracies as to the case. I urge you to review the link for a better understanding of exactly who said what about whom and what the Administration said bout the case.

In case you haven't noticed twinkletoes Padilla has cases in front of the courts right now making that exact argument. You don't decde cases, the courts do. I expect that Padilla will reach a settlement with the government. Up to this point he's evidently been very cooperative. Your link seems to be more of a short story than a news article.

*How about our proping up a Monarchy to get cheap oil, while the common people in said country live in squaller??? How is supporting a NON-Democratic state not 'tyranical'? I'd like it if you considered the nature of Freedom, and how it is We came to be free. No do-gooder nation came in and 'told' us that we need to be free from King George. Nor did any nation come in and forcibly free us. WE decided that we needed to be free. I believe that forcing someone to live as you do is tryanical. People should be free to choose whatever form of government they want. If they want for the kind of democratic freedom that we enjoy, then it is up to 'them' to fight for it. Tryanny comes in many forms, only one of which is Democratic Imperialism. Funnily enough, Americans themselves have resorted back to a form of the feudal system. WE find confidence in people just because of who their parents were, as with our election of George W. Bush. Some would say that this President's son is tryanical in his over-reaching for power and authority... I see no need to impress our beliefs and standards upon an unwilling and uncooperative world.

You might wanna wipe some of that froth off your chin, you'll never get invited to the Amnesty International potlucks looking like that. Saying that dubya is responsible for 230 years of American foreign policy is kind of shallow isn't it? As a nation we have done things that are wrong and, here's something that is going to surprise you, so has everybody else. Like it or not dubya got elected. You can cry about it, you can rant about it, but he is the elected leader of this nation. Not a feudal system, a republic operating in accordance with its laws. You seem to think that if you display the most loathing of America you might win some kind of award or get recognition or something. I've said before and I'll say again baseless accusations and insane rhetoric will get you nowhere.

I'd like you to conceed the possibility that YOU may be absolutely and totally wrong, about this, and that 'I' may very well have a more insightful bead on things there...? Can you do that? Can you consider that YOU may be wrong?

Sure, I can consider it. Consider it considered, I was right all along and I'm still right. You're not just wrong, you're wrong-headed. You're not insightful just blinded by your own idiotic prejudices against the president.

*The President 'denied' the rights and priviledges alotted to ALL citizens of the U.S., period. This concerns me because this could happen to ANY American now. Wrongful claims, and a few mis-steps on the Internet, with the wrong color skin, and a few trips to the Middle East could render your Constitutionally Right, null and void. That we would paint with a broad brush, ALL captives taken in the name of this War on Terrorism- Enemy Combatants, troubles me moreover, because we are being seen as 'removing' people's right to free and fair trials. Rather than delivering swift justice to wrong doers, and freedom to the innocent, we are seen as bloodthrusty tyrants, bent on forcing our will upon whoever crosses us, or our path. Again, I'd like to make the point that we aren't going to 'win' this war, without winning the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East. We are asking them to lay down their arms and relent to OUR style of governing. In order for them to do so, THEY are going to have to trust us and the protection we offer... Denying prisoners for whatever reason, POW status, doesn't 'help' us win. It hurts us, and is damaging to our credibility. Whatever "good intelligence" we get out of "kinda torturing" people isn't worth slide in stature that we suffer.

The President's actions are subject to review in the courts. You know, checks and balances? It's how our system works? If anybody's rights have been violated the courts will determine that and address the issue. If they decide in Padilla's favor and he is released then he might be able to seek damages in compensation. Until then consider the possibility that he is a very dangerous man who was conspiring to kill all of us.

On another note granting POW status to people who do not deserve that status hurts us much more than it could possibly help us. It would show people that they could commit any atrocity they want and know that the U.S. would always treat them in accordance with the Conventions. Well, that's not how the Conventions work thankfully. Does it make us look bad? Well, maybe to the fanatics who support the people who want to kill us all. Frankly I want them dead myself. I'm not interested in hearing their complaints.

*Indeed, a few 'scapegoats' have been hung out to dry. However, to ignore that EVERY one of these persons have testified that their orders came from 'higher up', IS stupid. Moreover, when you take into consideration that the Sec. of Def.'s position has been NOT to defend prisoners against "uncomfortable holding procedures" and or "somewhat torture" IS evidence that this is a systimatic problem. When the system is set up NOT to provide protections, you can hardly solely blaim individual jailers for misdeeds against captives.

