|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| keane, the guy who preaches about 'the truth' but continues to deny he is the screaming sandwich man wrote: |
| Gopher stated the war is unjust. If the war is unjust, it was wrong. Under UN law, which is the law of the United States, it is a war crime. He's a war criminal awaiting his trial. |
No. This exceeds what I said and puts words in my mouth.
Your shrill "war-crimes" allegation is nonsense. Take the bet, chicken. And stop citing me as an authority on the one hand, while childishly attacking every single thing I say on the other.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:12 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal.
So that's done. (dusts off hands)
Next! |
This is childish. Gopher's already offered this foolishness. No more games: put your money where your mouth is. Gopher stated the war is unjust. If the war is unjust, it was wrong. Under UN law, which is the law of the United States, it is a war crime. He's a war criminal awaiting his trial.
I knew you couldn't handle the issue. Fear is a big motivator. |
Gopher is entitled to his opinion. But one has to wonder...given your screaming denounciation of Gopher in the past, why are you so eager to agree with him...even if you had to put words in his mouth to do so?
UN Law is the law of the United States? Since when? The U.S has not signed up to the ICC to list just one example.
UN Law? Please define this term.
Do you actually even know what you are talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal.
So that's done. (dusts off hands) |
SO really by this SIMPLE explanation that he's as much of a criminal as the guys in Guantanamo bay. And you think they're pretty guilty.
Shot yourself in the foot there Conservative. Around and around in circles you go.
Hypocrites! dust hands off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| Quote: |
Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal.
So that's done. (dusts off hands) |
SO really by this SIMPLE explanation that he's as much of a criminal as the guys in Guantanamo bay. And you think they're pretty guilty.
Shot yourself in the foot there Conservative. Around and around in circles you go.
Hypocrites! dust hands off. |
Except that in your eagerness to score a point you forget that I never mentioned Guantanamo Bay in this thread (except to quote EFL) and I never said anything about the prisoners being held there in this thread.
It would seem that YOUR aim is off and not mine.
(dusts hands off)
NEXT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My apologies Conservative, you would have appeared to have forgotten that these same rules that you have described about Bush are exactly the same for the 'inmates' of that place.
Seems to be another example of the US's hypocritical, blinkered views. Seeing one thing and not noticing the similarities with exactly the same problem elsewhere. You would appear to be following this example to the T. Would you like me to explain that for you in English? (brush teeth and go to bed) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
My apologies Conservative, you would have appeared to have forgotten that these same rules that you have described about Bush are exactly the same for the 'inmates' of that place.
Seems to be another example of the US's hypocritical, blinkered views. Seeing one thing and not noticing the similarities with exactly the same problem elsewhere. You would appear to be following this example to the T. Would you like me to explain that for you in English? (brush teeth and go to bed) |
How are the rules the same? Bush is an AMERICAN civilian thus subject to AMERICAN CIVIL jurisprudence. The prisoners at G-B are MILITARY prisoners thus subject to military justice. The rules ARE different...why do you think Bush wants to try them in a MILITARY court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| Quote: |
Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal.
So that's done. (dusts off hands) |
SO really by this SIMPLE explanation that he's as much of a criminal as the guys in Guantanamo bay. And you think they're pretty guilty.
Shot yourself in the foot there Conservative. Around and around in circles you go.
Hypocrites! dust hands off. |
Enemy combatants
neither criminals nor POWs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, screaming right wing Neo cons:
| Quote: |
| Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty? |
Ok you wrote this about Bush. The same can be said for the 'inmates' at GB. No court has judged Bush and nobody has 'judged' these inmates. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the case here. But they don't even get the chance to be proven innocent. No trial. Illegal. You're defending the indefensible. This camp makes a mockery of your self righteous attitude towards justice and freedom. What court has found the inmates guilty? If they are guilty you could prove it in a court of law? Yes?
| Quote: |
| Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal. |
Back to front justice here. America is quick to condemn these inmates, as guilty until proven innocent, so why do you suggest that we should believe that Bush is innocent till proven guilty. Surely the rule applies to everybody!!! The evidence that Bush is war criminal would take 2 seconds to do. But he's protected himself, as has Blair from ever being tried for war crimes.
Let's invent a new word, label them with it. Hell, let's label civilians with this as well. That'll get round any kind of legal lingo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans: so committed to trying and convicting W. Bush as "a war criminal."
At the end of the day, and as a former Marine myself, knowing who surrounds the President, I point out to you that it probably comes down to practicalities like this: if you want him, come and get him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of them were caught in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.
Why would someone from the mideast be fighting for the Taliban?
And in Bush's defense almost anything the US does to force the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists to quit their war is justified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
Ok, screaming right wing Neo cons:
| Quote: |
| Really? He's a criminal? What court has judged him and found him guilty? |
Ok you wrote this about Bush. The same can be said for the 'inmates' at GB. No court has judged Bush and nobody has 'judged' these inmates. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the case here.
Guilty until proven innocent is a RIGHT of AMERICAN citizens. In most of the world over it is different. Bush as an American citizen is entitled to that right.
The inmates who are not American citizens are entitled to only those rights in their home country most of which do not follow the innocent until proven guilty law.
But they don't even get the chance to be proven innocent. No trial. Illegal. You're defending the indefensible. This camp makes a mockery of your self righteous attitude towards justice and freedom. What court has found the inmates guilty? If they are guilty you could prove it in a court of law?
