Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 02/01/2005 View Mon 01/31/2005 View Sun 01/30/2005 View Sat 01/29/2005 View Fri 01/28/2005 View Thu 01/27/2005 View Wed 01/26/2005
1
2005-02-01 Home Front: WoT
Judge declares military tribunals in Guantanamo unconstitutional
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2005-02-01 2:20:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [11144 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 This ruling conflicts with an equal and opposite ruling from a different federal judge, which almost certainly means that it is put on hold pending appeal.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-01 9:14:19 AM||   2005-02-01 9:14:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Geneva convention applies because they are part of Al-Qaeda? So where, oh stupid and foolish judge, did Binny sign the Geneva convention?

And you might want to ask Nick Berg and the thousands of other innocent victims who were deliberately targetted and murdered what they think abou it.

I maintain that we *cant* apply the Geneva convention to terrorists because doing so would remove any incentive for anyone else to abide by it.

The main reason for abiding by the Geneva Convention is to insure your people are treated as well. Give them a pass and the convention isn't worth the paper its signed on.
Posted by CrazyFool 2005-02-01 9:21:43 AM||   2005-02-01 9:21:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Our best bet is to shoot everyone we hold down there and start over.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-02-01 9:24:07 AM||   2005-02-01 9:24:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I guess our legal system wants us to lose the war.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 9:30:04 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2005-02-01 9:30:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This judge is a Carter appointee. Figures...
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-02-01 9:35:19 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-02-01 9:35:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I assume she is a Clinton appointment? I recommend the government ignore this dingbat and appeal.

The court system in this country is ill suited to fight the war on terror. These “lawyer” who pursue these cases do this for a living. They went to school so they can destroy the US using our own laws. They do nothing else. They pursue court cases that eat up money and court time that will further their own usually communist or radical socialist agenda. Our country is a nation of laws but there are just to many lawyers. Most of them are up to no good. I consider all of them dangerous enemies of our personal liberty and well being until they prove otherwise.
Posted by SPOD 2005-02-01 9:38:48 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2005-02-01 9:38:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The judge chooses to ignor SJR 23

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:

which is the declaration of war. Combatants are held till the war is over. BTW no treaty was approved to end WWI, Congress just repealed the declaration of war to end hostilities.
Posted by Elmomoting Grunter8338 2005-02-01 10:07:31 AM||   2005-02-01 10:07:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that no one under US jurisdiction can be "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Funny, and all this time I thought the Constitution applied to U.S. citizens, not just anyone under U.S. "jurisdiction." Another, seemingly obvious question is, if these guys never set foot on U.S. soil, are not U.S. citizens, are not part of a foreign national army, then HOW IN THE WORLD can the US Constitution (much less the Geneva Conventions) apply to them? But, what do I know, I'm just a dumb redneck red-stater, who actually thought the laws mean what they say.
Posted by BA  2005-02-01 10:09:31 AM||   2005-02-01 10:09:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 BA, that would be probably the case if there were no lawyers. Unfortunately, they hatch all the time.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-02-01 10:22:31 AM||   2005-02-01 10:22:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 "The court has made it's decision. Now, let's see them enforce it."
-- President Andrew Jackson
Posted by mojo  2005-02-01 10:38:10 AM||   2005-02-01 10:38:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I think that since the judge doesn't think the tribunals are "legal" maybe the gitmo crowd can go live with him? This is all LLL crap, because we have have NEVER extended the fifth amendment to unlawful combatants in any conflict. There really ought to be a way to recall judges that make shit up on the bench.
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2005-02-01 11:37:06 AM||   2005-02-01 11:37:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 7.62
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-02-01 12:16:52 PM||   2005-02-01 12:16:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 HOW IN THE WORLD can the US Constitution (much less the Geneva Conventions) apply to them?

Well I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but isn't the Bill of Rights meant to restrict the powers of the government? And isn't the government composed of citizens?

So when the Bill of Rights says "No person shall be held...etc, etc" isn't that correctly interpreted as "WE FORBID YOU, O GOVERNMENT OF OURS, TO HOLD ANY PERSON...etc, etc"?

