USSC Blunder

[GenSeneca]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights. We must win the war at all costs.

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

Plenty of hyperbole...

You dodged my earlier question -

How do you think this will work out logistically?

 

[PLC1]

Whose freedoms? It really would be easier if Democrats could finally figure out that a "democratic government" is the worst possible form of government. Nothing like 51% of the people being able to subjugate 49% of the population by popular opinion and mob rule.

So, you agree that a democratic form of government is not working, and that we would be better off with a dictatorship. Here, I thought I was using hyperbole, as GenSeneca said, and some obvious sarcasm.

Well, suspending Habeas Corpus during wartime isn't exactly unprecedented. Everybody's favorite President, good ole` "honest Abe" did it during the Civil War (although he forgot that Congress is the only ones allowed to do that...OOPS). It would also be helpful to remember that Habeas Corpus doesn't apply to POW's, and until now, never has.

But, they aren't POW, or are they? Are they "enemy combatants", and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or are they ordinary accused criminals? Which is it?

The thing I believe you've overlooked is the fact that the United States Congress assembled, by a majority of 373 to 156, passed Public Law number 107-243, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was signed by the President, and became our FORMAL "Declaration of War" against Iraq, all in complete accordance with the US Constitution. There is your "advice and consent"

You know, I remember that, and I've looked and looked, but nowhere do I see an authorization to keep prisoners indefinitely without charges nor to torture them. Maybe I've missed something.

Fortunately for us, the Republicans have no problem allowing the Press to report what they will. Now the Democrats on the other hand are screaming about some "fairness doctrine" in an effort to silence public debate.

See? With the dictatorship you support above, none of that would be an issue. You didn't see Russians trying to silence the Pravda, now did you?

Of course, no one is trying to silence the press now, either, just trying to discount what they are saying.

As soon as you prove that any of the prisoners at Club Gitmo have in fact been "sold to the military" and were not "illegal enemy combatants" as defined under GCIII, I'll be the first one to stand right next to you and demand they be released. Thus far, the military has done exactly that, and even messed it up over 30 times in their efforts to be "fair" and give the "benefit of the doubt" to our guests.

OK, read this thread, then stand next to me.

According to whom? YOU? And exactly what metric are you using to measure our "credibility" when it comes to human rights? Mayhaps if you were really concerned about "human rights", you'd be spending your time looking at the real offenders, and not feigning faux indignation at your own nation.

According to our actions, of course.

Yes we must, because we saw what happens when we fail to complete our mission, and we end up having to send our forces BACK to the desert, not for 100 hours like the first time, but for over 5 YEARS. As my grandfather used to say, "if you put your hand to the plow, you finish the row".

Yes, and if you broke it, fix it. We broke it, but are having a time fixing it, aren't we? If we do leave Iraq suddenly and without leaving a stable country behind, we're likely to be facing an even wider war in the MidEast quite soon. When that happens, if it happens, then those favoring the war will point fingers at the "liberals" who "wouldn't let us win", just as they did in Vietnam, without examining whether we should be there in the first place, nor whether we are doing what really needs to be done to stabilize the situation and get out.

You're right, but then again Germany didn't attack us on Dec. 7, 1941, and neither did the Italians, or the Vichy French, but we kicked the crap out of them! Where's your "righteous indignation" about that? Where's your "righteous indignation" about our declaring war on Germany in 1917 when they hadn't attacked us?

Your protestations are, to say the least, intellectually flawed.

Does the term "axis powers" mean anything to you? No, what is intellectually flawed is the insistence that the war in Iraq is anything like WWII. It isn't, and never has been. It is much more like the war in Vietnam, but even that analogy is flawed. There really is no precedent for the mess we're in right now.

 

[Federal Farmer]

So, you agree that a democratic form of government is not working, and that we would be better off with a dictatorship. Here, I thought I was using hyperbole, as GenSeneca said, and some obvious sarcasm.

Nice try, but no cookie. We do not now, nor have we ever had a "democratic" form of government. We have a Constitutional Representative Republic form of government.

But, they aren't POW, or are they? Are they "enemy combatants", and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or are they ordinary accused criminals? Which is it?

Neither, they are "unlawful enemy combatants", and under IHL, we can basically do any damned thing we want to with them, provided we don't violate their VERY basic human rights. We can detain them as long as we want to, we can try them if we decide we want to, and incarcerate them for periods longer than the term of the conflict. Essentially, they might as well give their hearts and souls to Jesus, because their asses belong to us.