I'm afraid if you review the testimony (which is in the public domain) you will find that every one of these people convicted so far has not testified they were ordered to do these things. They say that they were influenced by others to do them, this isn't the same thing as an order. Orders are not given in secret, and there will be testimony and evidence of any orders to that effect. Where is it? Read the damn documents for cryin' out loud. As for blame, yes the administration and the chain of command share responsibility for the acts of their subordinates. Being responsible is not the same thing as being guilty of a crime. If you have evidence of a crime then bring it otherwise it's just more hot air blowing.

As for torture, you were advised before to use the proper definition of torture and not your own. Apply the standard and look at the cases. There may be systematic problems, but that does not mean that everyone in the system is a criminal.

*I believe that ANY order that violates or treads upon the rights innumerated in the Consititution, are 'illegal', and or should be struck down. Granted, I am NOT a Judge or Justice. I am just a simple citizen, but that doesn't mean my rights can or should be subject to ONE man's authority, even if it is the President's. I believe the courts inaction in regards to this order are no less than criminal, themselves. But they are the lawmakers, and I am but a subject. I don't get why you are still fighting me on this issue. An exective order IS law, until it is struck down. How this law violates the law, will have to be decided by an actual court.

I've said before that executive orders are not law. If you care to argue that position then I'd suggest you provide some documentation that they are. Your definition of illegal is not what is important here. We have courts to look at these issues and decide their legality and a legislature that can change the laws if they wish. Checks and balances, it really does work. Bush is not king of America nor does he claim to be. If you think the courts aren't protecting you and the president is abusing you and congress isn't helping you then you might want to run away to another country. I suggest North Korea. Tell the Dear Leader I said hi.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

If I kill you, I am a murder.

It will take the Courts some time before am I convicted, so until then I am just 'accused' of murdering you, I am not an actual murder, is that what you are saying?

I've 'accused' this Administration of violating the rights of at least ONE American captured on American soil. What you are saying is that I can't even make the accusation without being labeled "stupid", because the Courts haven't upheld my decision yet...

Firstly, I'd like to say that although I am no fan of President Bush, my feelings about Americans losing their Constitutional Rights has NOTHING to do with my personal feelings about his qualifications. We 'elected' a man for the highest postion in the land after he only ever held ONE elected office of a State with THE weakest Governor's Seat in the entire union. We did so, because of his name, and the fact that his father was also President. We may very well be a system of Law, held together by a set of strings with Democratic Republic tags all over it, but in the end the sheeple still fall back one's heritage as the deciding factor, in choosing our Commander in Chief...

On election day, I found this President lacking, but that doesn't disqualify my in pointing out his errors, or does it???

Regarding the link I provided, I said it displayed my misunderstandings about the case...although you disregarded it as a 'story', the statement YOU provided listed the details about Padilla preceeded by this statement: "Let me tell you the sobering story of Jose Padilla."

The fact of the matter, be it expressed in 'story' form or in some other expression, is that Padilla did NOT have access to counsel immediately and in private. Regardless of the 'reasons' put forth, an American's rights were violated and under those same rules or 'orders', you or I could now suffer the same fate. Padilla WAS indeed without counsel. Does YOUR link provide any 'details' about when and how he was held???


QUOTED FROM YOUR LINK

Padilla was arrested by the FBI in Chicago on a material witness warrant authorized by a federal judge in New York.

And he was transferred to Manhattan, where I was then the United States attorney. He was appointed a lawyer at public expense, and we set about trying to see if he would tell the grand jury what he knew about al Qaeda. With time running out in that process, on June the 9th of 2002, just about two years ago, the president of the United States ordered that Padilla be turned over to the custody of the Department of Defense as an enemy combatant, where he remains.

What date was he arrested, and from that moments how long did it take to get him a lawyer? What happened between those two periods? I've heard HIS LAWYER say that the exchanges were rare and heavily monitered, and that he was forced to surrender any notes or recordings taken during counsel meetings. Padilla's rights were violated, the government's case is that they did so for 'good' reasons. Are YOU suggesting that there ARE 'good enough' reasons to violate an American's rights...? Because THAT is where I have a problem. The President can't just make up an order, say it is in the interest of national security, and wipe away someone's Constutitionally protected rights.