If you had meant it to say "No citizen" rather than "No person" then you should have said "No citizen" in the first place. Because "no person" seems to me to be both specific and concise in applying to all people, whether citizens or not -- the same way it applies to people of all colors, people of both genders, people regardless of age, it makes sense to also apply to people regardless of citizenship.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 12:31:00 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 12:31:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 This "judgement" is pretty damned stupid, but not much of a surprise. The U.S. government, by not moving more swiftly to get the tribunals going, practically invited court challenges.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-01 12:35:01 PM||   2005-02-01 12:35:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Lord have mercy.

Aris is back, explaining our Constitution to us.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 12:39:00 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 12:39:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 "Lord have mercy. Aris is back, explaining our Constitution to us."

Seems like you needed it.

But if it makes you feel better I've used the same arguments about what the Bill of Rights means that I've been taught in Rantburg by Rantburgers, especially about the Bill of Rights applies to the *government* (in order to restrict it, rather than "give" rights to people that they already have by their nature) and also about how "specific and concise" the document is.

You will no longer be able to claim your constitution as "specific" or "clear" if the word "person" is used to mean "citizen" instead.

Deal. If Rantburg teaches me something, I'm not obliged to apply it only in the cases that Rantburgers would like.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 12:51:00 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 12:51:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Bill of Rights, Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger..."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

There you go -- we'll hold them until the end of the WOT. Shouldn't last more than a hundred years or so.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 12:53:36 PM||   2005-02-01 12:53:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Seems like you needed it.

So Aris has determined that releasing armed terrorists are what we need?

How's about, Greek Boy, we decide we no longer need you breathing and posting to Rantburg. Fair enough?

Do you agree this is something you "need?"
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 1:00:43 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 1:00:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks, Tom, what an "enlightening" expose to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As long as the war's on, all bets are off for the jihadis we capture, eh?
Posted by BA  2005-02-01 1:16:19 PM||   2005-02-01 1:16:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 So Aris has determined that releasing armed terrorists are what we need?

I think that what you need is start knowing what your own constitution says. And if you don't like what it says, then you should change it according to the process set forth therein.

How's about, Greek Boy, we decide we no longer need you breathing and posting to Rantburg. Fair enough? Do you agree this is something you "need?"

Why, badanov, you are so macho and Christian and stuff! I'd swoon before your manly man's presence if I wasn't tremendously amused by your ravings instead! :D

As a sidenote I wonder if impled threats falls under "ad hominem" or they are in a category of their very own. :-)

Anyway, unless your other name is Fred, not yours to judge whether I should post here.

Tom> As long as it's conceded that "person" does indeed mean "person" and not just white personcitizen, I don't much care whether you'll use other elements of that amendment to call Guantanamo prisons constitutional.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 1:19:37 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 1:19:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 As I understand it, Aris, any human being qualifies as a "person" in our constitution. Wishing otherwise does not make it so.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 1:23:57 PM||   2005-02-01 1:23:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Typically, Aris is cherry picking the questions he will answer.

Answer me, Greek Boy. Is what I said fair? Do we get to decide what you "need?"
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 1:26:18 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 1:26:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Tom> Then we are in agreement.

badanov> 'Do we get to decide what you "need?"'

Stop with the "we" unless there are multiple personalities in there. You only speak for yourself.

And I'm sure you've decided what I "need" already. Too bad (for you) you've no more power in this forum than I do, namely the one to make posts. This ofcourse had been annoying enough by itself when some other people had decided that I "needed" to be stalked, harassed, trolled, etc. But c'est la vie.

Typically, Aris is cherry picking the questions he will answer

Yes. Some questions are beneath contempt and undeserving of answers. But as I've done you the favour to reply, why don't you answer me this question instead: "Does person mean person, or does it mean citizen? And if it meant citizen, why didn't it say 'citizen' in the first place?"
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 1:37:26 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 1:37:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Oh, dear sweet God, there goes the bandwidth again....

Look, Aris, we have this thing called "judge shopping". You look for a judge that is more than likely sympathetic to your cause. That doesn't mean it is going to be upheld on appeal.

More than likely, the government will appeal this to a higher court, then they'll appeal...until it gets to the Supreme Court. This is just part of the game. Nothing has been resolved.

The only thing the defendants' lawyers are trying to do is make sure they are covered by the Constitution, not by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Constitutional rights are far more broad than those that military personnel serve under.....which, I am sure, you will discover once you enlist.

