Once again I am typing slowly so you can understand. In many cases these terrorist have had access to the press once released. They tried to say they were tortured and video documentation was provided to prove it did not happen. None of the people who lied to the press made any statements that they were not allowed to communicate with family members. So they could have lied but did not in this case. If you bothered to read the right wing conservative New York Times you would have known this because it was widely reported. Also the AP news service wrote about it and retracted a lot of statements proven wrong.



Easily done! Once captured on the field of battle each person is searched and a tag is placed upon their person. The tag lists the date, time, and location of capture as well as the circumstances of the capture. A copy of this is given to the Red Cross and Red Crescent for family notification. Without this tag we can not legally transport anyone outside of the country of capture. It is against the Geneva Conventions. Records of the capture are also kept with the host country, and in our own records. As this person is sent up the chain of command they are interviewed several times to ascertain their status. Once the person is found out to be an illegal combatant then and only then can the person be taken out of the theater of operations i.e. sent to Gitmo.

To kidnap someone for any reason would mean the private who captured him would have to falsify the document, this is punishable by 20 years hard labor. The interviewer would have to falsify his documentation as well, also 20 years in prison. The second and third interviewer would also have to do the same thing. Just to allow you the drug induced fantasy of people being snatched off the streets for some sick pleasure. Sure they can pick people up off the streets for laughs but they can’t transport them outside the theater of operations without opening themselves up for major jail time. It is against international law to do so. Any country caught doing it will have to face the penalties set out in the Geneva Conventions. Now are you suggesting that four international bodies have turned a blind eye to the breaking of international law and not take the chance to rub our noses in it?

It was put to us this way in our yearly classes on combat law. “If you fudge a convention document in any way, they will put you so far under the jail they will have to mail you fresh air and sunlight.” I have been out of active service 20 years now and I still remember those classes. The conventions are posted where everyone can see them as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These are two things there is no leeway on.



The International Red Cross, would have to turn a blind eye to this as they interview our prisoners.

The international Red Crescent, the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross would have to turn a blind eye to Muslim brothers being illegally transported out of the country by non believers.

The Geneva Convention would also have to turn a blind eye to this.

The opposition party of our own government would have to turn a blind eye to this giving up the chance to impeach the president if he approved such a thing.

The liberal press would have to turn a blind eye to this as well giving up a chance to have Vice president Gore win the election.

Did any of that happen?

Look at how bad it was when a few rogue enlisted people in the local prison got stupid. They tried to pin it on the secretary of defense and the president. So a juicy chance like that would be hard to pass up if it were true.

PROVEN!

So you SAY, SO you cannot prove.



Oh just for giggles what form of brain damage must you have to believe that video documention proves it didn't happen?

If I videotape you and then shoot you after the tape is stopped does the video prove you were not shot?

And you have proof of this? Produce it.

Just because she cant accept her ignornance, does not make it any less of the truth. It matters not whether she accepts it or not. But denying it just makes her look like a moron.

That is simple, Congress had put a stop to all tribunals before they could begin with legal challenges. They want the terrorist tried in civilian courts in the United States, instead of by tribunal as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. Until that is resolved no trials can begin, because if a person is found guilty in a civilian court they can’t be tried again in a military tribunal. As I said you should read them.



This is a falsehood, but you know this already. You have said before that no one has seen the evidence so how do you know hearsay is being used? I don’t mind you challenging the Government point of view because it is your right and it helps keep the government honest. Until you have seen the evidence you can not say with anything more that speculation what is and what is not being used as evidence.



I don’t know that the government is terrified of being evaluated, what I do think is that once the trials begin that evidence is going to be shared with our enemy. Not a wise thing to do in a time of war. Examples of this are when the Times reported that we were tracing bin Laden on his cell phone. Sure we were only 24 hours behind him at the time. Then we lost him because he stopped using the cell phone. We picked up his satellite phone and began to trace him again. This time we were only 48 hours behind him when the Times reported how we were tracing him down. He stopped using his sat phone and went on the internet. We started tracking him through that and the times again reported what we were doing. Now he only uses runners to pass his messages.

With that said you want us to start trials now? If the same holds true then our operatives, agents, and case officers will be at risk. How can you justify doing this when the Conventions that we are now forced to use because the Supreme Court has decreed that we must use them on the terrorist? The conventions state that we don’t have to try them until wars end. Why do you have a problem with this since it is what you want, a public trial.

If your blood pressure can stand it, you should check out this site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/yemen/

"Yemen is a friendly and hospitable Middle Eastern country on the southern rim of the Arabian Peninsula place where U.S. assistance workers and their projects are welcomed."

Also: http://www.yemenembassy.org/issues/ymusrelshp/index.htm

“Yemen is an active partner in combating terror”, said by President Bush, November 9th, 2005. See President Bush and President Ali Abdullah Saleh below.

What I mean by this is that the trials started which negates your entire argument, and the fact that the legal challenges are over allowing the trials to finally start, and I failed to notice this was where I was wrong.

Proof of this by the standards of someone with a functioning brain or proof of this to the standard of you?

You cannot try POWs or Enemy combatants in a court of law in your country. That stupid thing called the Geneva Convention? remember it? Do you even know what it says? Doubtful.



Because it is not a criminal trial. Do you understand the difference?



They are not. They are worried about outing covert agents as well as revealing sources of information. If someone told you that your mother was spying on you, would you still confess to her?

Do you think before you post? or just throw silly infantile insults around in your vain attempt to make your non-points?

and somehow this is new.