As I've said before, nobody has been denied the right to council. That dog won't hunt. Again, since you can't say which law the order breaks that means you don't know enough to make the accusation. Leave it to the lawyers in the ACLU why don't ya? Why am I being such an ass? Perhaps it's because I'm not drinking the kool-aide you're pushing.

Like I said before, just because I haven't been 'convicted' of murder, doesn't mean that I didn't DO it. Being 'convicted' of murder just provides 'legal affirmation' to the claim. If I kill someone, I am a murder, period. The people who witness the act, KNOW I am a murder. They don't need a jury of 12 people to assure them of that fact.

The President's actions are subject to review in the courts. You know, checks and balances? It's how our system works? If anybody's rights have been violated the courts will determine that and address the issue. If they decide in Padilla's favor and he is released then he might be able to seek damages in compensation. Until then consider the possibility that he is a very dangerous man who was conspiring to kill all of us.

What I am 'contending' is that the system ISN'T 'working', and that this Administration ISN'T being properly checked, and that the power isn't balanced. If Padilla is a bad as teh government contends to have had his rights violated, then they must have had some pretty heavy evidence as to his scum-baggedness...charge him with a crime and put him on trial. He's an American and that's what he has the right to...

On another note granting POW status to people who do not deserve that status hurts us much more than it could possibly help us. It would show people that they could commit any atrocity they want and know that the U.S. would always treat them in accordance with the Conventions. Well, that's not how the Conventions work thankfully. Does it make us look bad? Well, maybe to the fanatics who support the people who want to kill us all. Frankly I want them dead myself. I'm not interested in hearing their complaints.

I think you are wrong. Wanting people dead, and not being interested in their complaints IS why they hate us. You are part of the problem and not the solution...

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

I've 'accused'...
I've heard...
What I am 'contending'...
I think you are wrong...

These are four obvious places where you should be including a citation instead of hot air and righteous opinion. You should have realized long ago that repeating yourself avails you naught.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

If I kill you, I am a murder.

It seems you don't even know the definition of murder. You really should read more.

It will take the Courts some time before am I convicted, so until then I am just 'accused' of murdering you, I am not an actual murder, is that what you are saying?

Isn't that the entire premise of innocent until proven guilty?

I've 'accused' this Administration of violating the rights of at least ONE American captured on American soil. What you are saying is that I can't even make the accusation without being labeled "stupid", because the Courts haven't upheld my decision yet...

Yep, you've accused and failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support your accusations. I've given more evidence to that effect here than you have.

Firstly, I'd like to say that although I am no fan of President Bush, my feelings about Americans losing their Constitutional Rights has NOTHING to do with my personal feelings about his qualifications. We 'elected' a man for the highest postion in the land after he only ever held ONE elected office of a State with THE weakest Governor's Seat in the entire union. We did so, because of his name, and the fact that his father was also President. We may very well be a system of Law, held together by a set of strings with Democratic Republic tags all over it, but in the end the sheeple still fall back one's heritage as the deciding factor, in choosing our Commander in Chief...

Well aren't the "sheeple" lucky to have you here to defend their rights? I think your agenda has just become clear. The only thing that upsets you is that you're not King of America. The people reelected dubya, not based on who his father was, but based on who he is...oh and the fact that the Democrats decided to run an absolute milk-toast wiener without an ounce of conviction in his body. Dubya wouldn't have won against Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy or even Clinton.

On election day, I found this President lacking, but that doesn't disqualify my in pointing out his errors, or does it???

Nope, go ahead and comment all you want, but have some evidence in hand before you accuse people of crimes.

Regarding the link I provided, I said it displayed my misunderstandings about the case...although you disregarded it as a 'story', the statement YOU provided listed the details about Padilla preceeded by this statement: "Let me tell you the sobering story of Jose Padilla."

Are you saying that the statement is factually incorrect? Do you have evidence?

