Obama - Biden...no military experience
The_Carpathia
Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
YT
> I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
has either one of them even had a real job?
Bob LeChevalier
>I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
>Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
>experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though. I guess he isn't
George Bush...is he?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
YT
> In article
> <bbafc8f1-fd64-4334...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> kan...@hotmail.com says...
>> On Aug 27, 8:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
>>>> Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
>>>> experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>>> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>> John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though.
>
>
to kick your ass
Cary Kittrell
> I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
May we then assume that you yourself voted against Bush and for Kerry, baased
on sucn concerns?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 8:41=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
> John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though.
No, in fact he does not have a "wealth of combat history", as
he spent the war sitting in a very small room.
And I note this as both a long-time Arizonan and long-time
admirer of much about McCain.
-- cary
Hugh Wood
Bush was in the military. You think he got a private pilot's license
and rented F-102s?? Where's Barry's heroic service to his country??
Will Barry send your sons and daughters into combat??
Hugh Wood
> In article <bbafc8f1-fd64-4334-83f3-267ea9c61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Aug 27, 8:41=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. =A0Between Obama and
> > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
> > John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though.
>
> No, in fact he does not have a "wealth of combat history", as
> he spent the war sitting in a very small room.
>
> And I note this as both a long-time Arizonan and long-time
> admirer of much about McCain.
>
> -- cary
Is that ALL he did while in the service??
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 7:41=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> > lojbab
> > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>
> Bush was in the military.
When he bothered to show up.
I will admit, in your favor, that he Bush did manage to keep
Alabama free of Viet Cong infestation.
Perhaps this valor explains why they let him out eight
months early.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 11:55=A0am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <bbafc8f1-fd64-4334-83f3-267ea9c61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups=
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> a and
> > > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> >
> > No, in fact he does not have a "wealth of combat history", as
> > he spent the war sitting in a very small room.
> >
> > And I note this as both a long-time Arizonan and long-time
> > admirer of much about McCain.
> >
> > -- cary
>
> Is that ALL he did while in the service??
No. But the phrase in question was "a wealth of combat history".
-- cary
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Please provide cites and proof of your claim that Biden avoided the
draft during Vietnam.
We all know how Bush and Cheney did it.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
A wealth of combat history? Flew a few missions then got shot down.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
The Texas Air National Guard hardly qualifies as "being in the
military" -- especially since Bush served in a champagne unit.
He never soloed in F-102's, and the 102 was obselete and headed for
the boneyard when he dropped out of training.
Bert Hyman
news:761b530c-343a-4451...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 27, 8:11ĸam, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. ĸBetween Obama
>> and Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
>> experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>>
>> Kenneth Clifton
>> christiansuperhero.com
>
> Please provide cites and proof of your claim that Biden avoided the
> draft during Vietnam.
Drafted but flunked his physical due to asthma.
It's in the public record.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
news:20080827-1...@Gogarty.news.bway.net:
> In article
><bbafc8f1-fd64-4334...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> kan...@hotmail.com says...
>>On Aug 27, 8:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama
>>> >and Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO
>>> >military experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in
>>> >Vietnam.
>>>
>>> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>>
>>John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though.
>
> Which qualifies him for what?
Presumably whatever Bush and Cheney's lack of service disqualified
them from.
Bob LeChevalier
These days, I can't tell the difference between them.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 27, 7:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
>> >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
>> >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>>
>> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>>
>> lojbab
>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
>Bush was in the military.
He was not in Vietnam. He dodged the draft, and then went AWOL.
>You think he got a private pilot's license
>and rented F-102s?? Where's Barry's heroic service to his country??
The same question could be asked of every president since Kennedy.
Clinton vs Dole showed how unimportant the question was just a decade
ago. And what was done to Kerry makes any claims about the importance
of military combat experience a bad joke.
>Will Barry send your sons and daughters into combat??
I hope not.
John
You realize that Kenny-boy dropped out of this thread when he realized
that Bush and Cheney had NO military experience. There he goes
running away--AGAIN--when he is proven to be a fool.
And who is the "Barry" character that some right-wingers keep harping
on. If the Repubs actually thought there was something to this they
would be all over it like flies on horse excrement.
What they're really afraid of is the Dems tying McCain to Bush like
Hillary did in her speech last night. "Can we afford four more years
of the last eight years?"
The Revolution has begun and yes "The Revolution Will be Televised."
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> In article <bbafc8f1-fd64-4334-83f3-267ea9c61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Aug 27, 8:41=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
>
> he spent the war sitting in a very small room.
>
> And I note this as both a long-time Arizonan and long-time
> admirer of much about McCain.
Riiigghht. It was the ritz carlton in there. Want to tell me how
Bush-Cheney lack of military experience has anything to do with
McCain?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
You want to tell me how the military history of either Bush or Cheney
has anything to do with John McCain?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Hugh Wood <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 27, 7:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> >> >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> >> >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> >> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
> >> lojbab
> >> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> >> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
> >Bush was in the military.
>
> He was not in Vietnam. He dodged the draft, and then went AWOL.
You want to tell me how the military history of either Bush or Cheney
Wide Eyed in Wonder
You want to tell me how the military history of either Bush or Cheney
Jerry Okamura
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4deaf81b-cfaa-47ac...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
23 combat missions is a few?
Jerry Okamura
Get your facts
straight....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 12:55=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <bbafc8f1-fd64-4334-83f3-267ea9c61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups=
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> a and
> > > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> >
> > No, in fact he does not have a "wealth of combat history", as
> > he spent the war sitting in a very small room.
> >
> > And I note this as both a long-time Arizonan and long-time
> > admirer of much about McCain.
>
> Riiigghht. It was the ritz carlton in there.
You think so? Me, I don't.
However, I also don't think that qualifies as "a wealth
of combat history".
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Aug 27, 1:54=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <b4895522-22a2-4d41-a8de-f24f0fc85...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.=
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> a and
> > > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> > > > lojbab
> > > > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> >
> > > Bush was in the military.
> >
> > When he bothered to show up.
> >
> > I will admit, in your favor, that he Bush did manage to keep
> > Alabama free of Viet Cong infestation.
> >
> > Perhaps this valor explains why they let him out eight
> > months early.
> >
> > -- cary
> >
> > You think he got a private pilot's license
> >
> > > and rented F-102s?? Where's Barry's heroic service to his country??
> > > Will Barry send your sons and daughters into combat??
>
> You want to tell me how the military history of either Bush or Cheney
> has anything to do with John McCain?
>
Asks the boy who started this thread talking about "dodg[ing] the draft
in Vietnam"...
-- cary
MACK DADDY
> On Aug 27, 8:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
> George Bush...is he?
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Military experience is NOT a requirement to be President! As I recall,
the last President, Bill Clinton, was not in the military, and he was
the best President of the last 30 years!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've never seen Bush fly. He just thinks he flies because he be
smokin' so much that crack!
Bob LeChevalier
Easy. YOUR ilk thought that Bushwhack and Cheney were qualified to be
President in time of war. More qualified than Kerry, who had lots of
combat experience.
Turnabout is fair play. McCain deserves no more respect as a
presidential candidate based on his military service than you gave to
Kerry.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
YT
>
> Military experience is NOT a requirement to be President! As I recall,
> the last President, Bill Clinton, was not in the military, and he was
> the best President of the last 30 years!
and he set such a good example of how to treat people around u.
Bob LeChevalier
Precedent on the matter of who is fit to be president.
Harold Burton
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
And you leftwits claimed it was a bad thing. So, suddenly it's no
longer such a bad thing.
"It depends on whose ox is gored"
Martin Luther
DemocRAT hypocrisy noted.
Snicker.
MACK DADDY
YES, YES!!!
Much better than George Dumbya Douche and Shlong Cheney have treated
those around them.
Harold Burton
ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> In article <b4895522-22a2-4d41...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
> Hugh Wood <Burto...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 27, 7:41=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. =A0Between Obama and
> > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> > >
> > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> > >
> > > lojbab
> > > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> > > loj...@lojban.org =A0 Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
> >
> > Bush was in the military.
>
> When he bothered to show up.
He did, but feel free to provide any evidence that he didn't.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<9c6c6b30-4c7c-4d3b...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 7:17 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 8:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> > John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though. I guess he isn't
> > George Bush...is he?
> >
> > Kenneth Clifton
> > christiansuperhero.com
>
> Military experience is NOT a requirement to be President!
DemocRATs said it was.
YT
better as in:
if she young and underage, nail her. then toss her to the wolves
if she old and your wife, embarass her in front of the world.
if shes your daughter, treat her mother like an old worn out pair of socks.
if the Sec of State trusts you and works for you send her out to lie to
the press for you.
then look into the camera and lie to the world, I did not have sex with
that woman.
if she works for you and is in need of help hit on her and if she
refuses throw her to the wolves. and if she goes along, when done throw
her to the wolves.
then bomb our allies in Serbia to support the muslims trying to take
part of their country.
then refuse to take the call that could have gotten obama because you
are watching golf.
and let the terrorists run free to plan the 911 attack on our country.
and that is just the tip of the iceburg;
watta guy!
John
Okay, I'll bite. Why didn't it matter 4 years ago or 8 years ago that
Bush/Cheney had no military experience? Why does it matter now and
not then? Why is there a double standard?
Answer those questions and we can move on the really hard ones.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com- Hide quoted text -
John
At least he didn't shoot his friend in the face when he was drunk
trying to act like the mighty white hunter shooting at half-tame
birds.
Watta Man!
MACK DADDY
> In article
> <9c6c6b30-4c7c-4d3b-9201-51bb150aa...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 7:17 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 8:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> > > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> > > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>
> > > John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though. I guess he isn't
> > > George Bush...is he?
>
> > > Kenneth Clifton
> > > christiansuperhero.com
>
> > Military experience is NOT a requirement to be President!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO, dumbass. They just said that because Dan Quail and George Dumbya
Douche each had NO experience, which previously, and even
continuously you Republitards always said was mandatory!
YT
so u morons don't know the difference between a accident and an
intentional act? eh. I thought so.
John
Your choice of words is quite hilarious considering the spelling and
grammatical errors.
But since with you right-wingers we must overlook blatant stupidity
and dig through your inance posts for a kernel of evidence that makes
sense, I will try and consider the message and not the IQ of the
poster.
It was an accident that Cheney was drinking. It was an accident that
Cheney was hunting half-tame birds. It was an accident that Cheney
and his hunting partner didn't follow the rules of safe hunting and
safe firearm handling (something Cheney would have learned in the
military if he "hadn't had something better to do").
So I guess you're right, it wasn't a criminal act, it was an accident
(but only in the minds of the right-wingers).
And you use the word "moron" to describe someone who understands the
world betetr than you... Typical.
YT
> In article <19cad3d4-5d66-401d...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> dahlgr...@gmail.com says...
>
yep hes a moron.
Harold Burton
<b888fe31-bb69-4f22...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 7:10�pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9c6c6b30-4c7c-4d3b-9201-51bb150aa...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > �MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 27, 7:17�am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 27, 8:41�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. �Between Obama and
> > > > > >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> > > > > >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
> >
> > > > > George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
> >
> > > > John McCain has a wealth of combat history, though. �I guess he isn't
> > > > George Bush...is he?
> >
> > > > Kenneth Clifton
> > > > christiansuperhero.com
> >
> > > Military experience is NOT a requirement to be President!
> >
> > Democrats said it was.- Hide quoted text -
> NO, dumbass. They just said that because Dan Quail and George Dumbya
> Douche each had NO experience...
Exactly!
snicker.
cake_and_...@yahoo.com
> I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
> Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
> experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>
> christiansuperhero.com
Someone else has straightened you out in this thread, KKKKomrade
KKKKenneth KKKKlifton, so I won't bother to reiterate.
John
> In article <19cad3d4-5d66-401d-acdd-a3a0d7d5f...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> dahlgren.j...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
A fat finger mistake on a laptop. At least all the letters were there
and the punctuation was correct.
John
And still no grasp of language usage. Still no semblence of writing
skills. Still no answer about the "man" Cheney shooting at half-tame
birds while downing a few. Still no answer about Cheney dodging war
service because he "had something better to do."
Still spouting the same old, same old. Give up your tired refrain.
It ain't playin' in Peoria (or Scranton, for that matter).
John
> In article <cbcc7ab9-df30-4414-a5fc-ed080e6a6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> score.
Why not? He posts one sentence--which makes no sense--just so he can
be imune to criticism. Besides I 'twas bored. Now I've got better
things to do.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Hugh Wood <Burto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Aug 27, 7:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >I saw it posted online, and it is worth repeating. Between Obama and
>>> >Biden...even with Biden's "experience"...they have NO military
>>> >experience, Biden finding a way to dodge the draft in Vietnam.
>>>
>>> George W Bush and Dick Cheney did too.
>>>
>>> lojbab
>>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>>> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>>
>>Bush was in the military.
>
>He was not in Vietnam. He dodged the draft, and then went AWOL.
Mr LeChevalier, why do you wish to perpetuate the lie that G.W.Bush
"went AWOL"?
Surely you're not relying on the forged documents backed by Dan Rather
are you?
