Did this fly under the Bassfishin.com radar?

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

@NFE Hmmmmm...like the Affordable Care Act?

What is it with libs always bringing up some wrong to excuse another wrong?

I despise the ACA. Like the rest of Medicare, it's totally unconstitutional. One of the worst things Bush (and a democrat Congress I might add) ever did. I was against 75% of what Bush did domestically; i.e spending money like a liberal. However, he still can't hold a candle to the debt-meister Obama.

[Dogmatic]

@Kenneth, No money to transfer prisoners, or provide trials, means no way to close it down. I'm pretty sure your not that dense, to realize that. If you read the two sections(1021,1022) that you paraphrased(from Wiki), about the reaffirmation, and expansion of AUMF, and don't have a problem with the powers that have been given to the President/Military, you my sir, have a serious reading comprehension problem. Absolutely amazing what Conservatives will over look when it comes to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, but WAIT! Medicare, and ACA are egregious trampling of our rights, it's just pitiful.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

@Kenneth, No money to transfer prisoners, or provide trials, means no way to close it down. I'm pretty sure your not that dense, to realize that.Dog I appreciate your compliment regarding my lack of density. If Mr. Obama would have acted as swiftly as he spoke Gitmo would have been closed in the spring of 09. He has proven to be very clever in his desire to get around the wishes of Congress, why not here? If you read the two sections(1021,1022) that you paraphrased(from Wiki), about the reaffirmation, and expansion of AUMF, and don't have a problem with the powers that have been given to the President/Military, you my sir, have a serious reading comprehension problem.There's nothing wrong with my comprehension. I've read it, if there's a problem here it's yours. (I quoted Wiki because it was the link TNB posted) Absolutely amazing what Conservatives will over look when it comes to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, but WAIT! Medicare, and ACA are egregious trampling of our rights, it's just pitiful.This sentence must be directed at nfe so I'll let yall discuss that.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Whenever you guys find yourself in an indefensible position try offering a real and workable solution rather than getting all pissy and indignant? What do you suggest we do about Gitmo and domestic terrorism that will work and that can actually be done.

[Dogmatic]

Real simple, Give detainees in GITMO trials in U.S. Courts, like the Justice Department wanted to do, until you guys started protesting. Domestic terrorism should be handle by our Law Inforcement agencies(Local, State, Federal), and courts, not the Military. Terrorist are criminals, not "combatants". What makes America great? What makes "us" better than "them"? We stick by our principals, our laws, it's what separates "us", from "them", and gives us the high ground. When we compromise our principals, and our laws, our moral high ground is lost, and we are no better than they are.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by dogmatic

real simple, give detainees in gitmo trials in u.s. Courts, like the justice department wanted to do, until you guys started protesting. Domestic terrorism should be handle by our law inforcement agencies(local, state, federal), and courts, not the military. terrorist are criminals, not "combatants".really?? what makes america great? What makes "us" better than "them"? franklin if you can't answer that question immediately and without hesitation...see pics below. we stick by our principals, our laws, it's what separates "us", from "them", and gives us the high ground. When we compromise our principals, and our laws, our moral high ground is lost, and we are no better than they are.

[MallenManson]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Real simple, Give detainees in GITMO trials in U.S. Courts, like the Justice Department wanted to do, until you guys started protesting. Domestic terrorism should be handle by our Law Inforcement agencies(Local, State, Federal), and courts, not the Military. Terrorist are criminals, not "combatants". What makes America great? What makes "us" better than "them"? We stick by our principals, our laws, it's what separates "us", from "them", and gives us the high ground. When we compromise our principals, and our laws, our moral high ground is lost, and we are no better than they are.

You can't be serious

[Dogmatic]

Yes, I am, just criminals, that's all they are, and that's how they should be dealt with. By giving up our rights, with the AUMF, Patriot Act, and now this Defense Bill, we have compromised our principals, what makes us the greatest nation on Earth, and allowed them to win. Congratulations boys, you won the battle...but lost the WAR!!!!


...and Ken, your "rhetorical" questioning within a quote, when the answers are right in front of you, is, at the least, amateurish, but frankly, they way you use it, over and over, it's just childish

[joedog]

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who takes a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Privileged combatants

The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:
1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2.Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3.Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants

Main article: unprivileged combatant

There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:
Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.


There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:
Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

I admire anyone who can and does actually put a thought process in to deciding thier stance on an idea!
I am always sadden by such great ability then being lost or diminished by the use of insults.

" If we all thought alike...I"D BE AFTER YOUR WIFE!!! "

If you want amaturish, ignorant comments....just ask me...." Kill um all..Let God sort them out! ".

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Yes, I am, just criminals, that's all they are, and that's how they should be dealt with. By giving up our rights, with the AUMF, Patriot Act, and now this Defense Bill, we have compromised our principals, what makes us the greatest nation on Earth, and allowed them to win. Congratulations boys, you won the battle...but lost the WAR!!!!