The fact of the matter, be it expressed in 'story' form or in some other expression, is that Padilla did NOT have access to counsel immediately and in private. Regardless of the 'reasons' put forth, an American's rights were violated and under those same rules or 'orders', you or I could now suffer the same fate. Padilla WAS indeed without counsel. Does YOUR link provide any 'details' about when and how he was held???

Doesn't it? He was arrested in Chicago, transferred to New York and assigned counsel. You can't hit on the important part of this argument that I wouldn't argue: since being moved to South Carolina Padilla has had no visits with his lawyer at all. The Attorney General explains that and it remains for the courts to decide if that is sufficient or not. See, the real problem here is that Padilla's friend and lawyer is an absolute incompetent who tried to manipulate the court system by ignoring a very basic premise of habeus corpus. You must file in a court that has jurisdiction over the person who can produce the subject. I think she was hoping for a liberal New York court for the case, but I tend to think that's part of the reason he was moved to South Carolina.

What date was he arrested, and from that moments how long did it take to get him a lawyer? What happened between those two periods? I've heard HIS LAWYER say that the exchanges were rare and heavily monitered, and that he was forced to surrender any notes or recordings taken during counsel meetings. Padilla's rights were violated, the government's case is that they did so for 'good' reasons. Are YOU suggesting that there ARE 'good enough' reasons to violate an American's rights...? Because THAT is where I have a problem. The President can't just make up an order, say it is in the interest of national security, and wipe away someone's Constutitionally protected rights.

You heard? Ya know hearsay is not admissable in court right? Just because you place the source of the accusations on someone else's shoulders doesn't make them any more true. By the way, there are reasons good enough to violate an American's rights. I'll leave you to consider what they might be.

Like I said before, just because I haven't been 'convicted' of murder, doesn't mean that I didn't DO it. Being 'convicted' of murder just provides 'legal affirmation' to the claim. If I kill someone, I am a murder, period. The people who witness the act, KNOW I am a murder. They don't need a jury of 12 people to assure them of that fact.

Quite right, however they do need that jury if they are going to convict and punish you because unless you plead guilty, someone must show evidence that proves you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. You see, it doesn't matter what any of them think, the process must run its course to reach a legal conclusion. I refer you to some suggested reading:

A book just for KoA

What I am 'contending' is that the system ISN'T 'working', and that this Administration ISN'T being properly checked, and that the power isn't balanced. If Padilla is a bad as teh government contends to have had his rights violated, then they must have had some pretty heavy evidence as to his scum-baggedness...charge him with a crime and put him on trial. He's an American and that's what he has the right to...

You may be contending it but you aren't supporting your argument worth a damn. You are just making assertions and presenting your opinions as fact. Essentially saying: someone please make up a crime and charge dubya with it.

I think you are wrong. Wanting people dead, and not being interested in their complaints IS why they hate us. You are part of the problem and not the solution...

Hmmm, and what about my statements has lead you to believe I want anybody dead other than people who already want me dead? I don't care about their opinion, I want them dead. As soon as they stop I will. That's not wrong, that's simple self-defense. A position which is easy to defend no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from.

Once again you've brought nothing but assertions and wishful thinking to the debate. Bring some facts, bring some evidence.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

Alright, I have a pretty good handle as to where you are coming from, and I believe you are I are at an impass.

You believe that the President and his Administration are acting in the best interest of America, and that their actions are both lawful and desirable, in their limiting an American's rights in pursuit of this War on Terrorism...

I do not. I believe that even someone absolutely guilty of treason deserves his day in court with a lawyer at his side. Even if Padilla was THE worst human alive, being an American caught on American soil insures him certain inalienable rights, and I furthermore believe that an Executive who seeks power to undo, tread upon, or other wise eliminate an American's rights is doing so in an unlawful manner.

My case, will NEVER be strong enough, for you. Because you believe that there ARE 'good enough' reasons to dismiss someone rights...whereas I believe it is an individual's rights that are to be protected, if we are to truly protect what it is America stands for.

Let's say simply that we agree to disagree, shall we?

Hmmm, and what about my statements has lead you to believe I want anybody dead other than people who already want me dead? I don't care about their opinion, I want them dead. As soon as they stop I will. That's not wrong, that's simple self-defense. A position which is easy to defend no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from.

*Another point you and I seem to disagree upon here is "who threw the first punch?"