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Bush was in the military.
>>
>>He was not in Vietnam. He dodged the draft, and then went AWOL.
>
>Mr LeChevalier, why do you wish to perpetuate the lie that G.W.Bush
>"went AWOL"?
Because he indeed went AWOL
>Surely you're not relying on the forged documents backed by Dan Rather
>are you?
I don't watch television news.
http://www.glcq.com/default.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/132214/106
among numerous other summaries of evidence.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>>>Bush was in the military.
>>>
>>>He was not in Vietnam. He dodged the draft, and then went AWOL.
>>
>>Mr LeChevalier, why do you wish to perpetuate the lie that G.W.Bush
>>"went AWOL"?
>
>Because he indeed went AWOL
No Mr LeChevalier, the current POTUS never "went AWOL". Such a false
assertion is best left to anti-Bush conspiracy theorists, but remains
a lie nonetheless.
>>Surely you're not relying on the forged documents backed by Dan Rather
>>are you?
>
>I don't watch television news.
How disingenuous of you Mr LeChevalier. You didn't need to watch
"television news" as the forged documents and Dan Rather's usage of
them were reported well beyond just "televison news"...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/technology/23blog.html?pagewanted=print&position=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml
....but you knew that, eh?
"CBS lies Re: It Doesn't Matter if the Memos were Forged"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_frm/thread/ed0c638c5c0001da/c4a368981ec9204d?lnk=st&q=%22CBS%22+%2B%22forged%22+author%3Alojbab%40lojban.org#c4a368981ec9204d
>http://www.glcq.com/default.htm
>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/12/132214/106
>
>among numerous other summaries of evidence.
Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
AWOL" will remain a lie that you perpetuated in this thread.
Bob LeChevalier
>Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
>per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
>AWOL" will remain a lie
No, asshole. It will remain an unadjudicated accusation. Once which
there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for, as well as evidence of
tampered records. Likely a lot more will come out once he isn't in
office to sustain the cover up.
I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
until he tried to get elected
John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln. But he
still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
doubt whether they can take him alive.
Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
doesn't mean that he didn't commit them. Just like Adolf, who
likewise was never convicted.
>that you perpetuated in this thread.
I don't need to perpetuate it. It will go down in history that he was
AWOL, and your silly arguments won't change that.
Jerry Okamura
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:mmuob4hdctt9ifg3s...@4ax.com...
> Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
>>per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
>>AWOL" will remain a lie
>
> No, asshole. It will remain an unadjudicated accusation. Once which
> there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for, as well as evidence of
> tampered records. Likely a lot more will come out once he isn't in
> office to sustain the cover up.
>
> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
> until he tried to get elected
>
> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
you think?
But he
> still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
> he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
> trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
> doubt whether they can take him alive.
So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia? What
happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that a
person has the right to their own defense?
>
> Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
> doesn't mean that he didn't commit them. Just like Adolf, who
> likewise was never convicted.
Probably so, "if" he did commit war crimes. But then again, "if" Bush did
commit war crimes, so did Roosevelt and Truman. And they were never tried
also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
Frank Zember
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wMevk.8078$676....@newsfe01.iad...
...not to mention Kennedy and LBJ's "illegal" war in Vietnam!
Bob LeChevalier
>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>> until he tried to get elected
>>
>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>
>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>you think?
My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
trial.
>But he
>> still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>> he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>> trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>> doubt whether they can take him alive.
>
>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that a
>person has the right to their own defense?
Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
defense, except to doctor documents.
But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates. And
in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
>> Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
>> doesn't mean that he didn't commit them. Just like Adolf, who
>> likewise was never convicted.
>
>Probably so, "if" he did commit war crimes. But then again, "if" Bush did
>commit war crimes, so did Roosevelt and Truman.
Possibly. But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
and Japan initiated war against us.
>And they were never tried
>also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
>then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
Of the top of my head:
Invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, for one. (Putin
is guilty of the same thing). Ordering violations of the Geneva
conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
ourselves). Ordering torture to extract information.
I'm sure others have more thorough lists.
Jerry Okamura
"Frank Zember" <frank...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g8qdndlccOsE4yDV...@comcast.com...
Yes, based on what democrats have been telling us about Iraq, they too waged
an illegal war. But Kennedy wanted to end our involvement, LBJ, "lied" to
the American people (and their is no doubt that he lied...unlike those who
claimed that Bush lied about Iraq) when he implied that Goldwater wanted to
use the nulcear option in Vietnam, but as soon as he took office, started
greatly expanding our involvement in Vietnam. And HE DID LIE about what
happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, but you won't hear any democrat admitting
that.
Jerry Okamura
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>>> until he tried to get elected
>>>
>>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>>
>>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>>you think?
>
> My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
> trial.
"Considered"? He shot the President in a theater, then jumped down to the
stage below. Is there any doubt that he did assasinate Lincoln?
>
>>But he
>>> still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>>> he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>>> trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>>> doubt whether they can take him alive.
>>
>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>
> No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
> murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
And, that has not already happened?
>
>>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that
>>a
>>person has the right to their own defense?
>
> Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
> defense, except to doctor documents.
Relevance to Osama, which was what we were talking about wasn't it?
>
> But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
> quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
> innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates. And
> in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
> typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
That is probably correct, but when you do that, you are basically saying
that the legal concept in this country, can be thrown out the window, which
is that a person is innocent until proven to be guilty.
>
>>> Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
>>> doesn't mean that he didn't commit them. Just like Adolf, who
>>> likewise was never convicted.
>>
>>Probably so, "if" he did commit war crimes. But then again, "if" Bush did
>>commit war crimes, so did Roosevelt and Truman.
>
> Possibly.
Not possibly, a fact.
But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
> and Japan initiated war against us.
That is true. But Bush got the approval of the US Senate to wage war with
Iraq, which I might add, Clinton never even tried to get the US Senate to
give hime that approval to go to war with Yugoslavia. Nor did Clinton even
try to get the UN Security Council to give hime the authorization to go to
war with Yugoslavia, whereas, Bush did get the approval of the UN Security
Council to do what he eventually did do.
>
>>And they were never tried
>>also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
>>then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
>
> Of the top of my head:
>
> Invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, for one. (Putin
> is guilty of the same thing).
What false pretense? How can you invade a soveriegn nation, when you had
the approval of the US Senate and the UN Security Council to take the
actions you took?
Ordering violations of the Geneva
> conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
> they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
> ourselves).
That has zero to do with going to war. You can only violate the Geneva
Convention in this case, when you do go to war. And no, the Geneva
Convention was not violated in Iraq. The soldiers who were captured were
accorded their full rights under the Geneva Convention.
Ordering torture to extract information.
>
Can you prove that torture was used as a common practice in Iraq? I can
prove without a doubt that the Iraqis used torture, and that the insurgency
used torture. I can also prove without a doubt that the insurgency in Iraq,
violated the terms of the Geneva Convention.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:b4brb41ao36bdgl9e...@4ax.com...
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>>>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>>>> until he tried to get elected
>>>>
>>>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>>>
>>>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>>>you think?
>>
>> My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
>> trial.
>
>"Considered"? He shot the President in a theater,
Bush is documented as failing to show up at times when the law
required him to do so.
The other guy criticized my claim as not having been adjudicated at a
trial under the UCMJ. In which case he is saying that evidence
doesn't matter - unless someone has been found guilty in a court of
law.
>then jumped down to the stage below. Is there any doubt that he did assasinate Lincoln?
>I< have no doubt. But then I have no doubt that Bush was AWOL.
>>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>>
>> No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>> murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>
>And, that has not already happened?
So has the claim that Bushwhack was AWOL.
>>>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that
>>>a
>>>person has the right to their own defense?
>>
>> Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
>> defense, except to doctor documents.
>
>Relevance to Osama, which was what we were talking about wasn't it?
No. The immediate discussion was the exchange between junkie on me
(edited to the relevant portions for your question):
<>>Mr LeChevalier, why do you wish to perpetuate the lie that G.W.Bush
<>>"went AWOL"?
<>
<>Because he indeed went AWOL
<
<No Mr LeChevalier, the current POTUS never "went AWOL". Such a false
<assertion is best left to anti-Bush conspiracy theorists, but remains
<a lie nonetheless.
... [after some cites by me]
<>
<>among numerous other summaries of evidence.
<
<Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
<per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
<AWOL" will remain a lie that you perpetuated in this thread.
He is claiming that I lied because there was no conviction under law.
If that is the basis, then Booth, bin Ladin, and Hitler must also be
considered innocent because not "charged and convicted". I of course
find that argument to be bullshit.
>> But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
>> quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
>> innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates. And
>> in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
>> typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
>
>That is probably correct, but when you do that, you are basically saying
>that the legal concept in this country, can be thrown out the window, which
>is that a person is innocent until proven to be guilty.
No, it is NOT thrown out the window.
I just thought of another example. OJ Simpson was not convicted of
murder. Yet everyone pretty much accepts that OJ Simpson did commit
murder. Furthermore, under civil law, OJ Simpson was successfully
sued for damages. Thus he is legally not guilty of murder, but still
liable for his actions. And everyone quite legitimately can claim
that he committed murder, even despite the verdict of innocence.
Our legal system has different standards for different objectives.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applied only under criminal law. It
doesn't apply to civil law; it doesn't apply to impeachment; it
doesn't apply to the "court of public opinion" (which arguably has no
standards at all, judging from history).
>>But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
>> and Japan initiated war against us.
>
>That is true. But Bush got the approval of the US Senate to wage war with
>Iraq,
>which I might add, Clinton never even tried to get the US Senate to
>give hime that approval to go to war with Yugoslavia.
From what I can tell
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL31185.pdf
Clinton did issue reports under the War Powers Resolution, but that
the Congress never acted. It could neither act to disapprove or to
approve, but it still funded the war. More or less like it did with
Bushwhack.
And the courts have rejected the power of individuals to sue on the
matter. Apparently the only recourse that Congress has is
impeachment, but the Congress chose rather different and less
presidentially relevant grounds under which to impeach Clinton.
I don't really defend Clinton, and I think that the War Power
Resolution is a piece of crap.
The doctrine that the "Commander in Chief" provision in the
Constitution allows the President to even so much as fart without the
prior approval of Congress, if that farting were to be an act of war,
is also something I don't accept. But the courts haven't supported my
opinion.
>Nor did Clinton even
>try to get the UN Security Council to give hime the authorization to go to
>war with Yugoslavia,
The above-cited article indicates that there were in fact Security
Council resolutions.
<On August 13, 1992, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 770 calling
<on nations to take “all measures necessary” to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian
<assistance to Sarajevo.
<On March 31, 1993, the U.N. Security Council authorized member states to take
<all necessary measures to enforce the ban on military flights over Bosnia, the “no-fly
<zone”.
The problem with both Bosnia and Iraq is that it hasn't been resolved
whether a Security Council resolution that may be interpreted as
authorizing force is sufficient to justify going to war.
And the same article indicates several instances of Clinton reporting
under the War Powers Act:
<NATO planes, including U.S. planes, began patrolling over Bosnia and
<Herzegovina on April 12, 1993, to enforce the Security Council ban, and the next day,
<President Clinton reported the U.S. participation “consistent with Section 4 of the
<War Powers Resolution.”
...
<President Clinton reported this action “consistent with Section
<4 of the War Powers Resolution” on July 9, 1993. He identified U.S. troops as part
<of a peacekeeping force, and directed in accordance with Section 7 of the U.N.
<Participation Act
etc.
I see a lot of dereliction from Congress from actually passing
measures pro or con the use of force in Bosnia, just as they failed to
do so with regard to Iraq.
>whereas, Bush did get the approval of the UN Security Council to do what he eventually did do.
Actually, Bush did no such thing.
One can argue that Congress authorized something, but I don't think
they authorized what Bush did. Unfortunately, the wording allowed
Bush to define what was "necessary and appropriate" for two goals, one
of which is impossibly vague.
The wording of the law was:
<(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
<Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
<appropriate in order to--
< (1) defend the national security of the United States
< against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
< (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
< resolutions regarding Iraq.
There was in fact no threat to the national security of the United
States in the first place, since Bush had used the false pretenses of
non-existent WMD to argue for such a threat. But even if one allows
for this under human error, there has been no plausible threat to the
national security of the United States "posed by Iraq" since Saddam
was deposed, and certainly none since he was later brought to custody.
>>
>>>And they were never tried
>>>also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
>>>then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
>>
>> Of the top of my head:
>>
>> Invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, for one. (Putin
>> is guilty of the same thing).
>
>What false pretense?
Non-existent WMD. Bush LIED to Congress, which unfortunately believed
him.
> Ordering violations of the Geneva
>> conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>> they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>> ourselves).
>
>That has zero to do with going to war.
Violations of the Geneva conventions are defined war crimes in the
conventions. You asked me what war crimes that I think Bush
committed.
>You can only violate the Geneva Convention in this case, when you do go to war.
No. The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared hostilities of
various kinds.
>And no, the Geneva Convention was not violated in Iraq.