The judge hasn't resolved a damn thing by saying they are covered somewhat by the Geneva Convention. That would make them regular prisoners of war.....covered by the UCMJ if I am correct. Tom's quote from the 5th Amendment also backs that up.

This isn't a case of debating whether these guys broke into a liquor store and committed an armed robbery. These are individuals fighting against the United States. It's just one of the first rounds in determining if they are "combatants" or "individuals covered by the Constitution".

Can't wait to see what the appeals judge says....
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-01 2:04:01 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 2:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Actually as I remember from my old public school 'history' class (for what thats worth).... at the time the consitution was initially written 'person' did not include the slaves of the southern states.

Having said that I dont think the consitution applies to enemy combatants (legal or illegal) taken on foeign soil - that is a far, far, reach especially if the geneva convention does not apply.
Posted by CrazyFool 2005-02-01 2:19:33 PM||   2005-02-01 2:19:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 CF is right, Aris. Person back then meant different things than it does now. And, as Tom's quote shows, it does NOT apply to those brought up during times of war (which this is) by our military.
Posted by BA  2005-02-01 3:11:37 PM||   2005-02-01 3:11:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 This totally ingnores any secret "Presidental Findings" that maybe in force. Findings can involve interesting marshall law based narrow rulings....
Anybody know how many obf these are still in force?
Anybody know who wrote the oldest one still in force? I am betting either Lincoln or Wilson.
Posted by 3dc 2005-02-01 3:35:21 PM||   2005-02-01 3:35:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I know someone down there right now who says that 99% of the detainees that he has come in contact with are the most disgusting examples of riffraff imaginable. Murderous, violent and utterly depraved.
Tom is exactly right - they have no protection under the US constitution. If some bleeding heart asshat Judge sees it otherwise - well thats the way the ball bounces, until that decision gets over turned.
Personally, in the WoT, I wouldn't take prisoners. No quarter offered - none given.
You know nothing of America or Americans Aris.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-02-01 3:49:57 PM||   2005-02-01 3:49:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Please don't feed the troll. Don't feed him and he will starve or go away.

It much easier than arguments with a person who can never admit they are incorrect, have their heads up their ass or, lack the life experience to even know the difference between their head and their butt.
Posted by Sike Mylwester 2005-02-01 4:02:48 PM|| [http://www.theEUislikeGoD.net]  2005-02-01 4:02:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Sike op.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 4:07:15 PM||   2005-02-01 4:07:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Those who get their miracles second hand should STFU and listen, not talk. Endlessly. Pointlessly. Drunkenly. Foolishly. "Meeeeeee! It's all about meeeeeee!"

"I find that, as a rule, when a thing is a wonder to us it is not because of what we see in it, but because of what others have seen in it. We get almost all our wonders at second hand... By and by you sober down, and then you perceive that you have been drunk on the smell of somebody else's cork."
-Twain, Following the Equator
Posted by .com 2005-02-01 4:10:30 PM||   2005-02-01 4:10:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 CF and BA, as I've indicated in #20, I am quite well aware that once upon a time you'd had "person" mean "white person", denying humanity and personhood from slaves.

It's yours to decide whether you want to use such a logic again, this time denying humanity and personhood from all non-citizens. With a little bit of effort I'm sure you can also deny humanity and personhood from everyone who didn't vote for Bush.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 4:31:04 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 4:31:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Sike, you are yourself a constructed non-person with a fake trollish name -- judging from examples of your type I am guessing you have probably been posting in this forum with atleast two other names. .com's "Meeee!" babble identifies him likewise with the non-person "It's all about me" who trolled several threads a while back.

And you are talking about the futility of arguing with me? Those who are too big a bunch of intellectual cowards to even attempt to hold a consistent identity? Those who unlike me, *don't* ever talk about the issue or back their words with anything other than ad hominems?

You bore me.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 4:42:13 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 4:42:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris -

That's kinda rich about the ad hominems....coming from a guy who seemingly couldn't stop calling people "idiots" on Saturday.....