You'll "stop when THEY do"...consider that, that is THEIR thinking as well... When you/We are out of THEIR country, they will stop aggression toward you/ Us. If you were in their country, maybe you'd see THEIR actions as self-defense...?

I also thought it ironic that you would use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" in defense of your position.

 

[Cylinder]

Re: To Dan:

I believe that even someone absolutely guilty of treason deserves his day in court with a lawyer at his side. Even if Padilla was THE worst human alive, being an American caught on American soil insures him certain inalienable rights, and I furthermore believe that an Executive who seeks power to undo, tread upon, or other wise eliminate an American's rights is doing so in an unlawful manner.

The argument is not so much whether-or-not Padilia will be a criminal defendant one day - but if he is also a member of a combatant organization at war with the United States. As such, it is well-established that the executive has the power to detain Padilia not as a punitive measure but to prevent further attacks on the US. You need to read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to understand the relevant case law.

You'll "stop when THEY do"...consider that, that is THEIR thinking as well... When you/We are out of THEIR country, they will stop aggression toward you/ Us. If you were in their country, maybe you'd see THEIR actions as self-defense...?

Padilia is a US citizen. Which country is "his"?

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

Alright, I have a pretty good handle as to where you are coming from, and I believe you are I are at an impass.

You evidently don't have the slightest idea where I'm coming from. Read on...

You believe that the President and his Administration are acting in the best interest of America, and that their actions are both lawful and desirable, in their limiting an American's rights in pursuit of this War on Terrorism...

I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that your accusations have no facts to back them up.

I do not. I believe that even someone absolutely guilty of treason deserves his day in court with a lawyer at his side. Even if Padilla was THE worst human alive, being an American caught on American soil insures him certain inalienable rights, and I furthermore believe that an Executive who seeks power to undo, tread upon, or other wise eliminate an American's rights is doing so in an unlawful manner.

Really? So what about back when Lincoln suspended the right of Habeus Corpus entirely? Did dubya go back in his time machine to give Lincoln that power? The president did not seek the power, the president has the power and has given citations to U.S.C. and the Constitution to support that position. You have, as usual, nothing but accusations. For the record, I'm not saying the administration is right in this case, I am saying that the issue must be decided by a court, and definitely not by you.

My case, will NEVER be strong enough, for you. Because you believe that there ARE 'good enough' reasons to dismiss someone rights...whereas I believe it is an individual's rights that are to be protected, if we are to truly protect what it is America stands for.

Your case will never be strong enough for me because you are unable to provide any evidence in support of your position. If you think there is never a valid reason to disregard a person's rights then you are just as much a fanatic as the terrorists and should be ridiculed accordingly. You might want to rethink that position.

Let's say simply that we agree to disagree, shall we?

Nope. I don't necessarily disagree with you on everything, you are merely incapable of making a reasoned argument in support of them.

*Another point you and I seem to disagree upon here is "who threw the first punch?"

Perhaps, but it is ultimately a flawed argument to say that we must forgive their actions because of what we did in the past while they do not have to forgive us. I'm afraid that despite the terrorist's wishes, the United States is not the root cause of their problems. Unfortunately if they were to look at the root cause they'd still be blowing themselves up, but maybe they'd do it someplace where it wouldn't hurt kids. So tell me, what was the first punch?

You'll "stop when THEY do"...consider that, that is THEIR thinking as well... When you/We are out of THEIR country, they will stop aggression toward you/ Us. If you were in their country, maybe you'd see THEIR actions as self-defense...?

Flying plane loads of civilians into skyscrapers is not valid self defense. Killing children is not self defense. Hiding in a mosque or in a red crescent marked ambulance to attack a patrol is not self defense. Taking and killing hostages is not self defense. The fact is that caving into terrorist demands only makes the terrorists demand more. This is simple historical truth. It doesn't matter how justified your cause is, acts of terror are crimes. Where the crimes exceed the power of civil authority to control then it becomes a military responsibility, with all the associated problems.

I also thought it ironic that you would use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" in defense of your position.

