Obama is not a Kennedy

He would never say anything like

"Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas-and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war-the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil."

because he is an enormous pussy.

>>40
when they have panties on their heads they all look alike to me. I have to classify them by color or design. Right now there are 38 pink bikini butterfly print size 5's. "Wait till we get our Hanes on you".

>>40
You thought wrong. And still, it is not illegal to defend ones country against an invader, and by not letting the geneva convention aply to them they are being treated not as enemies but as political prisoners with no rights.

In guantanamo there were three children. Ones is apparently named Mohammed Ismail Agha while the others names haven't been made available. The army claims they were child soldiers, but cuba claims that their political prisoners are insurgents paid by the CIA (which is illegal and will give you a prison sentenence in all countries on earth) so either we trust both or none, the US army has no auto-trust clause in my book at least.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/24/usint5782.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html
plus many more, google guantanamo children and profit

>>39
>>40

Nobody, not even the Pentagon, denies that Guantanamo Bay houses many prisoners that haven't been proven to be terrorists or enemy combatants. Many are suspected terrorists, enemy combatants, or political prisoners, who are being held there until the U.S. can confirm or disconfirm their suspicions, a process that has taken years for many of them held there. The United States claims that they can circumvent habeas corpus (the Constitutional right against the American government imprisoning people for more than 48 hours without having been formally charged with a crime) due to the fact that Guantanamo Bay is not in the territorial United States. There is great legal debate going on regarding this whole issue.

There is a big difference between the "Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists" that >>40 mentions as well. The Taliban are not considered terrorists, but enemy combatants, who under most circumstances, are protected by the rights of enemy combatants/POWs stated by the Geneva Convention. Al-Qaeda members are considered terrorists, and do not share many of these protections, if any. Once again, whether the Geneva Convention applies, since both Iraq/Afghanistan were technically not declared wars, is up to legal debate.

Oh, and for the names of 558 (a little more than five) of the people held at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon released a list in April 2006. You'd have to have been living under a rock to not have heard about this. You can find it on none other than the DOD's own website. (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html). The majority of them haven't been formally charged to this day (and this list was released in April 2006). Sorry it's in PDF format, but I guess they just scanned their documents, since the release wasn't something they were planning on, and rather, was forced due to legal action.

Yeah, so the US has political prisoners. The thing is people hear about it because journalists can stroll freely through the complex taking photos and the prisoners there taken without charge are like 0.0003% of the total prison population of the US, whilst the political prisoners throughout cuban jails make up a hefty proportion.

>>42
Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, you can't name these "children" who are supposedly being held?

No proof, no merit, so noted.

>>by not letting the geneva convention aply to them they are being treated not as enemies but as political prisoners with no rights.

BULLSHIT.  The Geneva Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws of War, has provisions for bandits, pirates, and terrorists.  The US commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, and the people running Gitmo, would be perfectly within their rights under Geneva and Hague to take all the terrs out and hang them.  "Political prisoner" doesn't come into it.

Care to try again?

>>46
I accuse you of clear thinking and knowing shit. How did you get in here?

>>44
Can you please link a source to the amount of political prisoners in Cuba? My Google Fu is so weak that i only found this hilarious article by William Blum: http://members.aol.com/bblum6/polpris.htm

>>45
I named one, Mohammed Ismail Agha. Can you name one child held in prison in Cuba? Or any political prisoners for that matter?

>>46
So how do the geneva convention define terrorist? Any with other religion than US christianity? Anyone who opposes invasion? Anyone who are not older than 16? Since you seem breathtakingly stupid i will make it clear for you. Nobody calls their own prisoners political. They are all called bandits, terrorists, pirates, traitors, spies etc. And just because US calls the prisoners in gitmo terrorists does not make it so.

>>48
Combatants who don't wear a recognizable uniform, and combatants from nations that haven't signed the Geneva Convention, are neither covered by nor protected under the Geneva Convention.  Am I using too many big words for you?

Also, I don't know what you mean by "resisting invasion."  Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were foreign Arab armies occupying Afghanistan (PROTIP:  the people in Afghanistan belong to many tribes--Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and more than a hundred others. They are NOT Arabs. They speak their own local tribal languages, NOT Arabic).  The US and NATO forces went in to create a legitimate Afghan government under Karzai, who is an Afghan, instead of having Mullah Omar, who was a foreigner from Saudi Arabia, calling the shots.

Maybe you should put down the bong before posting.  You've obviously had enough.

