I might add though - if you and the rest of the Camelotians can convince the U.S. to unconditionally surrender to Iraq, and form a recognized international tribunal - well, perhaps you could get your trials after all.


Good luck.

Well...read this thread when it started. Once again, the Camelotians have adjusted their world to fit what they deem it 'should be' Do you watch MythBusters religiously? "I reject your reality, and substitute my own"

1)The trials you speak of were established with the authority to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries"
(London Charter, Aug 8, 1945) the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the proceedings was established by the Instrument of Surrender, signed by Admiral Doentz, acting at the Reich President. (May 7, 1945)

Which means, Madison, your first failure was in not establishing under which jurisdiction you would file your charges. Since the London Charter restricts the International Military Tribunal to **EUROPEAN AXIS** countries, and the Instrument of Surrender is the one that actually gave the jurisdiction to *GERMAN* areas, not U.S. - and President Bush happens to be American, congrats, case dismissed from court, as it has no jurisdiction in these matters.

Second, should you find a proper jurisdiction for these charges, you fail to delineate the charges, *SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CHARGES* and how you proclaim the accused met these specifications.

Let me give you a hand here. And will put this in plain language, so that your 6th grade comprehension level can understand this.

Burglary:
Accused must break into your house, with intent to remove possessions.
Accused must perform the act in Specification 1 at night.

So - you arraign someone on Burglary for doing a B&E at 2:30 p.m., the arraignment would be dismissed. Wouldn't even make it into court if you had PICTURES of him removing the loot out half out the window! Why?
You failed to meet ALL specifications of the charge.

So - Disturbing the peace - which is a misdemeanor by the way - Well, your continued pathetic mewling and whining disturbs my peace. So why can I not charge you with this? (And I cannot, for those who are wondering) Ahhh...because one of the specifications deals with physical presence, which is negated use of the Internet.

Now, go back, trying doing some actual study instead of the Neanderthalic cut and paste used by most Camelotians and try again. It may take me a few days to get back to you - but will likely get a good chuckle out of what you come up with.

Already got the job.

Now.....just working for retirement in a few more years, then I won't have a profession.

Just a daily dose of messing around somewhere.

No stalkers - wouldn't seem to go with me to well anyway.

No secret admirers, unless they were REALLY secret about it, and still are.

What is that saying? Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6 ?

Rebecca Demorney and Reba McIntire

Almost feel like Don Q there - "To dream the impossible dream......"

Will throw a log on the fire here.....

It boils down to a set of moral and in some cases perhaps religious convictions. So, while those here who say "It is wrong and it is murder"
have either a moral or religious conviction as such (or both) for them, that is the right answer.

For the pro-choice on the other side of the fence - same answer.

Whichever side I am on, I do not believe the government has the right nor responsibility to push your moral/religious views upon me.

Actually - if you happen to read the aforementioned amendment that is being proposed, it bans ANY party that holds direct ties to militia groups.

And yes - while I would surmise due to the nature of the region and people, they all have ties to some militia. But currently, only one - Al Sadr - is using his to make himself a little warlord and trying for a take over coup.

But I guess if you live in Camelot - you would expect everyone to play nicely at all times, and would not be able to figure out why "they just won't play fair"

*sigh*

Well, can say if you made a mistake there or not. Unfortunately the only way to get that wisdom (as it is with most wisdom) is to go forward to see if it is a mistake.

Having said that - I have learned to really trust my instincts on most things. It has kept me out of more troubles than I could conveniently count, and quite literally kept me alive.

So in this case, if you think you are hearing shuffling sounds in the dark alley, unless you *really* want to find out for sure - go with the instinct that tells you bad things lie that way.

Well, would love to give an intelligent answer to the problem of several women all clamoring for my attention at one time.

Having never BEEN in that situation, however.... Kinda limited view point.


(FWIW - I think I may be the luckier for that.....)

I think I might vote for Lance first! Just kidding - had to throw a barb in there somewhere.

I think McCain will actually win. If the Dems stay out of mudslinging each other - they would come out better off over all. And that isn't a flame-bait statement - it is purely tactical. If they would keep a line going of building the 'democrat' values of the other person, and of course, building themselves up at the same time, by talking how they would fix things that the folks want - I think the Democrat party would have an excellent chance of gaining the House, Senate and Executive areas at one time.

Wonder when the last time it was that a party got all three?

iiiii aaaammmm IIRROONNMMAAN !!!

So love that part - movie from trailers looks good.

Well, Madison - please take that to court and try to get it to stick!

ha ha ha. Rotsa Ruck.

Could always use the beer to make a 'flaming Dr. Pepper"....

<kicks can down the driveway> chopped liver, I guess....juussttt chopped liver...

I am sure this is just some strange Freudian slip - but when I scanned this very quickly - the first thought in my head of your boyfriend's name was "Eowned"

Well....maybe not too far a slip....

Wow...you and madison would be put away for life if this were true, considering your own personal agendas you have made quite clear in here.

Same as I challenged another on the forums - Please detail the jurisdictional court that could try him, charges, specifications of the charges, and how he met each specification.

This is basic info, and if you cannot provide it in a succinct and clear manner, chances are you would never get past any arraignment stage.

Oh, and since you feel as such - why don't you find this out, and instead of p*ssing and moaning on here - go to the court of the jurisdiction you choose, and file away. Last I checked, most international courts do not require you to be head of state to file charges against a head of state - you just have to be able to prove your charges.

Good luck.

That's okay - some of us feel the same way about you, living in your own little village of Camelot.

Well - you are not a troll - but like this fellow (?) suggested a little humor along those lines would be sorta funny, and generate some emails to you.