[jwalsh07]

Just like last time. You cannot argue your case. You resort to name calling.

And you're a weasel just like some officers I served under in the Army. You can give it but you can't take it. I can do either.

[jwalsh07]

And by the way, you started with the smart mouth crap. I simply obliged. I'm equally at home in the street or the office.

Quit whining, it doesn't become an O-6 retired from the USN. My brother, also a Navy guy is distressed by your woe is me act.

[AndyJackson]

like some officers I served under in the Army

I will refrain from the speculation that this invites.

You can give it but you can't take it. I can do either.

I am still waiting for an argument rather than a bunch of names-in fact I have been waiting for a couple of months now.

my post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162603/posts?page=63#63

Which argument have I conceded. Please state it in black and white so that I can understand. What I understand is that you are arguing that Cuba has sovereignty over Guantanimo and so the writ of the supreme court does not run there. If Cuba is the sovereign authority, then under any of the usual definitions of sovereignty (see above for instance) the Cuban courts would have exclusive jurisdiction (that is what sovereignty means). I don't think that the U.S. government quite intended to make that argument.

To which you brought the full weight of your incisive wit:

Not repeating last evenings idiotic word games. Adios.