No it wasn’t. You were very specific saying Gitmo is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions. I was very precise in my answer.

Know why? I’ve seen your argument before. I knew that the attempt to establish that open ended incarceration of terrorists at Gitmo is a violation of the Geneva Conventions had failed and everyone is satisfied but people who just can’t let go of that fact love to point at the complaint taken before the SCOTUS against Rumsfield EVEN though the ruling found no issues with the legality of having the terrorists incarcerated there nor that the terrorists cases should fall under US courts and not military tribunals.

It’s right out of the moonbat playbook and that playbook is very much common knowledge so I knew what was coming next.

Saying that SCOTUS found issues with the military commission as a strawman to accuse the US of Geneva violations without noting that the issues SCOTUS found were immediately addressed.

‘…the supreme court says… “the military commision at issue lacks the power to proceed because it’s structure and procedures violate both the ucmj and the four geneva conventions signed in 1949. pp 49-72.”’

Do you know what this means? I suspect not. Read the whole ruling, not just the wikipedia excerpt.

But lets deal with just your excerpt in light of your original comment which was:

‘Abu Gahrib, like Gitmo and extraordinary renditions, is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions…and the scarifice of the moral values of our nation…hardly a minor incident.’

What your excerpt means is that the SCOTUS ruled that the military commission needed authorization from congress and not just from the commander in chief in order to conduct military tribunals. It did not say that Gitmo is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, nor does it imply that the US is flaunting the Geneva Conventions. It said the military commission needed to be properly authorized. So congress passed a bill to fill in the gap and the correction is now codified by law so it won’t happen again.

Not the symptoms of a nation or administration flaunting the Geneva Convention but the symptoms of a nation and administration concerned with abiding by the letter of the conventions.

I’ve already pointed out to you that the rebuttal to your accusations concerning Abu Gahrib is essentially the same. Military personnel were violating both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. The violators were tried, found guilty, and were incarcerated. People who should have been on top of things in line of command were dismissed, demoted, or retired. Once again, not the symptoms of a nation flaunting the Geneva Conventions. Not even close. They are the actions of a nation that adheres to the letter of the Geneva Conventions and acts accordingly when military personnel violate it.

What you need to do is take up citizenship in a country that doesn’t just flaunt but entirely ignores the Geneva Conventions so that you can appreciate the moral values of the one you’d be leaving.

And you really really do not want to flaunt your use of independent critical thought based on your demonstrated interpretations of reality.

On the personal attack issue, once again, if you do not want to be called a liar, stop lying. If you do not want to be called asinine, stop being asinine.

Yeah, and the government said it would abide by the SCOTUS’ (bullshit) majority opinion. So what’s your point?

Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Pretty simple (alphies, contribution)
Invertebrate
Nematode
Amoeba
Pond Scum
alphie

Keep ‘em coming….people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061109-9.html

Under the terms of the War Powers Act the POTUS can order our armed forces into action without a Declaration of War under the following conditions…

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Also, President Clinton went so far as to order American forces to attack the FRY a few years back when NO attack against the United States had taken place, without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, and needless to say, he wasn’t charged with treason, or anything else. That’s called precedent.

Now, be a good little ‘tard and piss off.

If Congress says we’re not at war with Iran…it’s treason charges for any American who attacks them.

Pretty simple.

LOL. Funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

Somebody ought to tell lefty-boy about executive orders, states of national emergency and the War Powers Act.

I bet Congress passes a law against attacking Iran to save them the choice.