You know, I remember that, and I've looked and looked, but nowhere do I see an authorization to keep prisoners indefinitely without charges nor to torture them. Maybe I've missed something.

Yup, you missed the IHL and ICRC determinations. As for "torture", that's another issue altogether. Perhaps you can find a definition of "torture" that applies to anything that US Troops have done to any prisoners, that they haven't been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for. Your whole "torture" charge is specious, as anyone who has engaged in anything that could be considered torture has already been dealt with.

See? With the dictatorship you support above, none of that would be an issue. You didn't see Russians trying to silence the Pravda, now did you?

Not even close, but thank you for playing.

Of course, no one is trying to silence the press now, either, just trying to discount what they are saying.

And what's wrong with that? If they're as AFU as they usually are, should they not be challenged?

OK, read this thread, then stand next to me.

Read and responded to. You're not even close, so I'm across the street laughing at you.

According to our actions, of course.

Not even a close attempt at a response, try again.

Yes, and if you broke it, fix it. We broke it, but are having a time fixing it, aren't we?

Not really. It took us over 20 years to fix Germany and Japan, what's your hurry?

If we do leave Iraq suddenly and without leaving a stable country behind, we're likely to be facing an even wider war in the MidEast quite soon.

Which is why we're back there this time. We pulled out before the mission was accomplished in '91 because we listened to the "hand-wringers" in the UN and our own Congress, and we're paying for it now.

When that happens, if it happens, then those favoring the war will point fingers at the "liberals" who "wouldn't let us win", just as they did in Vietnam, without examining whether we should be there in the first place, nor whether we are doing what really needs to be done to stabilize the situation and get out.

Let me ask you a question; did you serve in Vietnam? If not, do me a favor and STFU about it, because it's readily apparant that you don't have the first clue in the world WTF you're talking about. Once again, we won in Vietnam in '72, S. Vietnam fell in '75, over 2 years after we left VICTORIOUS. No, we won the war, but you're at least partially right in that it was the Dim's that lost the peace.

Hindsight is sometimes 20/20, but with the "handwringers", they're as blind looking back as they are looking forward.

Does the term "axis powers" mean anything to you? No, what is intellectually flawed is the insistence that the war in Iraq is anything like WWII. It isn't, and never has been. It is much more like the war in Vietnam, but even that analogy is flawed. There really is no precedent for the mess we're in right now.

Of course I know what the "axis powers" were, but that has nothing to do with your argument. Now, answer the question directly; did or did not Germany attack us?

Using your "peacenik" logic, we should very well have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor (after all, it wasn't even a State then, and all they did was blow up a few boats), and even if we had declared War on Japan, there's still no reason for us to have gotten involved in a War with Germany, regardless of their declaration of War against us. All we had to do was ignore them, and they'd leave us alone! Using your logic, we SHOULD have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor, since fewer people died in that attack than in the attack of 9-11, and it was strictly a military target, not on US soil, and 9-11 was an attack against civilian targets ON US soil.

I guess the next thing you'll do is try that old "Saddam didn't have anything to do with UBL" argument (believe me, I'm waiting for that one!), or that "Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11" (I'm waiting for that one too).

Even your assertion that "we've never faced anything like this before" isn't entirely historically accurate, but I can easily see why you'd overlook it (most people do), in that our "wars" with the Native American tribes were in almost every sense very much like what we're facing here. They didn't wear uniforms, they all looked very much alike so it was hard, if not impossible to determine which ones had, and hadn't actually attacked us, they didn't comport themselves to the "normal rules of war", and on and on and on. The big difference between then and now though, since we learned our lessons, is that this time instead of simply taking a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach, we're trying our very best to discern which ones are the good guys from the bad guys, and we're doing our best to help them establish their own government, under their own rules, so that we don't have to go back again.

 

[PLC1]

Nice try, but no cookie. We do not now, nor have we ever had a "democratic" form of government. We have a Constitutional Representative Republic form of government.



Neither, they are "unlawful enemy combatants", and under IHL, we can basically do any damned thing we want to with them, provided we don't violate their VERY basic human rights. We can detain them as long as we want to, we can try them if we decide we want to, and incarcerate them for periods longer than the term of the conflict. Essentially, they might as well give their hearts and souls to Jesus, because their asses belong to us.