I did not limit my statement to violations in Iraq. It doesn't matter
>The soldiers who were captured were accorded their full rights under the Geneva Convention.
The Conventions do not apply only to soldiers, and in fact go at
length into protection of civilians. al Ghraib is an example of a
violation. The only question is whether and to what extent the
Commander in Chief is responsible for such violations under his watch.
It could arguably be said that the initial attack, which was labeled
"Shock and Awe" was by use that label an act of terrorism. The
Conventions forbid attacks against civilian targets, and it is quite
arguable that "Shock and Awe" was as much aimed at the civilians as at
the military. I would argue that if Truman's use of the bomb was a
war crime, then so was our initial invasion.
> Ordering torture to extract information.
>
>Can you prove that torture was used as a common practice in Iraq?
al Ghraib. But Bush's actions as president were not limited to Iraq;
nor was my claim.
>I can
>prove without a doubt that the Iraqis used torture, and that the insurgency
>used torture.
As long as we don't subscribe to junkie's claim that there needs to be
a trial and conviction in order for such charges to be true, I will
agree with you.
>I can also prove without a doubt that the insurgency in Iraq,
>violated the terms of the Geneva Convention.
One crime does not justify another in response.
We are supposed to be BETTER than the people we fight in time of war.
Especially since we are signatories to the Conventions.
Frank Zember
Of course not. JFK is STILL their Golden Child. A traitorous, criminal,
philandering scumbag ran THEIR version of "Camelot". Is there any wonder
why the continue to worship people like Brack Obamarama?
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
>>per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
>>AWOL" will remain a lie
>
>No, asshole.
Your ad hominem only serves to show NG readers how childish your posts
have become Mr LeChevalier.
>It will remain an unadjudicated accusation. Once which
>there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for, as well as evidence of
>tampered records.
The phrase "unadjudicated accusation" is priceless...and is as wrong
as ex-POTUS Clinton trying to re-define what "IS" is as a legal
defense. ROTFLMHO.
Legally, an accusation* that has not been "adjudicated" presumes the
accusation* has been formally presented to the Court waiting to be
adjudicated.**
*"Accusation: a formal charge of wrongdoing, delinquency, or fault"
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com
*"adjudicated: The legal process of resolving a dispute."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adjudicated
Untill you can show the charge of AWOL under Article 86 of the UCMJ
having been filed and accepted by the military court against G. W.
Bush during his military service or the start of impeachment hearings
against him as POTUS, your rantings are little more than the rantings
of a child, and have no bearing on the facts.
There is no "unadjudicated accusation" as there are (and have been) no
formal charges of AWOL per Article 86 of the UCMJ pending (or have
ever been) against the current POTUS. Claiming otherwise is just
another one of your lies Mr LeChevalier.
Your claims of "tampered records" and "circumstantial evidence" are
just more assertions primarily tossed out by rabid anti-Bush
conspiracy theorists....but have no legal weight as no charge nor
convictions have occurred or are likely to occur in the future.
Unsubstantiated assertions don't become factual when backed only by
other unsubstantiated assertions...all and each of your assertions
remain an unsubstantiated opinion, i.e., a lie. Whereas those making
such claims over and again are lying:
"lying: to be sustainable or capable of being maintained: have grounds
under the law". http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com
While I suspect many have heard/read the saying that "two wrongs don't
make a right", in your delusional anti-Bush world it you seems to
equate this to "two lies make a truth*. Which may be one reason you
"snipped" the evidence I posted in refutation of your claims....and
you can not refute my evidence with credible evidence of your own.
>Likely a lot more will come out once he isn't in
>office to sustain the cover up.
Until such evidence is provided and proven against the POTUS Mr
LeChevalier, such unsubstantiated assertions remain a lie.
>I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>until he tried to get elected
G.W. Bush received an honorable discharge. Allegations to the contray
long ago ran out under the statue of limitations.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/f/faqlimit.htm
Oh and btw, Vietnam was never a declared war...and allegations against
G.W.Bush for "deriliction wasn't considered important until he tried
to get elected" FOR A SECOND TERM, where the leftist-liberal democrats
thought they had a much stronger case for John Kerry than the first
time aound (2000 election) with Al Gore, Jr.
>John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln. But he
>still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>doubt whether they can take him alive.
Fallacies are not condusive to your argument Mr LeChevalier, as
neither "John Wilkes Booth" nor "Osama bin Ladin" fall under the
jurisdiction of the UCMJ nor will be eligble for the position of
POTUS.
Your rantings only show you've may have never served in the military
or may have been one that was "washed out" during basic training.
>Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
>doesn't mean that he didn't commit them.
Oh my. Now you've reduced yourself to mere name-calling and accusing
the current POTUS of "war crimes", and yet all you have is conspiracy
theories and anti-Bush rhetoric.
>Just like Adolf, who
>likewise was never convicted.
Comparing the facist dictator of WWII's Gemany to the current POTUS is
quite patheic. How sad you have reached a new low in your anti-Bush
fantasy land.
>>that you perpetuated in this thread.
>
>I don't need to perpetuate it. It will go down in history that he was
>AWOL, and your silly arguments won't change that.
Only when a generation or two has passed and the emotional rhetotic
and fallacies of a few rabid anti-Bush fanatics such as yourself has
faded, historical writers may glean the facts of this administration
and make the determination if such a claim of AWOL was true or remains
an unsubstantiated claim by rabid anti-Bush conpiracy theorists.
Mr LeChevalier, in light of your failure to refute any of the
evidence provided you and your ever increasingly fanatical anti-Bush
rants, I may only suggest you seek out serious professional medical
assistance in attending to your descent into paranoia against the
POTUS. A person that will be out-of-office in about 5 months and is
constitutionally barred from seeking re-election.
Bob LeChevalier
>Legally,
No courts involved here other than the court of public opinion, which
your hero has been thoroughly convicted by.
>an accusation* that has not been "adjudicated" presumes the
>accusation* has been formally presented to the Court waiting to be
>adjudicated.**
No.
Someone can make an accusation without formally presenting it to any
court.
I accuse you of being an obnoxious boor.
See!
>*"Accusation: a formal charge of wrongdoing, delinquency, or fault"
>http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com
We aren't in a court of law. This is Usenet, loser.
>There is no "unadjudicated accusation" as there are (and have been) no
>formal charges of AWOL per Article 86 of the UCMJ pending (or have
>ever been) against the current POTUS. Claiming otherwise is just
>another one of your lies Mr LeChevalier.
I don't lie.
I have not claimed that formal charges have been filed, and indeed I
doubt that any such will be. But Bushwhack is guilty nonetheless.
>Your claims of "tampered records" and "circumstantial evidence" are
>just more assertions primarily tossed out by rabid anti-Bush
>conspiracy theorists....but have no legal weight as no charge nor
>convictions have occurred or are likely to occur in the future.
They are fodder for historians.
>>Likely a lot more will come out once he isn't in
>>office to sustain the cover up.
>
>Until such evidence is provided and proven against the POTUS Mr
>LeChevalier, such unsubstantiated assertions remain a lie.
Wrong.
>>John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln. But he
>>still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>>he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>>trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>>doubt whether they can take him alive.
>
>Fallacies are not condusive to your argument Mr LeChevalier, as
>neither "John Wilkes Booth" nor "Osama bin Ladin" fall under the
>jurisdiction of the UCMJ
Nor does Bushwhack any more.
>nor will be eligble for the position of POTUS.
Bushwhack will not be eligible for the position come 20 January.
>Your rantings only show you've may have never served in the military
>or may have been one that was "washed out" during basic training.
Why would my service or non-service the military be even slightly
relevant to whether Bushwhack disobeyed orders.
>>Just like Adolf, who
>>likewise was never convicted.
>
>Comparing the facist dictator of WWII's Gemany to the current POTUS is
>quite patheic.
You've see one fascist, you've seen them all.
>>>that you perpetuated in this thread.
>>
>>I don't need to perpetuate it. It will go down in history that he was
>>AWOL, and your silly arguments won't change that.
>
>Only when a generation or two has passed and the emotional rhetotic
>and fallacies of a few rabid anti-Bush fanatics such as yourself has
>faded, historical writers may glean the facts of this administration
>and make the determination if such a claim of AWOL was true or remains
>an unsubstantiated claim by rabid anti-Bush conpiracy theorists.
>
>Mr LeChevalier, in light of your failure to refute any of the
>evidence provided you
You have provided no evidence.
>and your ever increasingly fanatical anti-Bush rants,
I am hardly fanatical. I am just jumping on the bandwagon with
relish, because I love pulling the chains of you right-wing
extremists.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>>> until he tried to get elected
>>>
>>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>>
>>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>>you think?
>
>My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
>trial.
It could be the evidence included direct witnesses to the murder of
Lincoln, whereas there is no evidence the G. W. Bush murdered anyone?
Mr LeChevalier, your analogy is but a fallacy.
>>But he
>>> still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>>> he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>>> trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>>> doubt whether they can take him alive.
>>
>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>
>No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
Oh my...Osama bin Laden admitted directing the calls for terroristic
actions resulting in mass murder.
(wrt the attacks on the WTC - Sept,11, 2001)
"A group called al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, admitted they were
behind these attacks..."
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
Oh and beyond mere claims from the "court of public opnion":
http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm
(you're free to prove this video-tape was "doctored" - LOL)
Mr LeChevalier, provide the link to an undoctored and independently
validated video tape or document showing G. W. Bush admitting he was
AWOL from his military duties as you claim....
here -------------->
Else your analogy will be just another of your red herring fallacies.
>>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that a
>>person has the right to their own defense?
>
>Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
>defense, except to doctor documents.
The POTUS has no need to try and "prove-a-negative" or defend himself
further against fictional claims.
FWIW, there is no evidence any of Bush's military documents were
"doctor(ed)" ...beyond those documents presented by the MSM and later
discredited as forgeries.
>But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
>quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
>innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates.
Mr LeChevalier, in the so-called "court-of-public-opinion", G.W. Bush
was elected to a second term of office in spite of the MSM's attempts
to embelish John Kerry's "war hero" image on one hand while attempting
to discredit G.W. Bush military background with the other through the
use of forged documents a month or so before the 2004 election.
Which is why our form of government has a separate Judical Branch that
is supposed to determine if the law(s) were broken or are merely
allegations without merit.
In the so-called "court of public opinion", people may be easily
swayed by obfuscation, forged documents, misleading or false
information, personal bias' and lack of (or manufactured/misleading)
evidence...all of which the MSM have a major influence and which may
easily dupe the "court-of-public-opinion".
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it." (and)
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"
- Joseph Goebbels
Which is why the MSM and leftist-liberals such as yourself continue to
chant the mantra (i.e., lie), that "Bush was AWOL", "No WMDs", etc.
etc. while dismissing the facts and evidence to the contrary, and as
such, a "court of public opinion" is not valid determining guilt or
innocence of public or private figures.
>And
>in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
>typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
...and factual history is written on facts. In a generation or two,
when that history is written, it'll be done so by those with less
emotional ties than those with an axe-to-grind against this
administration. History will note the so-called "preponderance of the
evidence" is not "evidence" at all, but merely lies, heresay,
unsubstantiated opinion, rhetoric and fallacies.
>>> Bushwhack will never be tried for his war crimes either, but that
>>> doesn't mean that he didn't commit them. Just like Adolf, who
>>> likewise was never convicted.
>>
>>Probably so, "if" he did commit war crimes. But then again, "if" Bush did
>>commit war crimes, so did Roosevelt and Truman.
>
>Possibly. But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
>and Japan initiated war against us.
Unlike Germany or Japan, the US led the coalition of UN members states
into Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions.
OTOH, information is that FDR provoked Japan into attacking the USA:
"Try reading Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by
Robert B. Stinnett"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684853396/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_3/102-4679336-1314527?v=glance&s=books&vi=excerpt
>>And they were never tried
>>also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
>>then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
>
>Of the top of my head:
>
>Invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, for one. (Putin
>is guilty of the same thing).
If you're referring to Russia' recent military incursion into Georgia,
unlike the USA and Iraq, Russia invaded that country without any
involvement of the UN or subsequent UN resolutions.
The US was part of a 44-nation coalition that entered Iraq to enforce
UN Resolutions. Or are you claiming since Iraq signed the cease-fire
agreement in 1991, Iraq gets to consider itself a "sovereign nation"
that may pick-and-choose which part of that agreement they deem valid?
Or just any UN Resolutions?
>Ordering violations of the Geneva
>conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>ourselves). Ordering torture to extract information.
Absolute baloney. Never before have the rules of treatment toward
those classified as prisoners-of-war (POWs) per the Generva Convention
been extended to include unlawful combatants.
"The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or
unprivileged combatant/belligerent) denotes a person denied the
privileges of prisoner of war (POW) designation, in accordance with
the Geneva Conventions; one to whom protection is recognised as due is
a lawful or privileged combatant.
[1] Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an
unlawful combatant, he or she ("he") no longer has the rights and
privileges accorded to a POW, but he retains all the rights any other
civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same
situation.
