SHIT! I was going to make a mullet comment.

6 1/2 years and no trial? The US needs to pressure whatever awful government is doing this. He's likely a bad dude, but c'mon: this only turns him into a sympathetic person, and now all his friends and family hate the corrupt regime that's holding him and by association the US for waging the war on terro. For the sake of the US, the US should do something!

Oh, the US government is holding him and has been the entire time? Idiots.

The Burqa comment was uncalled for Lat. Lolz

As long as the other members of RATT are allowed to visit and jam with him, I see no problems.

The Islamic Mullet: business in the front, terrorism in the back.

I heard that in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries American prisoners are given a 10,000 Sq. Ft. Villa, unlimited internet access and a host of other ammenities including a speedy and unbiased trial in a secular court. They can even read graphic horror novels about luring journalists to a specific point under false pretenses and beheading them or historical texts regarding the rise of womens rights and the profit sharing from communal oil wells that has created a near utopian society in which their is equality for all citizens and no one needs to live a sheltered life in heavily armored compounds.

OK...all kidding aside...regardles of what happens the US will be ridiculed...try the guy, and toss him in jail. End of story. Amnesty International would rather set him free than keep in what amounts to be far superior conditions to many "enemy combatants" on both sides.

Speaking of Miley Cyrus, her father wants his mullet back.

Hey 10:13, your liberal douchiness is showing.

10:16 is the early frontrunner for comment of the day.

Seconded, 10:41.

Since he's not getting any trial, does it matter whether he can participate in his defense?

Hmmm, the Geneva Conventions (which don't apply to enemy combatants) only require that he be returned to his home country when the war is over and that he be treated as a soldier in the US Army would be treated (as far as a place to sleep, heating, lighting, food, etc.). Seeing as how it might be 20 or 30 or more years before the global war on terror is over (if ever), looks like this guy should just get comfortable in his big apartment.

I'd hang him.

If he did bad things, we should try him and show the world the bad things he did, and then lock him up forever.

If we can't prove he did bad things, we have no right to lock him up for 6.5 years without a trial. Imagine if you were locked up for 6.5 years without even given a trial. Unbeliable.

What if it turns out the got the wrong guy, but that comes out in cross examination...o wait....there will be no cross examination....he doesn't get a trial.

Funny, when I was in the army, I shared a modest barrack room with 3 other dudes. The library was on the other side of Fort Drum and its selection was limited essentially to Tom Clancy & co. (very popular among the troops). Our exercise equipment consisted of a chin up bar and a dip rack, both made of wood.

All in all, this guy has it pretty good for a POW.

Lat, set up a Paypal account so we can get him a Maxim subscription.

Unlawful enemy combatants can and should be shot on sight. This guy lives better than the average junior associate. At least he doesn't have to do doc review all day.

Arabs play HOCKEY? I had no idea.

10:16 here: I welcome your praise, and thank you from the bottom of my ripped acid-washed jeans and denim jacket with countless metal band patches. This will come back to you in a very positice way, because, as we all know, what goes around comes around!!

10:16/11:24:

Way cool, Jr.!

If you really don't see the problem with holding a human being in solitary confinement for six and a half years, then you apparently don't understand the basic principle of due process.

Furthermore, even if he is to be confined as a prisoner of war, since the "War on Terror" will probably never come to a definite end, he is going to be held essentially forever.

Finally, whatever your position on due process and human rights, please understand that shabby treatment of a prisoner who may, after all, be innocent reflects badly on the United States, the supposed champion of democracy, and undercuts the soft power that our reputation used to give us.

why is lat hiring more writers? what exactly does he do all day?

11:36, Allow me to quote Vice President Cheney: "go f**k yourself."

Ali can go home as soon as Al Qaeda surrenders.

Wow, 11:43, if you can articulate your views that well, you must be on law review or something.

10:07 is my favorite.

Thank you, 11:36, for talking sense here. It is a thankless task. I've tried, and would join in, except I lack the energy today.

"If we can't prove he did bad things, we have no right to lock him up for 6.5 years without a trial."