That's right, any reason why I can't? Tell me, what international court has tried the United States and sentenced us collectively to attacks by terrorists? Padilla is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The United States government is not saying Padilla is guilty, they are saying that he is too dangerous and valuable as intelligence source to be released. They have given the reasons for this decision along with the legal grounds for their actions. It remains for the courts to decide if they are right or not.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: Re: To Dan:

The argument is not so much whether-or-not Padilia will be a criminal defendant one day - but if he is also a member of a combatant organization at war with the United States. As such, it is well-established that the executive has the power to detain Padilia not as a punitive measure but to prevent further attacks on the US. You need to read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to understand the relevant case law.

Asking KOA to look at source material and provide evidence is a waste of time. See, he just knows the truth by osmosis or something. And he thinks dubya has ego problems!

Padilia is a US citizen. Which country is "his"?

Damn. I wish I'd said that!

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

Alright, I have a pretty good handle as to where you are coming from, and I believe you are I are at an impass.

Typical, you're like the black knight in The Holy Grail, once again on the ground sans limbs, courageously decalring a draw. Talk about needing a new act...

You believe that the President and his Administration are acting in the best interest of America, and that their actions are both lawful and desirable, in their limiting an American's rights in pursuit of this War on Terrorism...

...which you then attempt to bolster by inaccurately characterizing what has been said. There's a reason you don't actually quote Dan, isn't there? Could it be because you're deliberately trying to obfuscate the debate?

I do not. I believe that even someone absolutely guilty of treason deserves his day in court with a lawyer at his side. Even if Padilla was THE worst human alive, being an American caught on American soil insures him certain inalienable rights, and I furthermore believe that an Executive who seeks power to undo, tread upon, or other wise eliminate an American's rights is doing so in an unlawful manner.

"I believe... I believe... I believe..."
When will you learn that your beliefs are worthless, particularly here, unless you can back them up with something more than your pathetic attempts at prettified language? You're like the love child of Shakespeare and Forrest Gump, seriously.

My case, will NEVER be strong enough, for you. Because you believe that there ARE 'good enough' reasons to dismiss someone rights...whereas I believe it is an individual's rights that are to be protected, if we are to truly protect what it is America stands for.

He doesn't "believe" it, HE PROVED IT IS TRUE. You can try to equate your positions, but you have come up quite short on this thread and been shown a lot of patience. And now, the inevitable...

Let's say simply that we agree to disagree, shall we?

Hey, draw-caller... have you noticed you're out of limbs?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: To Dan:

Nope. I don't necessarily disagree with you on everything, you are merely incapable of making a reasoned argument in support of them.

Damn, KOA can't even get you to agree to disagree. That's gotta hurt.

You deserve a reward Dan for civility and patience. My hats off to you.

 

[varwoche]

I feel a bit guilty to say this, and maybe I should even apologize to Kampground (King that is).

(In fact, I am sorry KOA, to an extent that is just a tad beneath 50%.)

Seeing a KOA thread is a treat. That's because Jocko is so damn funny I can't handle it, except I feel a little bit bad to encourage him.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

Firstly, I'd like to say that I didn't come here to prove to the world that the President and his Administration were acting unlawfully. Indeed, I did 'only' come here with MY personal interpretations of Constutitional Law, and bits and pieces of lawyers' speak on the matter.

As with almost EVERY other topic I have started within this forum, I come to state MY case, why I believe it, and then offer my stance up for rebuttle by some of the most well read and well researched posters on the internet. I have no problems conceeding to superior points and or better reasoning skills. That said, suggesting that I haven't 'proven' my case beyond a reasonable doubt does little to provide evidence that my original accusations were incorrect... Now that is NOT to suggest that it is your duty or responsibility to do so.

What I am looking out of this exchange is an informative swap of views... An, I think the way I do because of X-information, why do you believe the way you do.

I disagree with almost everything you offered here:

Really? So what about back when Lincoln suspended the right of Habeus Corpus entirely? Did dubya go back in his time machine to give Lincoln that power? The president did not seek the power, the president has the power and has given citations to U.S.C. and the Constitution to support that position. You have, as usual, nothing but accusations. For the record, I'm not saying the administration is right in this case, I am saying that the issue must be decided by a court, and definitely not by you.

Lincoln action's during the Civil War have nothing to do with this instance. However, I will conceed your point about what I actually bring to this exchange, in the way of arguable facts about present Law. For the record, WHAT IS YOUR STANCE??? Given that neither of us actually create or interpret Law, what do you 'think' about what has happened to Padilla, and do you have a problem with holding an American in such a manner?