[2] Geneva Convention definition A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier,
sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during
or immediately after an armed conflict. ... Development of the Geneva
Conventions from 1864 to 1949. ... A combatant is a person who takes a
direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict who upon capture
qualifies for prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention
(GCIII).
In the United States, the Military Commissions Act* codified the legal
definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad
discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful
enemy combatant"
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Unlawful-combatant
*Military Commissions Act
a. Name a war in history (declared or undeclared) where torture was
not used as a means of extracting information.
b. Provide the evidence G.W. Bush "ordered torture to extract
information."
ITM, by your *standard* Mr LeChevalier, to whom should Americans
submit "proof" of their actions to for *review-and-approval* that
would not be biased nor partial against the USA?
>I'm sure others have more thorough lists.
...and they'd be just as foolish in making such unsubstantiated claims
as you've made in these threads.
What's truely amusing is your continued attempt to try to compare
known criminals and terrorists with G. W. Bush's military service...as
if the three are comparable.
Mr LeChevalier, it seems you want known terrorists on trial like a
common criminals, yet under military conditions you appear to
sympathize with the terrorists as you feel they should be treated like
military soliders, i.e. as prisoners-of-war (POWs) ....as if the two
are comparable.
Your posts are beginning to look like your sympathizes are with the
terrorists. Maybe we should put your assertions to the "court of
public opinion", eh? ROTFLMHO
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:b4brb41ao36bdgl9e...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>>>>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>>>>> until he tried to get elected
>>>>>
>>>>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>>>>
>>>>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>>>>you think?
>>>
>>> My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
>>> trial.
>>
>>"Considered"? He shot the President in a theater,
>
>Bush is documented as failing to show up at times when the law
>required him to do so.
Baloney...unless you rely on CBS' forged documents. Else, list the
alleged documentation showing Bush as "failing to show up at times
when the law required him to do so"...
here -------------->
>The other guy criticized my claim as not having been adjudicated at a
>trial under the UCMJ. In which case he is saying that evidence
>doesn't matter - unless someone has been found guilty in a court of
>law.
Nonsense. I said evidence DOES matter...that's the point. You haven't
any evidence that'll hold up in a court of law. If there was actual
evidence that Bush failed to show up "when the law required him to do
so"....he would have been prosecuted according to the law that was
allegedly broken per Article 86 of the UCMJ. You're reliance appears
to be on rhetoric and forged documents from CBS.
>>then jumped down to the stage below. Is there any doubt that he did assasinate Lincoln?
>
>>I< have no doubt. But then I have no doubt that Bush was AWOL.
Your'e entitled doubt all you want but your doubt doesn't equate to a
fact or an "unadjudicated accusation", but your unsubstantiated
opinion based on a false premise.
>>>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>>>
>>> No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>>> murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>>
>>And, that has not already happened?
>
>So has the claim that Bushwhack was AWOL.
Glad you admit this is a "claim", i.e. a false assertion with no facts
to back such a claim.
>>>>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that
>>>>a
>>>>person has the right to their own defense?
>>>
>>> Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
>>> defense, except to doctor documents.
>>
>>Relevance to Osama, which was what we were talking about wasn't it?
>
>No. The immediate discussion was the exchange between junkie on me
>(edited to the relevant portions for your question):
><>>Mr LeChevalier, why do you wish to perpetuate the lie that G.W.Bush
><>>"went AWOL"?
><>
><>Because he indeed went AWOL
><
><No Mr LeChevalier, the current POTUS never "went AWOL". Such a false
><assertion is best left to anti-Bush conspiracy theorists, but remains
><a lie nonetheless.
>... [after some cites by me]
><>
><>among numerous other summaries of evidence.
><
><Unless your "summaries of evidence" include a charge and conviction
><per Article 86 of the UCMJ Mr LeChevalier, your claim the POTUS "went
><AWOL" will remain a lie that you perpetuated in this thread.
>
>He is claiming that I lied because there was no conviction under law.
>If that is the basis, then Booth, bin Ladin, and Hitler must also be
>considered innocent because not "charged and convicted". I of course
>find that argument to be bullshit.
If that is your basis Mr LeChevalier, then in your fantasy world ALL
arguments against unsubstantiated opinions, false assertions and
downright lies could CLAIM "to be bullsh**", not based on facts or
evidence, but built upon heresay, rhetoric, fallacies and a
"guilty-until-proven-innocent" ideology where opinion is used in lioeu
of fact and evidence. Where one is free from the charges of slander
and/or libel ONLY IF the *target* is a public figure.
However it's a false paradigm where "I of course find that argument to
be bullsh**" as such a paradigm is contrary to the American
principles. OTOH, such false paradigms may be found among some
anti-Bush fanatics that refuse to accept facts.
>>> But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
>>> quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
>>> innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates. And
>>> in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
>>> typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
>>
>>That is probably correct, but when you do that, you are basically saying
>>that the legal concept in this country, can be thrown out the window, which
>>is that a person is innocent until proven to be guilty.
>
>No, it is NOT thrown out the window.
You implied it was "thrown out the window" when you dismiss facts and
substitute evidence with unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric
presentation to a "court of public opinion".
>I just thought of another example. OJ Simpson was not convicted of
>murder.
A jury of his peers acquitted him of muder.
>Yet everyone pretty much accepts that OJ Simpson did commit
>murder.
False.
"Just as national surveys taken throughout the trial had shown that
more whites than blacks thought the defendant guilty and more blacks
than whites thought him innocent, the few expressions of happiness
came from black patrons."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2D91539F937A35753C1A963958260
O. J. Simpson murder trial: wide disparity between blacks and whites:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7hcUZ9BNOHIC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=%22O.J.+Simpson%22+%2B%22Gallup+Poll%22+%2B%221994%22&source=web&ots=1ieUpZ1cwi&sig=Ou97JRKrokgMYU9HOo5a-h1yvp0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Included are the jury of his peers that acquitted him of murder.
So much for your false claim that "everyone pretty much accepts that
OJ Simpson did commit murder", eh? ROTFLMHO
>Furthermore, under civil law, OJ Simpson was successfully
>sued for damages. Thus he is legally not guilty of murder, but still
>liable for his actions. And everyone quite legitimately can claim
>that he committed murder, even despite the verdict of innocence.
Not "everyone believed" he should have been charged in the civil suit:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fLGQKjdXJCsC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22O.J.+Simpson%22+%2B%22majority+of+blacks%22+%2B%22surveys%22+-%22obama%22&source=web&ots=jnGwpTgpEr&sig=MTeYFcihWLPLXRLPAlZNK5m0Txk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
The ONLY reason some may "quite legitimately can claim that he
committed murder" is ONLY because he's a public figure...else they
might find themselves in the middle of slander and/or libel suits.
>Our legal system has different standards for different objectives.
>"Innocent until proven guilty" applied only under criminal law.
Of which you've asserted G.W. Bush is guilty of "war crimes"...without
any credible evidence for use in a US court of law.
>It doesn't apply to civil law;
Which claims were made against G.W. Bush wrt civil law?
>it doesn't apply to impeachment;
Uh, yes it does:
"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." (US Constitution, Article II, Sec 4)
The "inncocent until proven guilty" paradigm is retained until the
Senate (USSC Chief Justice, not "court-of-public-opinion" presiding)
rules on the legal evidence....not a "court of public opinion" based
upon fallacies and rhetoric.
>it doesn't apply to the "court of public opinion" (which arguably has no
>standards at all, judging from history).
Which falls into the irrelevent realm of rhetoric and fallacies. Your
comment wrt O.J. Simpson shows the so-called "court of public opinion"
is a foolish standard to use as the case itself shows.
>>>But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
>>> and Japan initiated war against us.
>>
>>That is true. But Bush got the approval of the US Senate to wage war with
>>Iraq,
Baloney. Congress agreed with the POTUS to fund the USA's obligations
to the UN Charter, not your sophistic comment to "wage war with Iraq".
>>which I might add, Clinton never even tried to get the US Senate to
>>give hime that approval to go to war with Yugoslavia.
>
>From what I can tell
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL31185.pdf
>
>Clinton did issue reports under the War Powers Resolution, but that
>the Congress never acted. It could neither act to disapprove or to
>approve, but it still funded the war. More or less like it did with
>Bushwhack.
>
>And the courts have rejected the power of individuals to sue on the
>matter. Apparently the only recourse that Congress has is
>impeachment, but the Congress chose rather different and less
>presidentially relevant grounds under which to impeach Clinton.
>
>I don't really defend Clinton, and I think that the War Power
>Resolution is a piece of crap.
>
>The doctrine that the "Commander in Chief" provision in the
>Constitution allows the President to even so much as fart without the
>prior approval of Congress, if that farting were to be an act of war,
>is also something I don't accept. But the courts haven't supported my
>opinion.
Bingo.
For treaties accepted and not ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial
Branch, Congress' role is to fund or not fund...period. The role of
the Executive Branch is to enforce said treaties and it's up to the
POTUS to decide which pieces and parts (or all) of said treaties to be
implemented.
>>whereas, Bush did get the approval of the UN Security Council to do what he eventually did do.
>
>Actually, Bush did no such thing.
Once UN Resolutuon 1441 was passed, the POTUS needed no additional
approvals from the UN Security Council, and recieved the document from
Congress expressing the "sense of Congress" of what they wished he
would implement wrt policy towards Iraq.
>One can argue that Congress authorized something, but I don't think
>they authorized what Bush did. Unfortunately, the wording allowed
>Bush to define what was "necessary and appropriate" for two goals, one
>of which is impossibly vague.
Congress' documented the "sense of Congress" and what they desired
Bush to do...enforce UN Resolutions.
"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the
sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime...making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or
action will be unavoidable"...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
>The wording of the law was:
><(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
><Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
><appropriate in order to--
>< (1) defend the national security of the United States
>< against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
>< (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
>< resolutions regarding Iraq.
Which is exactly why the POTUS did what he did...although wrt Iraq,
constitutionally he was under no obligation to enforce the "sense of
Congress", only the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolutions he
felt benefitted the United States and its allies.
>There was in fact no threat to the national security of the United
>States in the first place, since Bush had used the false pretenses of
>non-existent WMD to argue for such a threat.
Congress themselves wrote their "sense of Congress" in the document
they sent to the Executive Branch. Congress had full access to all
security concerns through the Senate Intelligence Committee (with
democrats such as J. Rockefeller).
The "national security" issue included Iraq shooting at US (and
British) aircraft that were implementing UN Resolutions under the
"no-fly zone".
WRT WMDs: It's amazing how this "non-existant (or No) WMDs" nonsense
continues to pop it's head up as if it's a viable and legal argument.
Leftist-liberals want the law to punish G.W. Bush for allegedly not
following the law...as they interpret it...when in fact the law was
followed. This leaves leftist-liberals like yourself Mr LeChevalier to
resort to "court-of-opinion" rhetoric to support your hypocritical
positions.
I've posted time-and-again the definition of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs) as defined in the law known as Title 18.
I've posted the links and facts of weapons that soliders have
discovered in Iraq post 2003 that met the definition of that law.
I've posted the probablity of dismissal of WMDs by politicians as
based on the 2004 elections...and yet the same old lies of
"non-existant WMD" continue to be cited...as if all facts become
irrelevent under that false mantra. Such a claim that WMDs were
"non-existant" is utter and nonsensical baloney, and claiming the same
claptrap over and over will never make it factual.
Whereas the meaning is found defined in the law and the materials that
met that legal definition were discovered time and again...and ignored
by the MSM and leftist-lieberals such as yourself...as shown by your
citing the same old lie
>But even if one allows
>for this under human error, there has been no plausible threat to the
>national security of the United States "posed by Iraq" since Saddam
>was deposed, and certainly none since he was later brought to custody.
Which is why once Hussein "was deposed", the coalition tactics changed
from a military focus to a political perspective. Which is why the
Iraqi people were able to vote multiple times without fear from a
despot, to put into force the manner of government they desired and
who they wanted to run it...
>>>>And they were never tried
>>>>also, even though there is no doubt that they did commit war cimres. So,
>>>>then the question is, what war crimes do you think Bush committed?
>>>
>>> Of the top of my head:
>>>
>>> Invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, for one. (Putin
>>> is guilty of the same thing).
>>
>>What false pretense?
>
>Non-existent WMD. Bush LIED to Congress, which unfortunately believed
>him.
Yawn. Same old lie and refusal to accept the facts.
>> Ordering violations of the Geneva
>>> conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>>> they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>>> ourselves).
>>
>>That has zero to do with going to war.
>
>Violations of the Geneva conventions are defined war crimes in the
>conventions. You asked me what war crimes that I think Bush
>committed.
Too bad no war was declared, eh?
>>You can only violate the Geneva Convention in this case, when you do go to war.
>
>No. The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared hostilities of
>various kinds.
Never before have the rules of treatment toward those classified as
prisoners-of-war (POWs) per the Generva Convention been extended to
include unlawful combatants.
Even that leftist-liberal organization the Human Rights Commission,
understands the difference:
"Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful
combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War...."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm
>>And no, the Geneva Convention was not violated in Iraq.
>
>I did not limit my statement to violations in Iraq. It doesn't matter
>
>>The soldiers who were captured were accorded their full rights under the Geneva Convention.