Yup, you missed the IHL and ICRC determinations. As for "torture", that's another issue altogether. Perhaps you can find a definition of "torture" that applies to anything that US Troops have done to any prisoners, that they haven't been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for. Your whole "torture" charge is specious, as anyone who has engaged in anything that could be considered torture has already been dealt with.



Not even close, but thank you for playing.



And what's wrong with that? If they're as AFU as they usually are, should they not be challenged?



Read and responded to. You're not even close, so I'm across the street laughing at you.



Not even a close attempt at a response, try again.



Not really. It took us over 20 years to fix Germany and Japan, what's your hurry?



Which is why we're back there this time. We pulled out before the mission was accomplished in '91 because we listened to the "hand-wringers" in the UN and our own Congress, and we're paying for it now.



Let me ask you a question; did you serve in Vietnam? If not, do me a favor and STFU about it, because it's readily apparant that you don't have the first clue in the world WTF you're talking about. Once again, we won in Vietnam in '72, S. Vietnam fell in '75, over 2 years after we left VICTORIOUS. No, we won the war, but you're at least partially right in that it was the Dim's that lost the peace.

Hindsight is sometimes 20/20, but with the "handwringers", they're as blind looking back as they are looking forward.



Of course I know what the "axis powers" were, but that has nothing to do with your argument. Now, answer the question directly; did or did not Germany attack us?

Using your "peacenik" logic, we should very well have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor (after all, it wasn't even a State then, and all they did was blow up a few boats), and even if we had declared War on Japan, there's still no reason for us to have gotten involved in a War with Germany, regardless of their declaration of War against us. All we had to do was ignore them, and they'd leave us alone! Using your logic, we SHOULD have ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor, since fewer people died in that attack than in the attack of 9-11, and it was strictly a military target, not on US soil, and 9-11 was an attack against civilian targets ON US soil.

I guess the next thing you'll do is try that old "Saddam didn't have anything to do with UBL" argument (believe me, I'm waiting for that one!), or that "Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11" (I'm waiting for that one too).

Even your assertion that "we've never faced anything like this before" isn't entirely historically accurate, but I can easily see why you'd overlook it (most people do), in that our "wars" with the Native American tribes were in almost every sense very much like what we're facing here. They didn't wear uniforms, they all looked very much alike so it was hard, if not impossible to determine which ones had, and hadn't actually attacked us, they didn't comport themselves to the "normal rules of war", and on and on and on. The big difference between then and now though, since we learned our lessons, is that this time instead of simply taking a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach, we're trying our very best to discern which ones are the good guys from the bad guys, and we're doing our best to help them establish their own government, under their own rules, so that we don't have to go back again.

This is what you posted in response to my post on the "innocents in Gitmo" thread:

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)
Quote:
The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status."

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."

Whether they are POW or not, they still have human rights which does not include locking them up indefinitely, beating them, hanging them from the ceiling, or torturing them to death. I've already shown, in sites where I did provide links, which you did not, what has happened to prisoners.

Of course, no one wants to believe that our country, a beacon of human rights and law, would actually stoop to what it has in this so called "war on terror." Sometimes, though, it is necessary to look at the evidence, make up your own mind, and understand what actually has happened so that it can be stopped.

Oh, yes, and your personal insults (peacenik, don't know WTF you're talking about, handwringers) show that you have run out of valid arguments. The assertion that we "won" in Vietnam also flies in the face of the facts, as does your idea that invading France in WWII was somehow tantamount to invading Iraq. It es predictable, of course, that you would run out of real points, since you have taken it upon yourself to deny plain facts and to argue that this great nation of ours is somehow justified in beating prisoners to death in the name of the war on terror. Such a position is, to say the least, untenable.

 

[BigRob]

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, this debate about Protocol I is meaningless because the United States refused to ratify that section of the treaty. Therefore you are using a law that does not apply to the United States to claim what we are doing is illegal.

As for customary international law, it has its place, however, according to United States domestic law, any act of Congress or the President overrides any International Law (customary or not). Since the intent of Congress was explicit with the rejection of Protocol I because we did not want groups such as the PLO to qualify for the same protections under the Geneva Conventions, this law has no bearing on the United States.