Wrong.

"If you really don't see the problem with holding a human being in solitary confinement for six and a half years, then you apparently don't understand the basic principle of due process."

Wrong.

Neither one of you understand the difference between a government interacting with (a) citizens of its country and (b) enemy combatants from other countries.

Hey 11:52, that ain't sense he's talking. That there is some A-1 homegrown liberal douchiness.

Everyone should understand that even American citizens can be declared enemy combatants, Jose Padilla being Exhibit A.

Yes, Padilla probably was a bad guy, and he was eventually charged in federal court and convicted, but I trust all the lawyers here understand that a precedent has been set: the government says it seized an enemy combatant on the battlefield; it looks to me like they arrested a native-born U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and held him in military custody, incommunicado, without charges, without trial and without access to counsel.

In theory, there is nothing stopping the government from doing to you or me what they did to Padilla. All you have to do is annoy the wrong federal bureaucrat.

Of course, you're not actually an enemy combatant and you would exonerate yourself at trial, right? Oh wait -- there's no trial! As Joe Fox News Watcher would say, "I don't believe them anti-Merican trrists deserve no trials."

Once we throw due process out the window, the United States as we know it has ceased to exist. Oh, we've got our NASCAR, our NFL, our Domino's Pizza, but the heart of our Constitutional republic is dead if the President can grab a citizen off the street the way Stalin or Mao might have.

This is a issue of basic justice that transcends liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, left or right.

"In theory, there is nothing stopping the government from doing to you or me what they did to Padilla. All you have to do is annoy the wrong federal bureaucrat."

That's what Padilla did, right? Wait, no, he conspired to commit mass murder. Since I don't generally do that, I feel pretty confident that the government won't throw me in solitary.

"As Joe Fox News Watcher would say, "I don't believe them anti-Merican trrists deserve no trials.""

You are so open-minded! I mean, God, why don't we just secede from flyover country, am I right?

"This is a issue of basic justice that transcends liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, left or right."

No, it does not. This is very much a political question - why in the world would it transcend ideology?

To conclude, you are (a) an idiot; (b) a bigot toward your fellow Americans; and (c) a sissy. Your seed should wiped from the earth.

From next item:

> * China disbars two human-rights lawyers who offered pro bono representation to Tibetans charged in anti-China protests.

For once, I wish we were more like China.

12:33: Please read 12:38's comments several times. This is what's known as a clowning.

The real tragedy here is that for 6.5 years this guy has been rotting in a cell, completely without the means to polish or detail his IROC Z. W, have you no concern for the finish!?

Oh the horror--this poor poor man! Why, he's being put through hell! We must slit our wrists and hang Bush for the evilness of making this guy live better than our troops!

/Typical Liberal who loves terrorists

Sheesh--this guy lives better than I do, since I don't have cable nor have my own gym. If we were really Nazi Germany as the leftists claim, ol al-Marri would be working in some slave labor camp building V-2's without water.

Instead, he's treated better than most 1st year associates. He's living a heck of a better life than he would free in Pakistan. Liberal hypocrisy strikes again!

My take: eventually we won't bother to take prisoners--they have too many liberals willing to fight to the death to protect the prisoners while they spit on the US troops. So we'll just shoot all prisoners--after all, under the Geneva Conventions, if they aren't in uniform, we can. Quick, cheap, and probably what they deserve anyway.

12:47 -- No, that's what's known as a smart-ass who isn't reflective enough to perceive that there is a fundamental sea change occurring.

It's disturbing that intelligent people, and even people schooled in the law who should know better, disdain the basic pricniples that have been the foundation of Anglo-American law since Magna Carta, and certainly since those commie libs George Mason and James Madison added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

Imprionsing innocent people is unjust and un-American, period. I don't care how traumatized we all were by watching the towers fall. We cannot just discard the fundamental idea of due process that separates us from the radical muslims and the communists of the world.

For the record, I have relatives in flyover country, but there is a great mass of folk in this country who are apparently prepared to champion the Bush Administration in anything it does, no matter how unconstitutional and basically wrong. I don't fault them as much as I fault lawyers who should know better.