Your case will never be strong enough for me because you are unable to provide any evidence in support of your position. If you think there is never a valid reason to disregard a person's rights then you are just as much a fanatic as the terrorists and should be ridiculed accordingly. You might want to rethink that position.

Okay, I have re-thought my postion, and I STILL believe that an American's Constitutional Rights should be protected, FIRST AND FOREMOST. I have difficulty imagining an instance wherein it would be 'ok' to abandon an American's Rights...

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Nope. I don't necessarily disagree with you on everything, you are merely incapable of making a reasoned argument in support of them.

I think there is a difference in presenting a 'reasoned' argument, and presenting an iron clad argument with complete and total evidenciary support. Why not take a position and present some of your own evidence, rather than pontificating on what I am and am not capable of?

Perhaps, but it is ultimately a flawed argument to say that we must forgive their actions because of what we did in the past while they do not have to forgive us. I'm afraid that despite the terrorist's wishes, the United States is not the root cause of their problems. Unfortunately if they were to look at the root cause they'd still be blowing themselves up, but maybe they'd do it someplace where it wouldn't hurt kids. So tell me, what was the first punch?

Honestly, I couldn't say, but I would 'think' that the first punch, was when We moved our military forces into 'greater Arabia' for the purpose of affecting political influence in the area... I am not exactly sure 'what' the first punch was, I just know that it WASN'T the 9.11. attacks.

Flying plane loads of civilians into skyscrapers is not valid self defense. Killing children is not self defense. Hiding in a mosque or in a red crescent marked ambulance to attack a patrol is not self defense. Taking and killing hostages is not self defense. The fact is that caving into terrorist demands only makes the terrorists demand more. This is simple historical truth. It doesn't matter how justified your cause is, acts of terror are crimes. Where the crimes exceed the power of civil authority to control then it becomes a military responsibility, with all the associated problems.

During War, civilians die. We targeted two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs, killing tens of thousands of 'innocent women and children'... When we started our country, many of the revolutionists fired upon the Red Coats from behind trees, rocks, and civilian houses. These acts were NOT in keeping with the Rules of War of the period. THIS is simply 'historical truth', and one would be hard pressed to find ANY army that didn't inflict damages to their perceived enemy in a manner not adhearing to to the Rules of War, again of that period. I am not sure what acts are or are not 'acceptible' during War anymore. Moreover, I am not sure what an 'act of terror' is. If my hometown were suddenly to suffer an invasion from an Islamic army and their families, 'I' may very well reduce myself to attacking ALL of them in an effort to resist an outright invasion and occupation, even their women and children. And I am just s SURE that among these invaders, the speak would be about how 'inhuman' and 'savage' my attacks were, giving reason for labeling me a mindless animal deserving of little more than extermination... In the end, maybe all IS fair during Love and War.

That's right, any reason why I can't? Tell me, what international court has tried the United States and sentenced us collectively to attacks by terrorists? Padilla is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The United States government is not saying Padilla is guilty, they are saying that he is too dangerous and valuable as intelligence source to be released. They have given the reasons for this decision along with the legal grounds for their actions. It remains for the courts to decide if they are right or not.

Padilla is NOW, what he is, an American citizen captured on American soil who has been denied his Consitutional Rights. A Court may 'legally affirm' this as rightious action, but the fact remains that his rights were violated...if only for 'good enough' reasons. Again, I am NOT here to state, make, or offer legally binding interpretations of the Law. I am merely saying that Padilla is an AMERICAN taken into custody in America, and as such that entitles him to certain rights.

A look back at this post, reminds me of my original accusation, that this Administration has taken steps BACKWARDS in the protection of individuals' rights, be they prisoners taken during this War on Terrorism from foreign lands, OR be they American Citizens. I feel furthermore that there has been more than enough evidence posted here to back up that claim. Now, I believe that it is a separate argument to have upon the 'rightiousness' or 'legality' of those actions. Regardless of the courts' findings, or your opinion on the matter, there is no arguing that this Administration has sought to limit, reduce, or otherwise undo rights and priviledges accorded to persons by the Geneva Conventions & Our Constitution.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

Firstly, I'd like to say that I didn't come here to prove to the world that the President and his Administration were acting unlawfully. Indeed, I did 'only' come here with MY personal interpretations of Constutitional Law, and bits and pieces of lawyers' speak on the matter.

