McCain Admits Bush Administration Violated International Law

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I suppose if you were a worthy attorney, you could check on WestLaw or Lexis, but since you only use Wikipedia (ROTFLMAO) or Google for your "legal research"
here you go:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2004/11/09/judge-bush-violated-geneva-conventions.htm

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...=g1&oq=bush+violated+gene&fp=9b1c6ebfff7f9103

I sure hope you are old fart, at least that would be a reasonable explanation for your diminished capacity...
More...

This proves nothing except that there is a difference of opinion.

The Supreme Court ruled that gitmo detainees were subject to the Geneva Conventions, but that ruling lakced any factual or legal support. It was just another familiar exercise of political power under the guise of law. Why would any country agree to be bound by an international convention regarding warfare when their opponents are clearly not bound by it? It makes no sense whatsoever and demonstrates the extreme folly of the Court's ruling. It is also relevant to note that the ruling concerned an area that the Constitution entrusts to the Executive Branch's exclusive jurisdiction, ie the conduct of warfare, national defense and foreign affairs.
 
As per usual, the libertards will create an uproar, but nothing will happen to Bush or McCain, as nothing should. They kept this country safe, while the Democrat dipshit Bill Clinton was too busy thinking about his next blow job from Lewinsky, then he was about securing the country from the 9/11 terorists, who were entering and exiting the country at their leisure, plotting the final stages of the attack, all on Clinton's watch. :D
 
Quote from trader_t870:

As per usual, the libertards will create an uproar, but nothing will happen to Bush or McCain, as nothing should. They kept this country safe, while the Democrat dipshit Bill Clinton was too busy thinking about his next blow job from Lewinsky, then he was about securing the country from the 9/11 terorists, who were entering and exiting the country at their leisure, plotting the final stages of the attack, all on Clinton's watch. :D
More...

Reality check pal,9-11 happen on Bush's watch
 
Quote from insider trading:

Reality check pal,9-11 happen on Bush's watch
More...



9/11 happened when Bush had just become President, but the attack had been planned for all the years Bill Clinton was in office, and he failed to stop it. A little reality check for you my friend!!!!!!!!! :D


Again, what would you have you expected from a guy that was more concerned about getting a piece of ass, then he was about preventing a terror attack on America. :D
 
Quote from trader_t870:

9/11 happened when Bush had just become President, but the attack had been planned for all the years Bill Clinton was in office, and he failed to stop it. A little reality check for you my friend!!!!!!!!! :D


Again, what would you have you expected from a guy that was more concerned about getting a piece of ass, then he was about preventing a terror attack on America. :D
More...

Bush had 9 months as well as full security briefings when he became president elect,9-11 is in no way Clinton's fault.Its all Bush's negligence, incompetence,and laziness/more vacation time through the first 9 months in office then any other President

Bush also had this




Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US


Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda over a month before the September 11, 2001 attacks.



Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that:

the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
a large attack was planned
the attack would be on United States soil
target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C.
the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned
hijacked plane missions were anticipated
people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved
recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed.
 
The Supreme Court ruled that gitmo detainees were subject to the Geneva Conventions...

Exactly...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This proves nothing except that there is a difference of opinion.

The Supreme Court ruled that gitmo detainees were subject to the Geneva Conventions, but that ruling lakced any factual or legal support. It was just another familiar exercise of political power under the guise of law. Why would any country agree to be bound by an international convention regarding warfare when their opponents are clearly not bound by it? It makes no sense whatsoever and demonstrates the extreme folly of the Court's ruling. It is also relevant to note that the ruling concerned an area that the Constitution entrusts to the Executive Branch's exclusive jurisdiction, ie the conduct of warfare, national defense and foreign affairs.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I suppose if you were a worthy attorney, you could check on WestLaw or Lexis, but since you only use Wikipedia (ROTFLMAO) or Google for your "legal research"
here you go:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2004/11/09/judge-bush-violated-geneva-conventions.htm

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/29/petraeus-geneva-conventions/

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...=g1&oq=bush+violated+gene&fp=9b1c6ebfff7f9103

I sure hope you are old fart, at least that would be a reasonable explanation for your diminished capacity...
More...

If you had half a brain you would understand its not my job to support your argument.

I am still waiting for you to explain how and when the convention applied.

Until then you and McCain are simply legal nitwits.

If you actually make a reasonable argument, you might find I agree with you.
 
"and you have not even shown that the geneva convention applied or was violated."

Asked and answered...


Quote from jem:

If you had half a brain you would understand its not my job to support your argument.

I am still waiting for you to explain how and when the convention applied.

Until then you and McCain are simply legal nitwits.

If you actually make a reasonable argument, you might find I agree with you.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top