>
>The Conventions do not apply only to soldiers, and in fact go at
>length into protection of civilians. al Ghraib is an example of a
>violation. The only question is whether and to what extent the
>Commander in Chief is responsible for such violations under his watch.
Each of those that commited crimes are under investigation or have
been prosecuted IAW the UCMJ based on the evidence.
>It could arguably be said that the initial attack, which was labeled
>"Shock and Awe" was by use that label an act of terrorism.
Oh my. Now you're really grasping-at-straws.
>The
>Conventions forbid attacks against civilian targets, and it is quite
>arguable that "Shock and Awe" was as much aimed at the civilians as at
>the military.
Oh my. More fairy tales such tactics were "aimed at the civilians".
> I would argue that if Truman's use of the bomb was a
>war crime, then so was our initial invasion.
Let use know when you can design controls on a nuclear weapon to
specify military-only targets won't you? ROTFLMHO
>> Ordering torture to extract information.
>>
>>Can you prove that torture was used as a common practice in Iraq?
>
>al Ghraib. But Bush's actions as president were not limited to Iraq;
>nor was my claim.
Those soliders' at al Ghraib were prosecuted of committing crimes
based on actual evidence, not claims from the "court of public
opinion".
Post your evidence that the POTUS authorized these crimes to be
carried out by these individuals. Not more false assertions or
rhetoric but actual evidence that the POTUS broke a law.
>>I can
>>prove without a doubt that the Iraqis used torture, and that the insurgency
>>used torture.
>
>As long as we don't subscribe to junkie's claim that there needs to be
>a trial and conviction in order for such charges to be true, I will
>agree with you.
Well as I've read your posts Mr LeChevalier, and your free to show
otherwise, the implied intent is your desire to have the United States
government, including its military forces...:
1. ..."play nice" with foreign civilians...even if those civilians are
engaged in military hostilies against the US and its allies.
2. ...provide these same civilians caught engaged in military
hostilies POW status, based on Geneva Convention rules (never
previously applied).
3. ...treat these same civilians caught acting in armed military
combat as "innocent-until-proven-guilty", just as US citizens are
treated per the US Constitution.
4. ...appoint US attorneys (at taxpayer-expense), to these same
civilians caught acting in armed military combat, providing them a
legal defense in US Courts.
Unless you elucidate otherwise Mr LeChevalier, these are but four (4)
points I consider your implied intent from your posts.
>>I can also prove without a doubt that the insurgency in Iraq,
>>violated the terms of the Geneva Convention.
>
>One crime does not justify another in response.
...and yet your concept is *two false assertions equate to a truth* in
your fantasy world of public opinion.
>We are supposed to be BETTER than the people we fight in time of war.
>Especially since we are signatories to the Conventions.
We ARE better lil' bobby. The US could've (just to name a few):
a. *Nuked* Afganistan and said *screw you* to the UN Security Council.
b. Acted like Russia's military did recently with Georgia.
c. Acted like other countries such as France and sopped up oil monies
in the oil-for-food scam
d. Passed UN resolution after resolution...each with less credibility
than the last and enforcing none...in the oil-for-food-scam
e. Executed ALL males in Iraq by beheading them, claiming they are ALL
terrorists and/or spies for Hussein, Syria and Iran, and were merely
following the type of executions performed by other Islamists.
f. Legally excluded all media from designated military combat areas.
FWIW, the US is a "signatory" to the UN Charter...a charter and its
subsequent resolutions against Iraq that were passed by the UN
Security Council...resolutions that were followed IAW with the law,
not a "court-of-public-opinion" that is easily swayed by rhetoric,
sound bites and fallacies through the MSM.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>Legally,
>
>No courts involved here other than the court of public opinion, which
>your hero has been thoroughly convicted by.
Show the "court"
>>an accusation* that has not been "adjudicated" presumes the
>>accusation* has been formally presented to the Court waiting to be
>>adjudicated.**
>
>No.
Yes.
>Someone can make an accusation without formally presenting it to any
>court.
But not an "unadjudicated accusation"
>I accuse you of being an obnoxious boor.
This is your unsubstantied opinion...but not an "unadjudicated
accusation"
>See!
"See"...you make a fool of yourself through semantics?
>>*"Accusation: a formal charge of wrongdoing, delinquency, or fault"
>>http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com
>
>We aren't in a court of law. This is Usenet, loser.
...and there is no such thing as a "court of public opinion" that
would be agreed upon by the majority of US citizens, as polls are
comprised of too many variables to be considered an accurate
measurement of comdemnation or praise of an invidivual beyond a minor
snapshot of time ( eg. a day, week month, year) to a minor snapshot of
people.
>>There is no "unadjudicated accusation" as there are (and have been) no
>>formal charges of AWOL per Article 86 of the UCMJ pending (or have
>>ever been) against the current POTUS. Claiming otherwise is just
>>another one of your lies Mr LeChevalier.
>
>I don't lie.
The intentional omission of facts, half-truths and intent to deceive
by fallaciousness may also be considered lies. You have lied in this
and other threads. Refusal to admit you've done so may also be
considered a lie as well Mr LeChevalier.
>I have not claimed that formal charges have been filed, and indeed I
>doubt that any such will be. But Bushwhack is guilty nonetheless.
The very definition of your phrase "unadjudicated accusation" implies
formal charges. Your claims of the POTUS being guilty of say "war
crimes" is not based on anything but opinion, not facts.
>>Your claims of "tampered records" and "circumstantial evidence" are
>>just more assertions primarily tossed out by rabid anti-Bush
>>conspiracy theorists....but have no legal weight as no charge nor
>>convictions have occurred or are likely to occur in the future.
>
>They are fodder for historians.
The "fodder" may be seen in the false accusations and rhetoric from
the conspiracy theorists.
>>>Likely a lot more will come out once he isn't in
>>>office to sustain the cover up.
>>
>>Until such evidence is provided and proven against the POTUS Mr
>>LeChevalier, such unsubstantiated assertions remain a lie.
>
>Wrong.
Right.
>>>John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln. But he
>>>still did so. Osama bin Ladin has never been convicted for 9/11, but
>>>he's still guilty and you can bet our military won't have any problem
>>>trying to capitalize his punishment without a trial if they have any
>>>doubt whether they can take him alive.
>>
>>Fallacies are not condusive to your argument Mr LeChevalier, as
>>neither "John Wilkes Booth" nor "Osama bin Ladin" fall under the
>>jurisdiction of the UCMJ
>
>Nor does Bushwhack any more.
Non sequitur.
>>nor will be eligble for the position of POTUS.
>
>Bushwhack will not be eligible for the position come 20 January.
Non sequitur.
>>Your rantings only show you've may have never served in the military
>>or may have been one that was "washed out" during basic training.
>
>Why would my service or non-service the military be even slightly
>relevant to whether Bushwhack disobeyed orders.
The relevance is understanding how the military works. CLAIMING
someone "disobeyed orders" doesn't equate to anything more than a
CLAIM, nor does it take into account possible extenuating and
mitigating factors such as "disobeying (an illegal) order to perform
murder? Or maybe "disobeying (conflicting) orders"? How about
disobeying verbal orders as military regulations prevent
implementation of the same without written orders?
Name the order G.W. Bush "disobeyed" during his term of service. Of
course you can't because such a condition doesn't exist...except maybe
in your mind.
>>>Just like Adolf, who
>>>likewise was never convicted.
>>
>>Comparing the facist dictator of WWII's Gemany to the current POTUS is
>>quite patheic.
>
>You've see one fascist, you've seen them all.
Since you've only referred to Hilter, are you claiming as an adult,
you've seen Hilter when he was alive? Else, you've not "see(n) one
fascist" to make such a claim.
>>>>that you perpetuated in this thread.
>>>
>>>I don't need to perpetuate it. It will go down in history that he was
>>>AWOL, and your silly arguments won't change that.
>>
>>Only when a generation or two has passed and the emotional rhetotic
>>and fallacies of a few rabid anti-Bush fanatics such as yourself has
>>faded, historical writers may glean the facts of this administration
>>and make the determination if such a claim of AWOL was true or remains
>>an unsubstantiated claim by rabid anti-Bush conpiracy theorists.
>>
>>Mr LeChevalier, in light of your failure to refute any of the
>>evidence provided you
>
>You have provided no evidence.
None you'd accept...which is why you "snipped" it in your response
without evidence of refutation. ROTFLMHO
>>and your ever increasingly fanatical anti-Bush rants,
>
>I am hardly fanatical. I am just jumping on the bandwagon with
>relish, because I love pulling the chains of you right-wing
>extremists.
I see...so now in your verbage, an "extremist" is one who challenges
liars and hypocrites? Understood and thanks for clearing that up. LOL
Bob LeChevalier
>>Bush is documented as failing to show up at times when the law
>>required him to do so.
>
>Baloney...unless you rely on CBS' forged documents.
I have no idea what documents that you think CBS forged, but I haven't
looked at them. I gave you the cites for the documents I refer to,
and none had anything to do with CBS so far as I know.
>Else, list the alleged documentation showing Bush as "failing to show up at times
>when the law required him to do so"...
See the cited pages.
>>The other guy criticized my claim as not having been adjudicated at a
>>trial under the UCMJ. In which case he is saying that evidence
>>doesn't matter - unless someone has been found guilty in a court of
>>law.
>
>Nonsense. I said evidence DOES matter...that's the point. You haven't
>any evidence that'll hold up in a court of law.
It will hold up in the court of history, where the Bushwhack will be
confined to the nether regions of Warren Harding.
>If there was actual
>evidence that Bush failed to show up "when the law required him to do
>so"....he would have been prosecuted according to the law that was
>allegedly broken per Article 86 of the UCMJ.
No he wouldn't have. Not every law violation is prosecuted.
>>>then jumped down to the stage below. Is there any doubt that he did assasinate Lincoln?
>>
>>>I< have no doubt. But then I have no doubt that Bush was AWOL.
>
>Your'e entitled doubt all you want but your doubt doesn't equate to a
>fact or an "unadjudicated accusation"
It is an accusation, and it has not been adjudicated. Thus it most
certainly is an unadjudicated accusation.
>but your unsubstantiated opinion
Quite substantiated. Handwaving about some CBS documents doesn't
remove the substantiation.
>based on a false premise.
Wrong.
>>>>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>>>>
>>>> No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>>>> murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>>>
>>>And, that has not already happened?
>>
>>So has the claim that Bushwhack was AWOL.
>
>Glad you admit this is a "claim", i.e. a false assertion with no facts
>to back such a claim.
That is not the definition of "claim".
>>>That is probably correct, but when you do that, you are basically saying
>>>that the legal concept in this country, can be thrown out the window, which
>>>is that a person is innocent until proven to be guilty.
>>
>>No, it is NOT thrown out the window.
>
>You implied it was "thrown out the window"
No.
>>Our legal system has different standards for different objectives.
>>"Innocent until proven guilty" applied only under criminal law.
>
>Of which you've asserted G.W. Bush is guilty of "war crimes"...without
>any credible evidence for use in a US court of law.
War crimes aren't tried in a US court of law.
>>it doesn't apply to impeachment;
>
>Uh, yes it does:
>"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>misdemeanors." (US Constitution, Article II, Sec 4)
There is no constitutional definition of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" and no statement regulating the rules of evidence that
the House and Senate may follow in trial.
>The "inncocent until proven guilty" paradigm is retained until the
>Senate (USSC Chief Justice, not "court-of-public-opinion" presiding)
>rules on the legal evidence....not a "court of public opinion" based
>upon fallacies and rhetoric.
The Senate can convict an impeached target regardless of what the
Chief Justice says. All it takes is 67 votes.
>>it doesn't apply to the "court of public opinion" (which arguably has no
>>standards at all, judging from history).
>
>Which falls into the irrelevent realm of rhetoric and fallacies.
The court of public opinion is indeed subject to rhetoric and fallacy,
and nothing any law or chief justice says can change that. But the
court of public opinion has quite as much clout as the other courts,
despite this.
Live with it.
>Your
>comment wrt O.J. Simpson shows the so-called "court of public opinion"
>is a foolish standard to use as the case itself shows.
It does not show that it is a foolish standard. It shows that it is a
realistic standard.
>>>>But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
>>>> and Japan initiated war against us.
>>>
>>>That is true. But Bush got the approval of the US Senate to wage war with
>>>Iraq,
>
>Baloney. Congress agreed with the POTUS to fund the USA's obligations
>to the UN Charter, not your sophistic comment to "wage war with Iraq".
Wrong.
>WRT WMDs: It's amazing how this "non-existant (or No) WMDs" nonsense
>continues to pop it's head up as if it's a viable and legal argument.
It was those nonexistent WMDs that were used to convince Congress to
pass the authorization. Bush and company lied, and no authorization
would have been passed had they told the truth.
>Leftist-liberals want the law to punish G.W. Bush for allegedly not
>following the law...as they interpret it...when in fact the law was
>followed. This leaves leftist-liberals like yourself Mr LeChevalier to
>resort to "court-of-opinion" rhetoric to support your hypocritical
>positions.