And, yes, Aris, we all feel like non-citizens of the US don't count. No one but our own citizens have humanity and personhood. We proved it this weekend with a little election in Iraq, brought to you courtesy of the Americans, Brits, Aussies, Poles, Italians, and other members of the coalition of the willing.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-01 4:50:48 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 4:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Aris - That's kinda rich about the ad hominems....coming from a guy who seemingly couldn't stop calling people "idiots" on Saturday.....

I didn't use "idiot" as an argument (that'd be the ad hominem fallacy), I used it as an insult.

Remove the insult and my post remains my post, and complete with arguments. Remove the personal attacks from .com's or Sike's posts, and you've managed a 100% reduction in content.

That's a bit of a difference.

and, yes, Aris, we all feel like non-citizens of the US don't count. No one but our own citizens have humanity and personhood.

I know you don't believe that, which is exactly why I'm trying to make you people understand what is actually implied by a claim that "No person" actually means "No citizen".

If you actually believed in the non-personhood of non-US citizens there'd be no point in pointing the implication out or the connection with slavery era arguments.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 5:04:26 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 5:04:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Arisification Contest:

The one who posts comment #50 gets a Fred is Too Sexy for Me T-shirt. Then the thread is D.E.A.D. (as if it wasn't back at #13, lol!)

So good luck to all!
Posted by .com 2005-02-01 5:16:49 PM||   2005-02-01 5:16:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 See my point, Desert Blondie? I dare you to try to find any hint of an argument in .com's posts in this thread. Just mockery and insult. Content: 0%
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 5:26:38 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 5:26:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 How about an Aris Drinking game:

One drink: Each post Aris makes in any non-EU, non-UN thread

Two Drinks: Every time Aris refers to any posts in any thread other than the current one.

Two Drinks: For everytime Aris fails to answer a question or refuses to answer a question.

Bonus Big Drink: Each time he includes an insult against another poster.

Two Drinks: Everytime Aris refers to the civil war, slavery, American indians, or ANY American event prior to 911.

Bonus Big Drink: Anytime Aris tries to tie in those events to the WoT.

Three drinks: Everytime Aris refers to the US Constitution in any thread about the EU, the UN the ICC, or the World Court.

Bonus Big Drink: Each time he refers to slavery, American Indians, or any American event in these threads or any event prior to 911.

Three Drinks: Anytime Aris refers to any thread more than two days old.

Four Drinks: Everytime Aris complains about personal attacks referring to any thread more than two days old.

Bonus Big Drink: Anytime Aris uses reference to said thread to 'prove' his point.

Bonus Double Big Drink: Everytime he mentions Fred.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 5:37:05 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 5:37:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 badanov, you didn't answer my question, even after I indulged yours. Please, do so.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 5:45:22 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 5:45:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 You can do better than that. I want a drink now dammit.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 5:47:23 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 5:47:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Aris, I ain't the playground monitor here, so don't even think of dragging me into that.

It doesn't matter one damn bit about what "person" meant during the slavery era. We left that era behind a long time ago. We have also determined that "person" means females, too, which it didn't back then. And other non-whites. Case closed.

We can debate what the founders' meant by "person" forever, and it adds nothing to the current discussion, which is, do these evil-minded blood-thirsty killers (or killer wannabes) deserve Constitutional protection, protection under the Geneva Convention, or the UCMJ? Their citizenship has very little to do with it (see John Walker Lindh if you don't believe me...he was looking at UCMJ punishment, and he's a citizen).

(note to .com -- I already have that shirt, can I trade it for some other valuable prize? Just kidding.... ;) )
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-01 5:51:47 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 5:51:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 why should OUR constitution protect the ppl who want OUR constitution and country too be leveled forever
Posted by Thraing Hupoluper1864 2005-02-01 6:12:45 PM||   2005-02-01 6:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 you stoopid americans. The constitution means only what the wise and beneficent Aris deigns it to mean. Bow before your better.

Bwahahahaha pompous jerk pt. 548
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 6:25:18 PM||   2005-02-01 6:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 50-7
Posted by SwissTex  2005-02-01 7:09:12 PM||   2005-02-01 7:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Lol, ST!