>>46

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not apply to terrorists, bandits, pirates, or spies, which in fact fall outside the jurisdiction/scope of these laws. Terrorists are dealt with differently at the discretion of said nation, in accordance with either their civil or military law, whichever they choose to apply. In order to find whether or not execution would be justified/legal, you would have to look to either U.S. military law (this debate is in regards to the U.S.), or one of the many guidelines established by the UN regarding such issues (since the U.S. is part of the UN, although they haven't signed some of these guidelines). These are not clear cut either, since debate rages on to this day on these subjects (testament to this are the existence of threads like this).

In short, the Laws of Armed Conflict neither condone nor condemn torture, execution or whatever punishments have been brought against terrorists. But since terrorists aren't really part of any nation, and in order to be subject to the protection of the Laws of Armed Conflict, as well as be obligated to uphold the standards set within, you have to have signed it (the same goes with the Geneva Convention), there is now a huge debate regarding this.

While you may be partially correct, you are only correct by mistake, because neither sets of guidelines you referred to in any way explicitly justify hanging, torture, or any such punishment. In fact, since most of the people in Gitmo haven't been formally charged, if the people running it were to hang everybody imprisoned there, they would probably be charged with war crimes were they to do such, as based on U.S. military law defined during the Nuremburg Trials. Ground commanders would hesitate to execute captured terrorists, because there's the possibility of getting valuable information from them through "interrogation" (which is a whole different debate). Did you actually read the Geneva Convention/Laws of Armed Conflict, or do you just know their names from TV?

This discussion is getting ridiculous, I'm going back to /b/.

>>49

Using false claims to make personal attacks on >>48 adds nothing to your argument's validity, and in fact, makes you look less intelligent, and therefore, less believable, which in turn, further validates his/her claims. It also makes you look like that's virtually the best you can come up with as a rebuttal.

I'm out for good now. The text boards take up way too much of my work time.

With the current stormfront invasion /newpol/ is like a /b/ without images, which is not so good i guess...

>>51

What false claims?  Oh, never mind, what you mean is that you can't answer my points either, right?

Call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE.  Say stupid shit in a public forum, and you're going to get called on it.

>>53
Idiot, you have like not answered any questions, and then you go on like a braggart. Do you lack the ability to feel shame? And did not the US government acknowledge the taliban government before the war? Isn't it a little late to call them arab invaders? And the US has not ratified the ICC, does that mean that US nationals are not able to commit war crimes or that if they commit war crimes the ICC regulations does not apply to them, meaning that they can be beheaded or whatever? You follow where this is going? And to get back to cuba, did you have any children names or pol prisoner names, or even a number? If you dont, can you please leave the internet before god decides that his creation is to fucked up and he hits the format Earth:?

>>53
I'm not sure if you noticed, but post #51's author is also the author of posts #43 and #50, which call you out on your stupidity and leave your arguments in ruins. You're pretty damn stupid if you didn't notice.

Judging by your previous posts, I strongly suggest you finish high school before coming back on these boards.


>>54
It's an anonymous board, except for that ID thing. #53 knows he can make baseless arguments without having to take any flak. He'd be crying if he were criticized in real life, no doubt. He also didn't finish high school, so go easy on him.

>>54
Put down the bong.  You've had enough.

>>55
I noticed that he can't answer my points and neither can you.

WAH WAH FUCKING WAH.  Somebody here hasn't finished high school here.  Maybe it's you and >>54.  Welcome to the Interweb, which is a series of tubes, where you're going to have to GROW A FUCKING EPIDERMIS if you PERSIST IN SAYING STUPID SHIT.

>>56
Well, what were your questions that were not answered? Because as i see it, the only unanswered questions are the ones directed towards you. And your stage acting is not very impressive, but if i hear about a remake of Freaks i will be sure to send you an invitation to the audition.

>>57
Don't bother responding to him anymore. He obviously lost the argument. Now he's playing internet tough guy. I suggest you not bother wasting anymore of your time in this thread arguing with him. I sure as hell won't be.

He just wants attention because he doesn't have any real friends to carry on conversations with. I feel sorry for him, and you really should, too. Remember, he'd never dare say these things to your face were you to run into him in public, so this is mainly his platform for getting attention. If you ignore him, he'll just go back to whatever miserable existence he lives.

Besides, the thread's way off topic anyways. Wasn't this supposed to be about Obama and JFK?

It's been nice...

define all your points in a clear logical manner