So, your arguments is basically summed up as pointing to a law that the US never ratified or agreed to, but claiming that since Europe agreed to this law that it has become part of customary international law. That said, the whole argument is void, because the original intent of Congress was clear with their rejection of Protocol I and with subsequent Presidential orders (By Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) that override international law.

 

[PLC1]

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, this debate about Protocol I is meaningless because the United States refused to ratify that section of the treaty. Therefore you are using a law that does not apply to the United States to claim what we are doing is illegal.

As for customary international law, it has its place, however, according to United States domestic law, any act of Congress or the President overrides any International Law (customary or not). Since the intent of Congress was explicit with the rejection of Protocol I because we did not want groups such as the PLO to qualify for the same protections under the Geneva Conventions, this law has no bearing on the United States.

So, your arguments is basically summed up as pointing to a law that the US never ratified or agreed to, but claiming that since Europe agreed to this law that it has become part of customary international law. That said, the whole argument is void, because the original intent of Congress was clear with their rejection of Protocol I and with subsequent Presidential orders (By Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) that override international law.

So, we didn't ratify the law, and that gives us the right to beat prisoners, torture them, and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges. Does that make the US a rogue nation?

 

[BigRob]

So, we didn't ratify the law, and that gives us the right to beat prisoners, torture them, and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges. Does that make the US a rogue nation?

Legally speaking, yes, it gives us the right to incarcerate them indefinitely without charge (as previous Presidential orders have confirmed dating back to Reagan) until we decide otherwise.

And while yes there have been some instances such as Abu Ghraib, those involved have been punished. Further, according to International Law, torture is what we say it is as well. So, unless we define what we do as torture, it is not in a legal sense.

You can argue that we "should" not do something like this all you want, but you cannot make the case that we should not by invoking international law that the United States has not ratified.

And no, this does not make the USA a rouge nation. Perhaps some people will look at it this way, but the US is the world hegemon and the world knows it, and I am not sure that the Army is even doing half the things you accuse them of, outside a few incidents that those responsible were punished for.

 

[Federal Farmer]

So, they are not POW, according to your source, but are "entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law."

Whether they are POW or not, they still have human rights which does not include locking them up indefinitely,

I see you didn't read the information I posted for you directly from the IHL, so I'll post it again;

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

beating them, hanging them from the ceiling, or torturing them to death. I've already shown, in sites where I did provide links, which you did not, what has happened to prisoners.

I didn't realize that you needed links to the cases of the Abu Grabass trials and convictions. I was under the impression that anyone not living under a rock was fully aware of the convictions and sentences of the personnel involved in violating the rights of the prisoners there. If you are talking of other cases of US Personnel involvement in the crimes you allege, produce your evidence, but links provided elsewhere does not constitute "evidence" here, so your claim is specious. Also, If I did not provide links, it's only because I'm not a member of the "other sites" you allege to have posted your information on, so this accusation is also a Red Herring.

Of course, no one wants to believe that our country, a beacon of human rights and law, would actually stoop to what it has in this so called "war on terror." Sometimes, though, it is necessary to look at the evidence, make up your own mind, and understand what actually has happened so that it can be stopped.

Sometimes terrible things happen in war, it is regrettable, and when it does, those responsible are prosecuted, but that is no reason to condemn the country, or the administration because of the actions of a few who EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY.

Oh, yes, and your personal insults (peacenik, don't know WTF you're talking about, handwringers) show that you have run out of valid arguments.

Oh yes, the obfuscation, and vain attempts at sophistry and prevarication. It would appear that it is YOU who have run out of arguments, especially since you lack the intestinal fortitude to answer a simple, direct question. I will take your failure to do so as an admission that you did not serve in Vietnam, and therefore do NOT have any idea WTF you're talking about on the subject. Thank you for playing, and I don't expect to hear anything further from you on the subject except in the form of a QUESTION.

The assertion that we "won" in Vietnam also flies in the face of the facts,

Then present your "facts", and let us all analyze them.

as does your idea that invading France in WWII was somehow tantamount to invading Iraq.

More obfuscation and equivocation. I never said that invading France was in any way related to the invasion of Iraq. I merely challenged you to provide a rebuttal to the point that our fighting Iraq was any different than our decision to fight Germany, Vichy France, or Italy during WWII, as they didn't attack us either. Your refusal to acknowledge the question, and to address it directly shows that you have run out of excuses and admitted the extreme flaws in your own failed logic.