...and Ken, your "rhetorical" questioning within a quote, when the answers are right in front of you, is, at the least, amateurish, but frankly, they way you use it, over and over, it's just childish

Franklin I appreciate your critique of my posting style, but perhaps I am indeed dense after all. I can't find a rhetorical question by me in this entire thread, much less one within a quote. Over and over?? I am not a professional debater or writer, so perhaps amateur is correct. As far as childish goes, I'd rather be child like in my wisdom regarding terrorism than all grown up in my naiveness and stupidity.

[MallenManson]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Yes, I am, just criminals, that's all they are, and that's how they should be dealt with. By giving up our rights, with the AUMF, Patriot Act, and now this Defense Bill, we have compromised our principals, what makes us the greatest nation on Earth, and allowed them to win. Congratulations boys, you won the battle...but lost the WAR!!!!


...and Ken, your "rhetorical" questioning within a quote, when the answers are right in front of you, is, at the least, amateurish, but frankly, they way you use it, over and over, it's just childish

I suppose then, that Osama shoulda been cuffed and stuffed on an episode of Cops, vs taken out by Seals

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by MallenManson

I suppose then, that Osama shoulda been cuffed and stuffed on an episode of Cops, vs taken out by Seals

No, he should have been dealt with like he was dealt with, not by commitment of nearly 100,000 Military personnel. read the intial post, you might come across the words "domestic terrorism".

[Dogmatic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmatic
real simple, give detainees in gitmo trials in u.s. Courts, like the justice department wanted to do, until you guys started protesting. Domestic terrorism should be handle by our law inforcement agencies(local, state, federal), and courts, not the military. terrorist are criminals, not "combatants".really?? what makes america great? What makes "us" better than "them"? franklin if you can't answer that question immediately and without hesitation...see pics below. we stick by our principals, our laws, it's what separates "us", from "them", and gives us the high ground. When we compromise our principals, and our laws, our moral high ground is lost, and we are no better than they are.

There are your rhetorical questions, and as you see the answers to those questions, are contained within the post...

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by joedog

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who takes a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Privileged combatants

The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:
1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2.Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3.Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants

Main article: unprivileged combatant

There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:
Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.


There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:
Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.


If you want amaturish, ignorant comments....just ask me...." Kill um all..Let God sort them out! ".

Notice the blue, and green high-lights

and once again, reading comprehension, look for the words in my post..."Domestic Terrorism".

[nofearengineer]

You guys do realize how much time you're wasting arguing with dogmatic, right? You'd have more luck discussing Nietzsche with a Chimpanzee.

Just vote his guys out, and let it be good riddance to bad rubbish.

Santorum 2012!!!

[joedog]

Now I'm confused...imagine that.

"competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.
Usually these tribunals are run by more than one country. Kind of like after World War 11 and the Nazi...you don't go to the country that caught them and let 'thier courts decide'. I'm not going to print it but go and read (GCIII Art 5) Although similar, really completly two different ideas.

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.
The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.

Dosn't that make the decision to have a 'Gitmo' the correct decission?

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
for example by flying civlian aircraft into civilian office buildings

(Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.
They don't hide thier weapons in thier own country, right. They don't hide thier weapons in thier 'training camps'. No it seems they only hide weapons is when they act like COWARDS Good lawyer would have a hay day on this.

Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial".
If your really bored read these publications, again, you may be surprised. Things aren't as cut and dried as one may think.

Anyways, I hope ALL my combantant friends here in the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (ever try and but the color white in a post) have a great day and don't forget to go outdoors and enjoy OUR freedoms.

[joedog]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

You guys do realize how much time you're wasting arguing with dogmatic, right? You'd have more luck discussing Nietzsche with a Chimpanzee.

Just vote his guys out, and let it be good riddance to bad rubbish.

Santorum 2012!!!

Then how do I spend my time? Springs still aways off!
Suppose I could do more JOKES.......... Just kidding!

[kennethdaysale]

[QUOTE=kennethdaysale;370245]@Dogmatic I won't be moved from my position on this. I don't expect you to abandon your belief system or values either. Hey I respect the fact that you have strongly held opinions, many people don't really believe in anything and if they do they don't know why. For the purposes of this forum I am more interested in how you do with the Huddlestons this year than I am in how our politics may differ.[/QUOTE]

dm I wish you could just have let this go on 2/3 I hope your not going to hate me forever or refuse to participate in any threads we might share a common interest in or petition mgmt for my ouster

[Dogmatic]

Ken, I'm not a hater. Flaming conservatives is how I get my kicks. This is tame, you should see how nasty it gets on the political blogs. I have stopped.using hudds for the moment, after losing 3 in 1 day to toothy critters. I have been using mostly hard baits, 3:16, bbz 1's, TT's, mattlures, and slammers, they stand up to teeth a little better.

Santorum 2012 ??? LOL, ever Google "santorum". Better concentrate on the senate. It's still not too late Buchanan 2012!