Comments on: No jihadists to Supermax, continued http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/ Rallying citizens to shoulder personal responsibility and restore consitutional government. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:40:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Captain Arapahoe http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-96727 Captain Arapahoe Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:05:22 +0000 http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/#comment-96727 As for selective memory - you seem to have an especially acute case of the disease. Your post on the "Bush administration’s view and actions regarding the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners" is so full of factual errors that it deserves an entire post in response - starting with the fact that Hamdan did NOT eliminate military commissions, but only moved Congress to enact enabling legislation. Stay tuned for more details (factual ones, this time) on this station... As for selective memory – you seem to have an especially acute case of the disease. Your post on the “Bush administration’s view and actions regarding the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners” is so full of factual errors that it deserves an entire post in response – starting with the fact that Hamdan did NOT eliminate military commissions, but only moved Congress to enact enabling legislation. Stay tuned for more details (factual ones, this time) on this station…

]]> By: Captain Arapahoe http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-96726 Captain Arapahoe Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:59:36 +0000 http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/#comment-96726 BM - I haven't changed my original claim at all. The language of GC III is clear, and the prohibition on internment of "war prisoners" in civilian penitentiaries is meant to apply generally. What part of "in principle prohibited" do you fail to understand? I have been unable to locate ANY case in which "war prisoners" were moved from military custody to a civilian penitentiary in the 60 years that GC III has been in effect. Can you make the case for overturning 60 years of legal precedent? BM – I haven’t changed my original claim at all. The language of GC III is clear, and the prohibition on internment of “war prisoners” in civilian penitentiaries is meant to apply generally. What part of “in principle prohibited” do you fail to understand? I have been unable to locate ANY case in which “war prisoners” were moved from military custody to a civilian penitentiary in the 60 years that GC III has been in effect. Can you make the case for overturning 60 years of legal precedent?

]]> By: Bill Menezes http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-96711 Bill Menezes Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:36:44 +0000 http://backboneamerica.net/2009/02/07/no-terrorists-to-supermax-continued/#comment-96711 Not only have you again changed your original claim -- backing away from your original inaccurate assertion that the Geneva Conventions "unequivocally" bar internment of war prisoners in civilian penitentiaries -- you seem to have selective memory when it comes to the Bush administration's view and actions regarding the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200902100001 Not only have you again changed your original claim — backing away from your original inaccurate assertion that the Geneva Conventions “unequivocally” bar internment of war prisoners in civilian penitentiaries — you seem to have selective memory when it comes to the Bush administration’s view and actions regarding the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners:

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200902100001

]]>