50-6
Posted by .com 2005-02-01 7:11:33 PM||   2005-02-01 7:11:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Badanov, you need to add an item: 4 drinks every time Little Lord Fauntleroy sniffily announces that he has "contempt" for someone...
Posted by Dave D. 2005-02-01 7:20:03 PM||   2005-02-01 7:20:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 I'm concerned - all those drinks...shouldn't they be something bitter, like Aris?
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 7:23:57 PM||   2005-02-01 7:23:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ego neeeeeeeeeeds a fix! Meeeeeeeeeeee! Parasite.
Posted by Itn aller bout Me! 2005-02-01 7:37:47 PM||   2005-02-01 7:37:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Made it a Bonus Double Big Drink.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 7:43:01 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 7:43:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Hmmm... one drink every time Fussbudget uses the term "moral midget"...
Posted by Dave D. 2005-02-01 7:52:05 PM||   2005-02-01 7:52:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Dave D, looks like you won the shirt! Lucky guy!
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-01 7:55:31 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 7:55:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 my liver appreciates the "Tom & Frank stalking" meme omission
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 7:56:22 PM||   2005-02-01 7:56:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Was Aris stalking you again Frank? That's icky, reminds me of when Murat got the hots for Bedwedtian/nee RC. Serious stuff.
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-01 7:59:53 PM||   2005-02-01 7:59:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 and it adds nothing to the current discussion, which is, do these evil-minded blood-thirsty killers (or killer wannabes) deserve Constitutional protection, protection under the Geneva Convention, or the UCMJ?

I think that besides asking about whether they "deserve" it, you should also ask whether they have it -- regardless of what they "deserve".

badanov, you've still not replied to the question, even though you whined multiple times about not me answering yours -- hypocrite.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 8:01:03 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 8:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Dammit Bad! Get with the program!
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-01 8:05:59 PM||   2005-02-01 8:05:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 We're still waiting Bad... times money.
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-01 8:07:05 PM||   2005-02-01 8:07:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 How's about this answer: I dunno.
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 8:07:33 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 8:07:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 me me me me me
boo boo boo boo bee
me me me me me
ma ma ma ma meee

half wits in the night
Posted by abu Frank S 2005-02-01 8:08:40 PM||   2005-02-01 8:08:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Damn fine answer Bad!

Is it hot in here or is it meeeeeeeeeee?
Posted by FireBall Roberts 2005-02-01 8:10:42 PM||   2005-02-01 8:10:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 hypocrite? there's a bonus big drink right there - tip up everybdy!
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 8:16:48 PM||   2005-02-01 8:16:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 "Does person mean person, or does it mean citizen? And if it meant citizen, why didn't it say 'citizen' in the first place?"

sweet bejeebus! goddamer ima guesn im only one heren looker up em dicshenary:

per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

2.An individual of specified character: a person of importance.

3.The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

4.The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.

5.Physique and general appearance.

6.Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

7.Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8.Grammar.
Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9.A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

link

#6 is em definishen in cases of law. can ima go home now?
Posted by muck4doo 2005-02-01 8:25:45 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 8:25:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 forgotn closem tag. ooops
Posted by muck4doo 2005-02-01 8:26:40 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 8:26:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 *nods* I ought to have remember that actual argument about a topic is anathema for most conservatives, same as thinking and facts are. No idea that needs to use more than the lizard-brain is allowed.

Drink away, fucktards. When you've destroyed all remaining brain-cells you'll have evaded the need for even the pretense at the eeeevil burden of thought.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2005-02-01 8:26:45 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/]  2005-02-01 8:26:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 oh crap! how many drinks is that???
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 8:32:04 PM||   2005-02-01 8:32:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Oooooh, Aris is pissssed with you guys. He's my buddy today -- we actually agreed on something (#23). That's why he's not charging me with stalking and obsession today. Yet.
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 8:32:29 PM||   2005-02-01 8:32:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 fine! buyer you own goddam dicshenary nex time then!

>:(
Posted by muck4doo 2005-02-01 8:32:35 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 8:32:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Damn fine answer Bad!

I like it.

No links needed, and the source is impeccable. :o)
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 8:33:11 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 8:33:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 oh crap! how many drinks is that???