And naturally, you thought, "a SKEPTICS BOARD! Yes, that's where I should be spouting my unsubstantiated nonsense." Perfectly understandable.

As with almost EVERY other topic I have started within this forum, I come to state MY case, why I believe it, and then offer my stance up for rebuttle by some of the most well read and well researched posters on the internet.

Which you then ignore.

Tell me, KOA, how is one to offer a "rebuttle"[sic] to your idiotic opinion, other than telling you it's an idiotic opinion? You have no regard for facts that can be discussed, realities that can be measured, or proof that can be weighed. You just said as much.

So what do you expect from this place, other than the usual any-attention-is-good-attention drubbing you always get?

I have no problems conceeding to superior points and or better reasoning skills. That said, suggesting that I haven't 'proven' my case beyond a reasonable doubt does little to provide evidence that my original accusations were incorrect... Now that is NOT to suggest that it is your duty or responsibility to do so.

Again, why do you regurgitate your nonsense here and expect anything but contempt?

You haven't "proven" anything, other than the water table of your home town should be checked for high levels of mercury, and SOON.

What I am looking out of this exchange is an informative swap of views... An, I think the way I do because of X-information, why do you believe the way you do.

Wow, let's compare "beliefs" without any regard to evidence. Why do you think anyone here is interested in that? I was going to address the rest of your post, but I think you get the idea.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

Don't you get tired of this...?

I mean seriously, when are you going to grow the f*ck up!?

This last response is exactly why I usually ignore your posts altogether. Look what you did! You IGNORED the 'meat' in my post and only offered up meaningless attacks upon my person, motives, and even how I present my arguments.

I think I'd be best served to go back to not even reading your excrement...

And you can ME an attention seeker???

"Hello kettle, this is Jocko..."

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

Don't you get tired of this...?

Nope, not really.

I mean seriously, when are you going to grow the f*ck up!?

You mean assume the responsibilities of an adult, such as a job... marriage... financial planning for the future? Face it, son, you have no idea what it means to grow up.

This last response is exactly why I usually ignore your posts altogether. Look what you did! You IGNORED the 'meat' in my post and only offered up meaningless attacks upon my person, motives, and even how I present my arguments.

You have no meat, dude. Not a lick of it. You even admitted as much. Don't criticize me for being served something you call soup, then sending it back to the kitchen as a low-grade broth.

You have provided no evidence. You haven't even read the counterexamples Dan and others gave you. So again, let me ask you: What is the point of even discussing an issue, any issue, with you when all you offer is beliefs wrapped in some of the poorest grammar and composition skills the world has ever seen?

Face it, "how" you present your arguments, being as funny as it is, is the only reason anyone ever replies to you. Frankly, I know I can't get enough of it when you launch into your bizarre amalgam of Moses, Lincoln and Yoda. It's funny. You're funny. But that's the extent of your contribution, make no mistake.

I think I'd be best served to go back to not even reading your excrement...

Sure, whatever. It's not for your benefit anyway. That unsettling titter you hear is the sound of a whole lot of people laughing at a joke you just don't get.

In other words, I don't much care if the chicken knows why we theorize about why it crosses the road. It's just not necessary to my enjoyment.

And you can ME an attention seeker???

"Hello kettle, this is Jocko..."

Don't you have another crushing defeat to plan for in just 4 years? I think you have it in you to really surpass yourself this time... maybe even break into the single digits. That's what I call attention-seeking.

Sigh... well, since you've already gone through the requisite steps of implosion, to wit:

1. Accused others of "not getting it"
2. Ignored/not read evidence - real evidence - that debunks your silliness
3. Declared a draw in a way that only Saddam Hussein could love
4. Turned around to blame me for the whole ugly mess, as if I was the one puking up a ton of poorly-worded paranoia and slapping your name on it

I think we can, at this point, look forward to the end of KOA hurricane season and enjoy the sweet silence of you spending the next three months pondering your next bold, incisive pile of tripe.

Let me know how that whole "growing up" thing works out for you, stud.