I am neither a leftist nor a liberal, and I don't need the law to
punish the Bushwhack. History will do fine at that.
>>> Ordering violations of the Geneva
>>>> conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>>>> they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>>>> ourselves).
>>>
>>>That has zero to do with going to war.
>>
>>Violations of the Geneva conventions are defined war crimes in the
>>conventions. You asked me what war crimes that I think Bush
>>committed.
>
>Too bad no war was declared, eh?
The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared wars.
>>>You can only violate the Geneva Convention in this case, when you do go to war.
>>
>>No. The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared hostilities of
>>various kinds.
>
>Never before have the rules of treatment toward those classified as
>prisoners-of-war (POWs) per the Generva Convention been extended to
>include unlawful combatants.
But the determination whether someone is a POW or an unlawful
combatant isn't up to us, but rather an independent tribunal that was
never sought, much less established.
>>>The soldiers who were captured were accorded their full rights under the Geneva Convention.
>>
>>The Conventions do not apply only to soldiers, and in fact go at
>>length into protection of civilians. al Ghraib is an example of a
>>violation. The only question is whether and to what extent the
>>Commander in Chief is responsible for such violations under his watch.
>
>Each of those that commited crimes are under investigation or have
>been prosecuted IAW the UCMJ based on the evidence.
No. Most cases are dropped without prosecution.
>>It could arguably be said that the initial attack, which was labeled
>>"Shock and Awe" was by use that label an act of terrorism.
>
>Oh my. Now you're really grasping-at-straws.
Nope. I've read the conventions several times.
>>The
>>Conventions forbid attacks against civilian targets, and it is quite
>>arguable that "Shock and Awe" was as much aimed at the civilians as at
>>the military.
>
>Oh my. More fairy tales such tactics were "aimed at the civilians".
>> I would argue that if Truman's use of the bomb was a
>>war crime, then so was our initial invasion.
>
>Let use know when you can design controls on a nuclear weapon to
>specify military-only targets won't you? ROTFLMHO
Precisely why their use is pretty much guaranteed to violate the
Geneva conventions which REQUIRE that means be used to actively avoid
effects on civilians.
>>al Ghraib. But Bush's actions as president were not limited to Iraq;
>>nor was my claim.
>
>Those soliders' at al Ghraib were prosecuted of committing crimes
Some were. Their commander in chief, who was ultimately responsible,
was not.
>Post your evidence that the POTUS authorized these crimes to be
>carried out by these individuals.
He didn't prevent it.
>>>I can
>>>prove without a doubt that the Iraqis used torture, and that the insurgency
>>>used torture.
>>
>>As long as we don't subscribe to junkie's claim that there needs to be
>>a trial and conviction in order for such charges to be true, I will
>>agree with you.
>
>Well as I've read your posts Mr LeChevalier, and your free to show
>otherwise, the implied intent is your desire to have the United States
>government, including its military forces...:
>
>1. ..."play nice" with foreign civilians...even if those civilians are
>engaged in military hostilies against the US and its allies.
That is what the Geneva conventions require. They are civilians until
PROVEN otherwise before an independent tribunal.
>2. ...provide these same civilians caught engaged in military
>hostilies POW status, based on Geneva Convention rules (never
>previously applied).
The rules exist, even if we have never followed them.
>3. ...treat these same civilians caught acting in armed military
>combat as "innocent-until-proven-guilty", just as US citizens are
>treated per the US Constitution.
>
>4. ...appoint US attorneys (at taxpayer-expense), to these same
>civilians caught acting in armed military combat, providing them a
>legal defense in US Courts.
The latter follows from their being held under US jurisdiction, as the
USSC has ruled.
>Unless you elucidate otherwise Mr LeChevalier, these are but four (4)
>points I consider your implied intent from your posts.
Actually they weren't my intent.
>>>I can also prove without a doubt that the insurgency in Iraq,
>>>violated the terms of the Geneva Convention.
>>
>>One crime does not justify another in response.
>
>...and yet your concept is *two false assertions equate to a truth* in
>your fantasy world of public opinion
Actually, one false assertion might be a "truth" in the world of
public opinion. Karl Rove is an expert at this.
>>We are supposed to be BETTER than the people we fight in time of war.
>>Especially since we are signatories to the Conventions.
>
>We ARE better lil' bobby. The US could've (just to name a few):
>a. *Nuked* Afganistan and said *screw you* to the UN Security Council.
>b. Acted like Russia's military did recently with Georgia.
We did.
>d. Passed UN resolution after resolution...each with less credibility
>than the last and enforcing none...in the oil-for-food-scam
We did.
>FWIW, the US is a "signatory" to the UN Charter...a charter and its
>subsequent resolutions against Iraq that were passed by the UN
>Security Council...resolutions that were followed IAW with the law,
>not a "court-of-public-opinion" that is easily swayed by rhetoric,
>sound bites and fallacies through the MSM.
But the court of public opinion, fickle as it may be, often has more
power than any judicial court.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:25:35 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't even know if someone CAN be tried under the UCMJ after they
>>>> have left the service, and his deriliction wasn't considered important
>>>> until he tried to get elected
>>>>
>>>> John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of murdering Lincoln.
>>>
>>>Kind of hard to put someone on trial, when he was killed when found, don't
>>>you think?
>>
>>My point is that he is considered Lincoln's murderer, even without a
>>trial.
>
>It could be the evidence included direct witnesses to the murder of
>Lincoln, whereas there is no evidence the G. W. Bush murdered anyone?
>Mr LeChevalier, your analogy is but a fallacy.
There was no trial.
>>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>>
>>No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>>murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>
>Oh my...Osama bin Laden admitted directing the calls for terroristic
>actions resulting in mass murder.
There has been no trial or conviction.
>(wrt the attacks on the WTC - Sept,11, 2001)
>"A group called al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, admitted they were
>behind these attacks..."
>http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
There has been no trial or conviction. That is your preferred
standard in judging the Bushwhack, so it is only fair in debate to
apply the same standard to bin Ladin.
>>>What happens if they do that to the whole idea of our justice system, that a
>>>person has the right to their own defense?
>>
>>Nobody is denying Bush's right to defend himself. He has had no
>>defense, except to doctor documents.
>
>The POTUS has no need to try and "prove-a-negative" or defend himself
>further against fictional claims.
If he wants a positive verdict by history, he'll have to do better
than he has done.
>>But in the court of public opinion, unlike the courts of justice, it
>>quite frequently is the case that one can be "guilty until proven
>>innocent" once a certain amount of negative evidence accumulates.
>
>Mr LeChevalier, in the so-called "court-of-public-opinion", G.W. Bush
>was elected to a second term of office in spite of the MSM's attempts
>to embelish John Kerry's "war hero" image on one hand while attempting
>to discredit G.W. Bush military background with the other through the
>use of forged documents a month or so before the 2004 election.
That is because the Swift Boaters were effective at manipulating the
court of public opinion, thus showing that said court of public
opinion is powerful indeed.
>Which is why our form of government has a separate Judical Branch that
>is supposed to determine if the law(s) were broken or are merely
>allegations without merit.
When has the judicial branch confirmed the accusations of the Swift
Boaters against Kerry (accusations that had far less evidentiary
support than those AWOL accusations.
>In the so-called "court of public opinion", people may be easily
>swayed by obfuscation, forged documents, misleading or false
>information, personal bias' and lack of (or manufactured/misleading)
>evidence...
Yes. And yet the court of public opinion still rules.
>"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
>eventually come to believe it." (and)
>
>"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
>unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
>confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"
>- Joseph Goebbels
Bushwhack seems to be a follower of Goebbels.
>>And
>>in the judgment of history, unlike the courts, the standard is
>>typically preponderance of the evidence rather than legal proof.
>
>...and factual history
There is no such thing. All history is interpretation.
>The US was part of a 44-nation coalition that entered Iraq to enforce
>UN Resolutions. Or are you claiming since Iraq signed the cease-fire
>agreement in 1991, Iraq gets to consider itself a "sovereign nation"
Yes it does. The cease fire agreement did not remove that status from
Iraq.
>>Ordering violations of the Geneva
>>conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>>they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>>ourselves). Ordering torture to extract information.
>
>Absolute baloney. Never before have the rules of treatment toward
>those classified as prisoners-of-war (POWs) per the Generva Convention
>been extended to include unlawful combatants.
>
>"The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or
>unprivileged combatant/belligerent) denotes a person denied the
>privileges of prisoner of war (POW) designation, in accordance with
>the Geneva Conventions; one to whom protection is recognised as due is
>a lawful or privileged combatant.
>
>[1] Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an
>unlawful combatant,
There has yet to be a single hearing before a competent tribunal since
no competent tribunal was ever established, so as yet there are no
unlawful combatants.
>a. Name a war in history (declared or undeclared) where torture was
>not used as a means of extracting information.
That is precisely why the Geneva conventions were instituted - to end
that practice. Meanwhile it is against the laws of the United States
to use torture.
>b. Provide the evidence G.W. Bush "ordered torture to extract
>information."
waterboarding is torture.
>Mr LeChevalier, it seems you want known terrorists on trial like a
>common criminals,
Yes, because that is what our constitution and laws require. Indeed,
it is the fact that we require such that makes us potentially better
than them, if we in fact follow through on the commitment stated in
our laws and constitution.
yet under military conditions you appear to
>sympathize with the terrorists as you feel they should be treated like
>military soliders, i.e. as prisoners-of-war (POWs) ....as if the two
>are comparable.
No. I feel that we should follow the Geneva conventions, and
establish those tribunals to determine who, if anyone, is an illegal
combatant. Until we do so, our leadership (which means Bushwhack) is
committing war crimes.
Bob LeChevalier
>>>There is no "unadjudicated accusation" as there are (and have been) no
>>>formal charges of AWOL per Article 86 of the UCMJ pending (or have
>>>ever been) against the current POTUS. Claiming otherwise is just
>>>another one of your lies Mr LeChevalier.
>>
>>I don't lie.
>
>The intentional omission of facts, half-truths and intent to deceive
>by fallaciousness may also be considered lies.
I do none of those.
>You have lied in this and other threads.
Nope.
>>I have not claimed that formal charges have been filed, and indeed I
>>doubt that any such will be. But Bushwhack is guilty nonetheless.
>
>The very definition of your phrase "unadjudicated accusation" implies
>formal charges. Your claims of the POTUS being guilty of say "war
>crimes" is not based on anything but opinion, not facts.
As I said - the court of public opinion. I am part of the public, so
my opinion counts. Bushwhack's approval ratings on every poll,
strongly suggest that I am not alone. And my studies in history show
me no reason why history will grant him any better a mark than I do.
(His dad, by contrast, is gaining more respect from a historical
perspective.)
>>>Your rantings only show you've may have never served in the military
>>>or may have been one that was "washed out" during basic training.
>>
>>Why would my service or non-service the military be even slightly
>>relevant to whether Bushwhack disobeyed orders.
>
>The relevance is understanding how the military works.
I don't give a damn how the military works. The law required him to
do things, whether the military followed (or enforced) that law. And
he didn't. So I racognize and agree with the accusations that have
been made.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>>>There is no "unadjudicated accusation" as there are (and have been) no
>>>>formal charges of AWOL per Article 86 of the UCMJ pending (or have
>>>>ever been) against the current POTUS. Claiming otherwise is just
>>>>another one of your lies Mr LeChevalier.
>>>
>>>I don't lie.
>>
>>The intentional omission of facts, half-truths and intent to deceive
>>by fallaciousness may also be considered lies.
>
>I do none of those.
So when asked about Dan Rather's usage of forged documents, you didn't
*intend to deceive* when you posted, "I don't watch television
news"...you expect the readers to swallow that obvious obfuscation?
LOL
If you had no "intent to deceive" there would have been no need to add
the qualifier "televsion" in your response about "news". Your "intent
to deceive" became clearer when you "snipped" the multiple links I
provided you regarding media other than "television news" ...including
my link of your discussing the issue in Usenet. ROTFLMHO
>>You have lied in this and other threads.
>
>Nope.
Yep.
"(IJ) is claiming that I lied because there was no conviction under
law. If that is the basis, then Booth, bin Ladin, and Hitler must also
be considered innocent because not "charged and convicted". I of
course find that argument to be bullshit."
Message-ID: <n0isb45j0272i009v...@4ax.com>
Here ya go:
John Wilkes Booth:
"...John Wilkes Booth was tried before a military tribunal."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm
Adolf Hitler:
"Hitler was tried for treason (high crimes against one's country)"
http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hitler-Adolf.html
as Usama (Osama) Bin Laden was tried:
"...Osama Bin Laden was tried in absentia for the 1998 bombings of the
US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s489516.htm
"Bin Laden is bring tried in absentia...accused of killing 224 and
wounding 5,000 in terrorist attacks on the American embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania in August 1998."
http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/cmnews/2001/01-04-08.cmnews.html
"(Usama) Bin Laden is a fugitive from Saudi Arabia, which along with
the United States is considered a top target for another attack."
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0112nn/011204nn.htm
Your lies (in the form of red herring fallacies) didn't work out as
well as you planned...as they were dispensed by...facts!!!