I can't cover every eventuality, but I guess we will have to monitor this thread to gather together all his tendencies for the enhanced Aris: The Drinking Game rules
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 8:36:38 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 8:36:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 well, since pre-emption is the current game plan, I'll have acouple while the tally is taken, thanks Aris!
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 8:40:15 PM||   2005-02-01 8:40:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 If Aris agrees with you, are you punished with a bottle of ouzo?
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 8:41:01 PM||   2005-02-01 8:41:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Just because I wrote the rules doesn't mean I want to score the game.

Remember: In order to score the drinking game someone has to read his bullsh*t...
Posted by badanov  2005-02-01 8:44:18 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2005-02-01 8:44:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 (#65)he wasnt wanna macher my debatin skillz tom. those kindn always runner when confronted with em truth ofn dicshenary
Posted by muck4doo 2005-02-01 8:46:09 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 8:46:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 trooth prev-ales, eh Mucky?
Posted by Tom 2005-02-01 8:49:27 PM||   2005-02-01 8:49:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Muck - oh so true - you are a good-hearted sage for the times - I was late to realize that, and for that, I apologize
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 8:52:34 PM||   2005-02-01 8:52:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Oh, damn, I step away for a moment and see what happens?
So...now that Aris confused what I meant about the word "deserve", as in, under what rules should we handle these guys, and then stalked off, does that mean I gotta provide the Sauza for everyone?
Thank God Albertsons has it on sale.....
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-02-01 9:07:56 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-01 9:07:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 DB - generous, but I stocked up :-)
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 9:09:01 PM||   2005-02-01 9:09:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 The judge is wrong.

The Constitution holds for all persons (now that Mucky so graciously defined the term) within the territories governed by the government of the U.S.A. at the time, ie Guam and Puerto Rico and suchlike as well as the 50 states. However, the Constitution does not hold in the Dar al somethingorother where a war is going on, or in other countries, where their own laws hold sway or, often enough, on Army bases (yes, all the other services, too. Give me a break here!).

In the case of the GITMO prisoners, they were captured a) on the battlefield but not in uniform, b) by other governments and turned over to the Armed Forces for sequestering, or c) while planning, attempting or subsequent to a terrorist event. Only those who are captured on a battlefield while in official uniform are subject to the Geneva Conventions, that is to be sequestered until the war is over, then repatriated; the G.C. specifically repudiates those who skulk around in civilian dress and hide themselves amongst the civilian population -- they can be treated as spies and summarily killed upon capture, or otherwise become the property of their captors.

The argument could be made that GITMO is U.S. territory, but the persons imprisoned there are in no way proper soldiers captured in battle, nor are they arrested for breaking American law on American territory who would be subject to American courts.

Just one person's opinion, for what its worth. Hope you find it helpful, Aris.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-01 9:21:16 PM||   2005-02-01 9:21:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 these assholes have perpetrated crimes of war by not adhering to the Geneva accords. Kill.Them.Now*


or as soon as we're done wringing anything useful from them.
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 9:36:19 PM||   2005-02-01 9:36:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 I heard about this today on Boortz. Apparently the judge tried to connect the dots that since Gitmo is considered sovereign U.S. territory (as any overseas base is) that somehow these jihadis rate constitutional protection as they are being held on U.S. territory, (if they rate the constitution then geneva usually follows suit). I think she's dead wrong but that was her reasoning (or lack there of).
Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-01 9:41:46 PM||   2005-02-01 9:41:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 JH - sounds like a conclusion in search of a rationale, no?
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 9:52:25 PM||   2005-02-01 9:52:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Frank - yep. Kind of like any mike al-moor "documentary."
Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-01 9:55:10 PM||   2005-02-01 9:55:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 lol - touche!
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-01 10:00:53 PM||   2005-02-01 10:00:53 PM|| Front Page Top

23:54 Mike Sylwester
23:46 Sobiesky
23:44 CrazyFool
23:44 #5
23:42 Mike Sylwester
23:32 Atomic Conspiracy
23:21 CrazyFool
23:17 3dc
23:10 Mike Sylwester
23:03 John Q. Citizen
23:02 2b
23:00 John Q. Citizen
22:54 Grunter
22:49 Alaska Paul
22:48 BH
22:44 Angie Schultz
22:29 Penguin
22:26 mhw
22:24 mhw
22:23 trailing wife
22:23 GK
22:21 Mike Sylwester
22:18 Cobra Commander
22:00 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com