It es predictable, of course, that you would run out of real points, since you have taken it upon yourself to deny plain facts and to argue that this great nation of ours is somehow justified in beating prisoners to death in the name of the war on terror. Such a position is, to say the least, untenable.

I have denied no plain facts, as you've presented no plain facts, especially of US personnel "beating prisoners to death". You've presented nothing but tissue thin excuses, theories, and opinions, along with the occasional appeal to emotion, and outright heresay, which altogether qualifies as "facts not in evidence", and it is all inadmissible.

PRESENT YOUR "FACTS", I look forward to seeing them.

 

[PLC1]

Legally speaking, yes, it gives us the right to incarcerate them indefinitely without charge (as previous Presidential orders have confirmed dating back to Reagan) until we decide otherwise.

And while yes there have been some instances such as Abu Ghraib, those involved have been punished. Further, according to International Law, torture is what we say it is as well. So, unless we define what we do as torture, it is not in a legal sense.

You can argue that we "should" not do something like this all you want, but you cannot make the case that we should not by invoking international law that the United States has not ratified.

And no, this does not make the USA a rouge nation. Perhaps some people will look at it this way, but the US is the world hegemon and the world knows it, and I am not sure that the Army is even doing half the things you accuse them of, outside a few incidents that those responsible were punished for.

It isn't me that is accusing the army of doing things they shouldn't, it is the news people who did the research I cited. I don't have the resources to go off to foreign countries interviewing prisoners and guards anyway.

So, now your argument boils down to "we didn't ratify the law", so it makes the actions I've already cited and backed up OK in your eyes. As I've said, it is never easy to admit that one's own government is doing bad things. Ignoring evidence is much easier, now isn't it?

Which of the actions I've cited and supported do you doubt?

 

[Libsmasher]

Uh........could we get back to Habeas Corpus?

 

[PLC1]

I see you didn't read the information I posted for you directly from the IHL, so I'll post it again;

I read it, and cited this part:

may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities

That's what we're doing, finally, thanks to the decision made by the SCOTUS. Now, maybe the innocent people we've kept locked up, beaten, and tortured can get out and go home. I'm sure that they will be avid supporters of the US now.

I have denied no plain facts, as you've presented no plain facts, especially of US personnel "beating prisoners to death". You've presented nothing but tissue thin excuses, theories, and opinions, along with the occasional appeal to emotion, and outright heresay, which altogether qualifies as "facts not in evidence", and it is all inadmissible.

PRESENT YOUR "FACTS", I look forward to seeing them.

I have presented the facts already. There is no use bringing them up again, to have you ignore them yet again.

 

[BigRob]

It isn't me that is accusing the army of doing things they shouldn't, it is the news people who did the research I cited. I don't have the resources to go off to foreign countries interviewing prisoners and guards anyway.

So, now your argument boils down to "we didn't ratify the law", so it makes the actions I've already cited and backed up OK in your eyes. As I've said, it is never easy to admit that one's own government is doing bad things. Ignoring evidence is much easier, now isn't it?

Which of the actions I've cited and supported do you doubt?

If your case has now turned into an appeal to emotions then you will not get very far when trying to push your case.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I read it, and cited this part:

While conveniently ignoring the other salient parts of the treaty that we're not even a party to since they totally obliterate your entire handwringing mantra. You cannot simply ignore one part of a law and trumpet another part of it. The law must be accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. Sorry buddy, you can't have it both ways.

That's what we're doing, finally, thanks to the decision made by the SCOTUS. Now, maybe the innocent people we've kept locked up, beaten, and tortured can get out and go home. I'm sure that they will be avid supporters of the US now.

Personally, I don't care if they support us or not. It's a matter of complete indifference to me what they think of us any more than what the Russians or Chinese thought of us at the height of the cold war.

As for SCOTUS, again, selective acceptance isn't a good idea. I suppose you think SCOTUS made a good call in Dred Scott v. Sandford too? I've always been critical of SCOTUS, and will continue to be so.

I have presented the facts already. There is no use bringing them up again, to have you ignore them yet again.

What you may or may not have presented on some other website has no bearing on this discussion. You asked for evidence, I provided it, I have asked for evidence, you've repeatedly avoided providing it. YOU LOSE.

 

[Libsmasher]

....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus

 

[BigRob]

....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus....habeas corpus

If you keep interrupting I will revoke your habeas corpus and send to you cuba