ROTFLMHO
>>>I have not claimed that formal charges have been filed, and indeed I
>>>doubt that any such will be. But Bushwhack is guilty nonetheless.
>>
>>The very definition of your phrase "unadjudicated accusation" implies
>>formal charges. Your claims of the POTUS being guilty of say "war
>>crimes" is not based on anything but opinion, not facts.
>
>As I said - the court of public opinion. I am part of the public, so
>my opinion counts.
...and doesn't refute my point that your claims against the POTUS are
not "unadjudicated accusation(s)" as you've implied formal charges.
ITM, while your opinion counts no more than anyone else's opinion, it
appears the basis of your accusations are founded on an
anti-constitutional principle. In the so-called "court of public
opinion", one is "guilty until proven innocent", the antithesis of the
constitutional principle of law, "innocent until proven guilty".
When you resort to relying on the "court of public opinion" in the
face of facts to the contrary, it's clear you do so only to be a
troll*, or its your sole attempt to justify your personal bias' and
hatred of the POTUS, Mr LeChevalier.
> Bushwhack's approval ratings on every poll,
>strongly suggest that I am not alone.
Ignoring facts to the contrary, you continue to apply the flawed
concept of guilt or innocence based on "polls" as being somehow
reflective of *evidence* to be used in the so-called "court of public
opinion".
After nearly two years, the approval rating of a Democrat-majority
Congress is FAR lower than the approval ratings of the POTUS.
Approval rating (August 2008)
*Bush 34%
**Congress 9%
*http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
**http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
So based on your premise of guilt (wrong) and innocence (right) of
this Administration, in your use of the "court of public opinion",
Congress is far more guilty (wrong) and Bush is much more innocent
(right) regarding the implementation of policies for this country.
Other than a leftist-liberal apologist, where are your posts listing
your "unadjudicated accusation(s)" against the Democrat-majority
Congress? How about against HoR Majority-leader Pelosi? Against Senate
Majority-leader Harry Reid?
After all according to the polls, Reid and Pelosi have failed in the
eyes of your "court of public opinion", eh? ROTFLMHO
>And my studies in history show
>me no reason why history will grant him any better a mark than I do.
...and "my studies in history show me" reasons otherwise....and
unlike you, I prefer facts over emotional rhetoric.
>(His dad, by contrast, is gaining more respect from a historical
>perspective.)
Falls right in line with my comments that "...history is written on
facts....when that history is written, it'll be done so by those with
less emotional ties..."
>>>>Your rantings only show you've may have never served in the military
>>>>or may have been one that was "washed out" during basic training.
>>>
>>>Why would my service or non-service the military be even slightly
>>>relevant to whether Bushwhack disobeyed orders.
>>
>>The relevance is understanding how the military works.
>
>I don't give a damn how the military works.
Of course you don't...and is but one reason why you *snipped* my
request to "Name the order G.W. Bush "disobeyed" during his term of
service" because you can't do so without looking even more foolish.
It's easy to accuse someone of wrongdoing...but backing up such
accusations contrary to the facts says more about the flawed character
of the accuser than the accused.
>The law required him to do things, whether the military followed
>(or enforced) that law. And he didn't.
Really now Mr LeChevalier. At least you could pretend to have a clue
by accurately naming the "law (that) required him to do things", eh?
Violations of military law would be prosecuted...but you've decided to
add yet another conspiracy theory to your list. Now you've implied
the military may not have "followed (or enforced)" some "law" in
failing to prosecute G.W. Bush for violating some "thing" that
allegedly "he didn't" do based on some as-yet-name law.
ROTFLMHO...priceless.
>So I racognize and agree with the accusations that have
>been made.
When you posted that you were "...just jumping on the bandwagon with
relish, because I love pulling the chains..." NG readers may also
"racognize and agree with" how accurately the Usenet definition of
"troll" fits you Mr LeChevalier. LOL
*a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an
angry response without adding content to the discussion, often
intentionally, merely as a ludibrium....trolls often resort to
innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is
to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they
disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating
atmosphere. "
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Usenet_troll/
Info Junkie
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>>Bush is documented as failing to show up at times when the law
>>>required him to do so.
>>
>>Baloney...unless you rely on CBS' forged documents.
>
>I have no idea what documents that you think CBS forged, but I haven't
>looked at them.
Now your'e resorting to semantics? ITM, I say you're a liar as you
are well aware of the forged documents against G.W. Bush that were
reported by CBS as factual.
> I gave you the cites for the documents I refer to,
>and none had anything to do with CBS so far as I know.
A view from VERY well known leftist-liberal blog, dailykos? Don't
insult the readers intelligence by suggesting the primary participants
in that blog are anything but biased against the current POTUS.
The other source...from an individual that has no others to validate
his position. That's your "view"? I've previously addressed the
alleged AWOL/deserter issues in detail in another forum
(alt.poliitics.usa.constitution)
>>Else, list the alleged documentation showing Bush as "failing to show up at times
>>when the law required him to do so"...
>
>See the cited pages.
The "cited pages" are not credible sources....unless you rely on
conspiracy theories.
>>>The other guy criticized my claim as not having been adjudicated at a
>>>trial under the UCMJ. In which case he is saying that evidence
>>>doesn't matter - unless someone has been found guilty in a court of
>>>law.
>>
>>Nonsense. I said evidence DOES matter...that's the point. You haven't
>>any evidence that'll hold up in a court of law.
>
>It will hold up in the court of history, where the Bushwhack will be
>confined to the nether regions of Warren Harding.
More of your unsubstantiated speculation as you haven't proven your
ability to see into the future with ominscient accuracy.
>>If there was actual
>>evidence that Bush failed to show up "when the law required him to do
>>so"....he would have been prosecuted according to the law that was
>>allegedly broken per Article 86 of the UCMJ.
>
>No he wouldn't have. Not every law violation is prosecuted.
While "not every law is prosecuted", no charges were even filed. You
claim that G.W. Bush "wouldn't have" been prosecuted under Article 86
of the UCMJ because.....why??? More conspiracy theories? LOL
>>>>then jumped down to the stage below. Is there any doubt that he did assasinate Lincoln?
>>>
>>>>I< have no doubt. But then I have no doubt that Bush was AWOL.
>>
>>Your'e entitled doubt all you want but your doubt doesn't equate to a
>>fact or an "unadjudicated accusation"
>
>It is an accusation, and it has not been adjudicated. Thus it most
>certainly is an unadjudicated accusation.
How sad...you continue to reject the facts even when provided a
dictionary defeinition...but provide nothing to refute it.
>>but your unsubstantiated opinion
>
>Quite substantiated. Handwaving about some CBS documents doesn't
>remove the substantiation.
The "handwaving" is from those relying on the "court of public
opinion" and conspiracy theories Mr LeChevalier....else G.W. Bush
would've already been prosecuted as violating the UCMJ.
>>based on a false premise.
>
>Wrong.
Right.
>>>>>>So, you think the United States should convict Osama in abstenia?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. But we can still claim that Osama is a terrorist and mass
>>>>> murderer, even though there has been no trial or conviction.
>>>>
>>>>And, that has not already happened?
>>>
>>>So has the claim that Bushwhack was AWOL.
>>
>>Glad you admit this is a "claim", i.e. a false assertion with no facts
>>to back such a claim.
>
>That is not the definition of "claim".
Thanks for allowing me to clarify my comment Mr LeChevalier. Your
"claim", i.e. assertion, is unsubstantiated.
I find it amusing to see you note a issue wrt a definition yet refuse
to accept the dictionary definition of "unadjudicated accusation".
There's no need to point out timer and again you're a hypocrite Mr
LeChevalier. I suspect most NG readers in this and other forums are
well aware of your tactics...and nearly every one of your posts in
this threads substantiates.
>>>>That is probably correct, but when you do that, you are basically saying
>>>>that the legal concept in this country, can be thrown out the window, which
>>>>is that a person is innocent until proven to be guilty.
>>>
>>>No, it is NOT thrown out the window.
>>
>>You implied it was "thrown out the window"
>
>No.
Yes
>>>Our legal system has different standards for different objectives.
>>>"Innocent until proven guilty" applied only under criminal law.
>>
>>Of which you've asserted G.W. Bush is guilty of "war crimes"...without
>>any credible evidence for use in a US court of law.
>
>War crimes aren't tried in a US court of law.
Why would you post another lie LeChevalier?
The fact is:
"Suing foreign persons for war crimes in U.S. courts began in 1980..."
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/March_2006/0603021.html
>>>it doesn't apply to impeachment;
>>
>>Uh, yes it does:
>>"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United
>>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>>conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
>>misdemeanors." (US Constitution, Article II, Sec 4)
>
>There is no constitutional definition of "high crimes and
>misdemeanors" and no statement regulating the rules of evidence that
>the House and Senate may follow in trial.
Why do you now need a "constitutional definition" Mr LeChevalier?
Wouldn't the Senate suffice to use the "court of opinion"? After all,
it was YOU that claimed "criminal law" doesn't apply to "impeachment"
and that "no statement regulating the rules of evidence", eh?
At the drafting of the US Constitution, I may only speculate the
founders intent regarding the newly-created position of the united
States. Such a position as POTUS would, to other countries on the
"world stage", be equal to "King", "Czar", "Kaiser", etc.
IMHO it's from THIS perspective, that whomever was elected to the
position of POTUS would require the holder to be held accountable for
actions of which they are directly involved. Such actions would
indeed be considered criminal in nature, else the POTUS would be a
mere puppet-on-a-string to Congress' every whining complaint.
IMNSHO, the position of the POTUS is meant to be held to a higher
standard than a non-POTUS, the US Constitution doesn't allow for a
compromise of its principles in protecting the individual...even if
the POTUS...a principle consists of "innocent until proven guilty".
Art III § 2 (3) provides that 'the trial of all crimes, except in
cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.'" This clearly considers
impeachment a "crime". It is MO that the individual, even though
holding the position of POTUS, is still entitled to Due Process
protections under the US Constitution's BoR.
>>The "inncocent until proven guilty" paradigm is retained until the
>>Senate (USSC Chief Justice, not "court-of-public-opinion" presiding)
>>rules on the legal evidence....not a "court of public opinion" based
>>upon fallacies and rhetoric.
>
>The Senate can convict an impeached target regardless of what the
>Chief Justice says. All it takes is 67 votes.
While the Senate may indeed overrule the Chief Justice, this doesn't
absolve the C.J. from ensuring such constitutional principles such as
"innocent until proven guilty" are followed for the individual.
"(Chief Justice) had the authority to decide questions of procedure
and admissibility of evidence, but the Senate had the power to
overturn any ruling by a simple majority vote"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
A "court of public opinion" isn't interested in the BoR.
>>>it doesn't apply to the "court of public opinion" (which arguably has no
>>>standards at all, judging from history).
>>
>>Which falls into the irrelevent realm of rhetoric and fallacies.
>
>The court of public opinion is indeed subject to rhetoric and fallacy,
>and nothing any law or chief justice says can change that. But the
>court of public opinion has quite as much clout as the other courts,
>despite this.
>
>Live with it.
...Because you prefer emotional diatribe over facts? Or are you
claiming a "court of public opinion" has the police power of the
State?
>>comment wrt O.J. Simpson shows the so-called "court of public opinion"
>>is a foolish standard to use as the case itself shows.
>
>It does not show that it is a foolish standard. It shows that it is a
>realistic standard.
A "standard" for which you prefer for persons you object to...else you
insist on following the rule of law....which requires evidence to be
used as is used in a courtroom.
How sad it must be for you believe the "court of public opinion" is a
"standard" for the guilt or innocence that's based on rhetoric, lies
and fallacies. Your preference for the "court of public opinion" may
be considered the very antithesis of our constititonal principles of
"inncocent until proven guilty".
I write "sad", as it's clear in the multiples of posts you've made in
this and other threads and NG, of your obvious hatred of the
constitutional principles....as this thread clearly shows your hatred.
Youve ignored, dismissed and lied (by way of semantics and fallacies)
any and all evidence that shows G.W. Bush was never AWOL, he didn't
lie about WMDs in Iraq, and he's committed no war crimes...preferring
insted to based your claims on rhetoric, fallacies and lies.
>>>>>But Bush initiated the invasion of Iraq, whereas Germany
>>>>> and Japan initiated war against us.
>>>>
>>>>That is true. But Bush got the approval of the US Senate to wage war with
>>>>Iraq,
>>
>>Baloney. Congress agreed with the POTUS to fund the USA's obligations
>>to the UN Charter, not your sophistic comment to "wage war with Iraq".
>
>Wrong.
Right.
"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all
relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and
encourages him in those efforts...
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding Iraq."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
IOW, "Congress agreed with the POTUS to fund the USA's obligations to
the UN Charter", which included both diplomatic and military efforts.
>>WRT WMDs: It's amazing how this "non-existant (or No) WMDs" nonsense
>>continues to pop it's head up as if it's a viable and legal argument.
>
>It was those nonexistent WMDs that were used to convince Congress to
>pass the authorization. Bush and company lied, and no authorization
>would have been passed had they told the truth.
