No - I'm talking about something else - you know, the one where "the courts" have approved of military tribunals. Do you have a docket number or reporter cite that indicates this? Because here in reality, the last time the issue was in front of US Sct, in Boumedine v. Bush last year, parts of the MCA were being declared unconstitutional. But since you claim it has been "approved" by "the courts" - something must have happened in the interim. I need a citation. Thanks in advance.
So you don't have the citations for the case where "process already in place [was] approved by the courts" - I am not surprised because this citation does not exist - the legality of tribunals is still being tested in the courts in pending litigation. You are bad at lying.
i posed mine first, and you keep avoiding it. answer the question: would Boumedine prevent KSM being tried in a Military Tribunal?
No you didn't - I asked you for the citation of the case which "approved" of the process in place. You didn't provide one. What is it?
Give me the citation or simply admit that there isn't one (which there is not) and I will. All you have to do is admit that you either lied or misspoke. It's not hard.
i never said there was a cite, i said the process was approved by the courts, which should make it easy for you to answer the question: would Boumedine prevent KSM being tried in a Military Tribunal?
Of course they have thought it through. "Isn't it surprising that Obama has not denied that he has not thought it through etc." You are starting to sound like Glen Beck. Can't you watch ABC Nightly News or something occasionally?
maybe i forgot how to read and/or tell time, but i'm almost 99% certain that 4:08PM comes before 4:31PM. like i said, i'm not so scholarly like you are, but i'm pretty sure someone taught me that awhile back. correct me if i'm wrong.
When was this? Which case? Was it an unreported decision? If you have a docket number I can pull it off of PACER. We've been on this for like 8 hours, maybe you could answer it, thanks.
B.S. - he's not in the U.S. military. He's not part of any military. By that definition, any American with a gun is part of the "irregular military". Stop trying to use semantics to get out of it. Do you support tribunals on non-military read individuals who are not in military service on behalf of any nation?
I'll answer that as soon as you acknowledge that "the process has been approved by the courts" is a falsehood, or provide the case where the courts have signed off on it, which we both know does not currently exist.
basso, can someone who never answers legitimate questions from others expect his own questions answered?
And I will gladly tell you, once you admit you lied. Just takes a few little letters. Five in fact. Type the phrase "I lied". Do it. what are you afraid of? Sometimes you have to lose some internet battles in order to win internet wars - a "last word" victory isn't going to work here. Your options are dwindling - type "I lied" and see if you can rally. I promise I will answer your stupid question if you do.
