Defending the Truth

Once again you have tried to manipulate the points and you want an answer to a question with out answering the question which I asked first. Typical. I will answer your question first. The Supreme Court has said the Geneva Convention does apply. Calling them senile old men is not addressing the FACT that this is their ruling.
Now show me how they don't apply to someone who has not been judged a terrorist. Let see if you change the subject again.
I would not have to use words like facist if you acted like a law-abiding American.

From Meriam Webster:Fascist
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist
Sounds like you to me.

Read all of this. It does not make me a facist to disagree with the Supreme Court. Do you agree with every decision the Supreme Court makes. I don't think so. According to your own definition of a facist, that makes you one. I love how liberals love to call conservatives facists and the real facists are those whose "rights" they protect. You're just another confused liberal who doesn't know the enemy or how to fight them.

Read this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144

Here are a few more of your friends in action. What are you going to do with these guys? These are the facists in my opinion. What are they to you? Freedom fighters?

http://tinyurl.com/er8z6

This is my last post her for a while as I have alot to do. I am going on vacation.
Seem like the definition I posted applies to you as you are the one sticking up for our WRONG decisions and backing a government that doesn't care if it breaks the law and thinks it is about an individuals rights. I don't see how any of it applies to me who is in support of the individual in just about any matter. You go ahead and say what you want. The majority here knows the truth.

That sounded a LOT like John F Kerry's concession speech!

They are "WRONG" in your opinion, not mine. This is not about "individual rights", this is about the rights of enemies of America. You are confused.

Have a fun safe vacation. If anyone tries to blow you up, make sure that their rights are protected before anything else.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Once they are convicted, lock them up for whatever sentence they deserve.

The issue is UNTIL they are found guilty, they shouldn't be treated improperly just because they are suspects.
The issue is that the JUDICIAL PROCESS to find them guilty should be fair and equitable.

Do you disagree?

Innocent until proven guilty is for American citizens accused of crimes, not for those who chose to attack us in war time. They are not suspects. They were detained on the field of battle or were somehow connected to terror. We just didn't go into a McDonalds and round up all the employees. I think it would be a good idea for you to visit moveon.org or some democrat site for some new talking points. You're starting to repeat the same old tired arguments.

Innocent until proven guilty is applicable for all.

And if they ARE guilty, what does it really fricken matter alias?
They're in jail until they are proven guilty, right?
So why are you so afraid to have such civilized legality in our approach to people we SUSPECT of terrorism.


Cut the crap alias.
You DO NOT KNOW how they were detained.
It's already been proven that the vast majority of wire-tapping efforts were against INNOCENT civilians.
Stop assuming that your government is only going after "the bad guy". They make mistakes. And sometimes, they get damn sloppy.


That's funny.
I don't remember making these arguments before.
But I have seen you make that silly assumption that everybody we arrest is a terrorist.

And you still can't answer the question.
WHY SHOULD WE NOT give these guys a civil and public trial?
What does it hurt to assume "innocent until proven guilty"?
If they are guilty, they will be found guilty. If they were found on the battle-field with a gun in their hand, that will be proof against them.
Why are you scared to afford them simple civil legal rights?

Yes indeed, what happened to it?

The better question is, "Have you EVER applied that same rule of law to George W Bush?"


I have the answer to that question. NO.