Yawn. I provided my evidence to the contrary, while your evidence
is...rhetoric and fallacies.. Oh, and it seems you've added
unsubstantiated speculation as to what you believe Congress might have
done...IF one believes conditions were different. IOW, a typical
hypocrite's "standard" that's based primarily on "woulda, shoulda,
coulda" and/or "what-if" speculations. ROTFLMHO
>>Leftist-liberals want the law to punish G.W. Bush for allegedly not
>>following the law...as they interpret it...when in fact the law was
>>followed. This leaves leftist-liberals like yourself Mr LeChevalier to
>>resort to "court-of-opinion" rhetoric to support your hypocritical
>>positions.
>
>I am neither a leftist nor a liberal, and I don't need the law to
>punish the Bushwhack. History will do fine at that.
This is a claim you've made many times before. It appears the words of
Joseph Goebbels have come true for you:
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"
As long as you keep telling yourself the lie that you're "neither a
leftist nor a liberal", maybe someday even the person in the mirror
will believe you...ROTFLMHO.
>>>> Ordering violations of the Geneva
>>>>> conventions with respect to prisoners of war (if we don't think that
>>>>> they qualify as prisoners of war, we have to prove it, and not just to
>>>>> ourselves).
>>>>
>>>>That has zero to do with going to war.
>>>
>>>Violations of the Geneva conventions are defined war crimes in the
>>>conventions. You asked me what war crimes that I think Bush
>>>committed.
>>
>>Too bad no war was declared, eh?
>
>The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared wars.
...and the Geneva Conventions doesn't provide POW status to "unlawful
combatants" either.
>>>>You can only violate the Geneva Convention in this case, when you do go to war.
>>>
>>>No. The Geneva Conventions apply even in undeclared hostilities of
>>>various kinds.
>>
>>Never before have the rules of treatment toward those classified as
>>prisoners-of-war (POWs) per the Generva Convention been extended to
>>include unlawful combatants.
>
>But the determination whether someone is a POW or an unlawful
>combatant isn't up to us, but rather an independent tribunal that was
>never sought, much less established.
Your "But" is a merely more woulda-shoulda-coulda hindsight....unless
you want to claim you're omniscient...
Historically, NEVER in past wars, declared or undeclared, have the
rules of treatment toward those classified as prisoners-of-war (POWs)
per the Generva Convention been extended to include unlawful
combatants. No country has ever sought an "independant tribunal" for
thoseclassified as unlawful combats under the Generva Convention, as
military tribunals have been consitutionally accepted.
For "unlawful combatants" there was NO reason for this administration
to believe it "woulda, shoulda, coulda" changed its usage from
historical precedent.
>>>>The soldiers who were captured were accorded their full rights under the Geneva Convention.
>>>
>>>The Conventions do not apply only to soldiers, and in fact go at
>>>length into protection of civilians. al Ghraib is an example of a
>>>violation. The only question is whether and to what extent the
>>>Commander in Chief is responsible for such violations under his watch.
>>
>>Each of those that commited crimes are under investigation or have
>>been prosecuted IAW the UCMJ based on the evidence.
>
>No. Most cases are dropped without prosecution.
Yes. Of those cases that were investigated and prosecuted, it was
based on the evidence that was used in a court-of-law. If "(m)ost
cases (were) dropped without prosecution", it was from a lack of
evidence. So the constitutional principle of "inncocent until proven
guilty" worked as designed. Claiming otherwise has no merit...unless
you're clinging to conspiracy theories.
>>>It could arguably be said that the initial attack, which was labeled
>>>"Shock and Awe" was by use that label an act of terrorism.
>>
>>Oh my. Now you're really grasping-at-straws.
>
>Nope. I've read the conventions several times.
Prove our tactic of "Shock and Awe" was aimed at civilians.
>>>The
>>>Conventions forbid attacks against civilian targets, and it is quite
>>>arguable that "Shock and Awe" was as much aimed at the civilians as at
>>>the military.
>>
>>Oh my. More fairy tales such tactics were "aimed at the civilians".
>
>>> I would argue that if Truman's use of the bomb was a
>>>war crime, then so was our initial invasion.
>>
>>Let use know when you can design controls on a nuclear weapon to
>>specify military-only targets won't you? ROTFLMHO
>
>Precisely why their use is pretty much guaranteed to violate the
>Geneva conventions which REQUIRE that means be used to actively avoid
>effects on civilians.
When Truman authorized the nuclear bombs be dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, Japan, the "conventions" had not yet been passed.
Your false analogy fails as this Administration did not drop nuclear
bombs, nor have you proven the US military's "shock and awe" campaign
was "aimed at civilians".
>>>al Ghraib. But Bush's actions as president were not limited to Iraq;
>>>nor was my claim.
>>
>>Those soliders' at al Ghraib were prosecuted of committing crimes
>
>Some were. Their commander in chief, who was ultimately responsible,
>was not.
If soliders were not prosecuted, then there was not enough evidence
against them.
ITM your lack of military knowledge is showing again, so let me
educate you: The Commander-in-Chief is a title, not a military pay
grade. IOW the POTUS is not a "solider". ROTFLMHO
>>Post your evidence that the POTUS authorized these crimes to be
>>carried out by these individuals.
>
>He didn't prevent it.
OMG. So similarly, you want to put parents in jail for the wrongdoings
of their adult children? Or maybe just the CEO's of those fortune 500
companies whose hourly-wage employees beat up another employee, eh?
The rules don't allow for the treatment those soliders were prosecuted
for ....which is why they were prosecuted. FWIW, of those soliders
prosecuted, none had all of their commanders sent to jail because they
"didn't prevent" the crimes the solider's commited, and more than
you'd be held criminally responsible for a crime committed by your
adult children.
Oh and fwiw...G.W. Bush "didn't prevent" Hurricane Ike from entering
the Gulf Coast either. LOL
>>>>I can
>>>>prove without a doubt that the Iraqis used torture, and that the insurgency
>>>>used torture.
>>>
>>>As long as we don't subscribe to junkie's claim that there needs to be
>>>a trial and conviction in order for such charges to be true, I will
>>>agree with you.
>>
>>Well as I've read your posts Mr LeChevalier, and your free to show
>>otherwise, the implied intent is your desire to have the United States
>>government, including its military forces...:
>>
>>1. ..."play nice" with foreign civilians...even if those civilians are
>>engaged in military hostilies against the US and its allies.
>
>That is what the Geneva conventions require. They are civilians until
>PROVEN otherwise before an independent tribunal.
UNLESS they are classified as "unlawful combatants"...which
historically has NEVER had prisoners-of-war (POWs) rules of treatment
extended to them.
>>2. ...provide these same civilians caught engaged in military
>>hostilies POW status, based on Geneva Convention rules (never
>>previously applied).
>
>The rules exist, even if we have never followed them.
More BS. All previous court rulings prior to this administration have
ruled in a manner consistent with the rules adopted by this
Administration and every previous Administration wrt the treatment of
those classified as "unlawful combatants".
Oh and btw, no country has ever previously extended
POW rules of treatment to those classified as "unlawful combats".
>>3. ...treat these same civilians caught acting in armed military
>>combat as "innocent-until-proven-guilty", just as US citizens are
>>treated per the US Constitution.
>>
>>4. ...appoint US attorneys (at taxpayer-expense), to these same
>>civilians caught acting in armed military combat, providing them a
>>legal defense in US Courts.
>
>The latter follows from their being held under US jurisdiction, as the
>USSC has ruled.
For the first time in history. Unless of ourse, your wish to share
your omniscient powers in foretelling on how courts will rule on
future cases, eh?
>>Unless you elucidate otherwise Mr LeChevalier, these are but four (4)
>>points I consider your implied intent from your posts.
>
>Actually they weren't my intent.
...your intent is provided by the manner you conveyed it.
>>>>I can also prove without a doubt that the insurgency in Iraq,
>>>>violated the terms of the Geneva Convention.
>>>
>>>One crime does not justify another in response.
>>
>>...and yet your concept is *two false assertions equate to a truth* in
>>your fantasy world of public opinion
>
>Actually, one false assertion might be a "truth" in the world of
>public opinion. Karl Rove is an expert at this.
Which is why we have courts, rule-of-law and evidence Mr LeChevalier.
IThrowing in Karl Rove is just another of your fallacies.
>>>We are supposed to be BETTER than the people we fight in time of war.
>>>Especially since we are signatories to the Conventions.
>>
>>We ARE better lil' bobby. The US could've (just to name a few):
>>a. *Nuked* Afganistan and said *screw you* to the UN Security Council.
>>b. Acted like Russia's military did recently with Georgia.
>
>We did.
Baloney...unless you an prove we "nuked Afganistan", or Russia went
into Georgia to fulfill UN Resolutions that Georgia was violating.
>>d. Passed UN resolution after resolution...each with less credibility
>>than the last and enforcing none...in the oil-for-food-scam
>
>We did.
False. The US wasn't listed as involved in the oil-for-food scam.
>>FWIW, the US is a "signatory" to the UN Charter...a charter and its
>>subsequent resolutions against Iraq that were passed by the UN
>>Security Council...resolutions that were followed IAW with the law,
>>not a "court-of-public-opinion" that is easily swayed by rhetoric,
>>sound bites and fallacies through the MSM.
>
>But the court of public opinion, fickle as it may be, often has more
>power than any judicial court.
Since you obviously prefer the "court of public opinion" over the
"rule of law", your "standards" then are conspiracy theories and
anarchy. Thanks for clearing that up.
In spite of your anarchical preferences Mr LeChevalier, the
rule-of-law was followed, and no "war crimes" were committed by the
POTUS, he was never AWOL, and WMDs were found as well...according to
the laws. All your semantics, lies, fallacies and ad hominems won't
change those facts.
Bob LeChevalier
>Now your'e resorting to semantics?
That's your norm.
>ITM, I say you're a liar
Do I care?
>as you
>are well aware of the forged documents against G.W. Bush that were
>reported by CBS as factual.
I am aware that there were such. I am also aware that those aren't
the only documents that make a case against Bush.
And you've bored me to death with your nauseous games and repetitious
arguments.
History will decide, and Bushwhack isn't going to come out of it
looking too good.
Day Brown
>> as you
>> are well aware of the forged documents against G.W. Bush that were
>> reported by CBS as factual.
>
> I am aware that there were such. I am also aware that those aren't
> the only documents that make a case against Bush.
called that because there were a wide array of fonts that could be
selected from a set of the 'balls' that had the fonts cast on their
surfaces. And while the published documents may have had characters that
were not in the standard font, there were other font sets that could
have been used back then to produce the originals.
One way to verify whether the documents were authentic would be to look
at the original paper where you would see the deformation of the fibers
from the impact of the typewriter. Lacking that, if the original was
produced by modern printing equipment, the edges of the characters would
have been uniformly straight and affected by the registration as the
drum or print head moved across the paper. A scan of such a document
would also be affected by the movement of the scanner head. While it
sounds smooth to you, it is in fact driven by a stepper motor, and the
increment of the steps creates tiny jerks. The same kind of stepper
motors are used in modern printers- both laser and inkjet.
the combination of making a scan of a document with one stepper driven
device that was originally produced by another stepper motor device will
create phase angle characteristics on the copy such that some lines of
the copy will be more precise than others as the more recently employed
stepper motor moves in and out of phase with the original. These phase
angle traits would not be present with a typewriter produced original.
The Kerry campaign did not hire a professional who was familiar with the
IBM Selectric to have a look at the evidence; this is yet another clue
that Kerry took a dive.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>Now your'e resorting to semantics?
>
>That's your norm.
Your fallacious response avoids the question as asked.
>>ITM, I say you're a liar
>
>Do I care?
Your fallacious response that avoids the question as asked. Else,
readers may consider your answer as implied admittance you're a liar.
>>as you
>>are well aware of the forged documents against G.W. Bush that were
>>reported by CBS as factual.
>
>I am aware that there were such.
Yet when asked about "forged documents backed by Dan Rather", you
replied "I don't watch television news."
Message-ID: <p0kob41vd79r8v7uh...@4ax.com>
I've called you it in the past, you've now admitted you're a liar.
ROTFLMHO
> I am also aware that those aren't
>the only documents that make a case against Bush.
Documents that haven't the weight to be used in a court-of-law, and
are based on rhetoric, sophistry and half-truths. Understood.
>And you've bored me to death with your nauseous games and repetitious
>arguments.
IOW, you can't refute the facts by your "(semantic) games and
repetitious (lies)", so you're going to run away...again.
>History will decide, and Bushwhack isn't going to come out of it
>looking too good.
Again, unless you can prove you're omniscient, the comments from my
previous post in this thread remain accurate and unrefuted:
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:46:35 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>>Now your'e resorting to semantics?
>>
>>That's your norm.
>
>Your fallacious response avoids the question as asked.
Your opinion is of no interest to me.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:46:35 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>>>>Now your'e resorting to semantics?
>>>
>>>That's your norm.
>>
>>Your fallacious response avoids the question as asked.
>
>Your opinion is of no interest to me.
Evidently, neither are facts...