They are MILITARY prisoners, they get tried in a military court of law. It is actually the prisoners and their lawyers who are blocking trials. If they wanted a trial they could have got one in a military court long ago.
Yes?
| Quote: |
| Innocent until proven guilty. So going by that, Bush is NOT a war criminal. |
Back to front justice here. America is quick to condemn these inmates, as guilty until proven innocent, so why do you suggest that we should believe that Bush is innocent till proven guilty. Surely the rule applies to everybody!!!
No it doesn't. American law applies only in America. The inmates are not in America.
The evidence that Bush is war criminal would take 2 seconds to do. But he's protected himself, as has Blair from ever being tried for war crimes.
Let's invent a new word, label them with it. Hell, let's label civilians with this as well. That'll get round any kind of legal lingo. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Guilty until proven innocent is a RIGHT of AMERICAN citizens. In most of the world over it is different. Bush as an American citizen is entitled to that right. |
Yeh but most countries don't prance around with their feathers up spewing self-righteous morals and flagrantly dismissing them when it suits their terms. I'm sure that the US has signed the Geneva Convention? Any person in a first world, developed, democracy has this right. Even prisoners. Or...
| Quote: |
| No it doesn't. American law applies only in America. The inmates are not in America. |
That's handy. But surely they're being held at the 'Pleasure of the United States Government?' I'm not talking American law here, we're talking global, basic human rights, that have been signed up to.
| Quote: |
| The inmates who are not American citizens are entitled to only those rights in their home country most of which do not follow the innocent until proven guilty law. |
So why not send them home to get tried? You let Saddam be 'tried' by his own people? You got the result you wanted.
| Quote: |
| they get tried in a military court of law. It is actually the prisoners and their lawyers who are blocking trials. If they wanted a trial they could have got one in a military court long ago. |
Being tried in private, without a real judge or jury. Don't buy this sorry. If they're so guilty prove it. Right I forgot there's no evidence, except they were in the wrong place at the wrong time filling out their Al Qaeda application forms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
["Dome Vans"][
| Quote: |
Yeh but most countries don't prance around with their feathers up spewing self-righteous morals and flagrantly dismissing them when it suits their terms. I'm sure that the US has signed the Geneva Convention? Any person in a first world, developed, democracy has this right. Even prisoners. Or... |
The Geneva convention never envisioned AQ
| Quote: |
That's handy. But surely they're being held at the 'Pleasure of the United States Government?' I'm not talking American law here, we're talking global, basic human rights, that have been signed up to. |
Keep them locked up until the war is over and also hold them responsible for crimes they have committed.
[quote]
Often the US has done that. In quite a few cases their countries didn't want them back.
| Quote: |
Being tried in private, without a real judge or jury. Don't buy this sorry. If they're so guilty prove it. Right I forgot there's no evidence, except they were in the wrong place at the wrong time filling out their Al Qaeda application forms. |
A. It was the opinion of the Clinton administration that Bin Laden could not be convicted in a US court so he was allowed to go to the Sudan. That didn't turn out so well.
More than that in a US court the US would have to disclose how the US got the evidence against them and the ways the US gets evidence.
No way. Military courts are fine for AQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Gopher stated the war is unjust. If the war is unjust, it was wrong. Under UN law, which is the law of the United States, it is a war crime. He's a war criminal awaiting his trial. |
No. This exceeds what I said and puts words in my mouth. |
The great educated one doesn't understand basic English? No words were put in your mouth. I quoted what you have said using reported speech. I then used a conditional to set off a logical extension of your comment.
You don't understand basic English, friend.
| Quote: |
| Your shrill "war-crimes" allegation is nonsense. Take the bet, chicken. And stop citing me as an authority on the one hand, |
Citing you as an authority? How about holding your duplicitous words up to the light? Also, see above. You continue that problem with basic English.
| Quote: |
| while childishly attacking every single thing I say on the other. |
Childishly? There was nothing childish in my "attack", my little school cherub.
The straw men are piling up. The province of those with nothing to say.
You entire post can be summed up thus:
| Strawman wrote: |
| I didn't say that! Thpffppppfllttt!!" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Gopher is entitled to his opinion. |
Who said he isn't?
| Quote: |
| But one has to wonder...given your screaming denounciation of Gopher in the past, why are you so eager to agree with him... |
Can you read? I am eager to agree? Can you not understand when someone is being hung on their own petard?
He denounces something as unjust, but OK? Does that make sense to you? It's unjust, but not illegal. It's unjust, but not immoral. It's unjust but the perpetrators are just good ol' boys meaning no harm who have done nary an illegal thing?
I hold gopher's BS up to the light, nothing more.
| Quote: |
| even if you had to put words in his mouth to do so? |
Think for yourself, friend. No words were put in his mouth - or are you claiming he did not say the war is unjust? That is the only thing I quoted him as saying. The rest is a juxtaposition of that and his many defenses of the war and its perpetrators.
| Quote: |
| UN Law is the law of the United States? Since when? The U.S has not signed up to the ICC to list just one example. |
You are now disqualified from ever speaking on matters of International Law or the Constitution of the United States.
Criminy Jickets. People talking out their arses... I am just stunned you know so little of the Constitution and the law of the US but run your mouth incessantly on issues that absolutely hinge on having at least a basic understanding of those laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