12:38, I think what 12:33 was trying to say was that Jose Padilla's charges or even his guilt or innocence aren't the point. The point is that if they can grab an American citizen and throw him in a military jail, they can do it to anybody, and never have to prove innocence. It doesn't matter if you are guilty or not -- if the government says you're guilty. Who is going to argue with them? Nobody who doesn't want to get put on a list.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a communist, etc.

What they do to the most hated among us, they will eventually do to the rest of us, unless we stand up for our Constutitional rights.

> Imprionsing innocent people is unjust and un-American, period.

Imprionsing? Does that mean injecting him with deadly fragmentary proteins?

And who the f** says this guy is innocent?

Dear Popeye,

I agree. Locking up innocent people is wrong. Please share with us the secret evidence you have that exonerates this man and I will join you.

XXXOOO,

12:47

Here's the deal, sparky.

Most of these men were not seized from the battlefield. Even if they were, shoving POW's into solitary to the point that they start losing it doens't comport with the Geneva conventions.

Aha, you say, but what if they don't qualify for Geneva convention protections because they are not soliders? Okay, so does that mean we're kidnapping private citizens? What is the source of our jurisdiction? Is this law enforcement? War? If someone fights for an unrecognized government, or no government, are they terrorists? Exactly what did that make us during the Revolutionary war? Should we be super-grateful to the French for recognizing us and sparing us from being labeled terrorists?

And before anyone calls me a "terrorist loving liberal" I'm ex-military, and am pretty damn aware of the dangers of terrorism. But unless we subject our detention of people to some level of scrutiny, we have no idea whether we have a bombmaker or someone with the same name as a bombmaker. (Or worse yet, someone who one of the warlords just didn't like or was indifferent to, and willing to give to us for money.)

Also, think about it. If your ass was locked up for six years in solitary, and you weren't a terrorist, what do you think you'd want to become once you were freed? How do you think your friends and familiy's attitude might change toward the U.S.? If they didn't become terrorists themselves, yah think they might be a little more willing to look the other way, and a little less willing to tip off our troops to EOD in the roadway?

And I thought the war in Afghanistan was over. So shouldn't the Taliban fighters be repatriated, by your analysis?

> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a communist, etc.

Spare us the Niemoller shit. JFC. There ought to be an Intertubes law, along the lines of Godwin's, that the first person to use the Niemoller quote automatically loses the argument.

First they came for the douchebags, and because I was clean, I did not speak up. Then they went away.

Why would we need the enemy to point out members of explosive ordnance disposal teams in the roadway to us? Are our troops being sued for hitting these guys? I had no idea.

And by the way, you are a terrorist-loving liberal. Why did you ever join the navy?

"Spare us the Niemoller shit. JFC. There ought to be an Intertubes law, along the lines of Godwin's, that the first person to use the Niemoller quote automatically loses the argument."

That's like saying if the sky over New Orleans goes dark and the wind picks up, nobody is allowed to mention the word "hurricane." We shouldn't learn from our mistakes or anything.

1:21 asks "And who the f** says this guy is innocent?"

Innocent until proven guilty. Ask somebody who went to law school what it means.

This guy is a citizen of Qatar, not a US citizen.

Besides, what do you expect a government to do with combatants that are captured during a war, release them to go back and continue fighting against that government? That is not how wars are fought. Such POWs are held until the war is over and then sent back to their home country. As long as they aren't mistreated (under the Geneva Conventions) that is just the risk they take in being a combatant in a war.

He looks guilty to me. That mustache and Islamic "I hate Americans" stare makes me think he did something he shouldn't have or is at least thinking he should do something he shouldn't do.

No amount of logical argument will triumph over people who are too scared, too hopped up on the new brand of patriotism, or too full of testosterone to admit that, just maybe, our justice system was put into place because our government sometimes wrongly accuses people, and that even though some people live in the Middle East, they are still human beings.

I don't even have any reason to think this this particular guy is innocent. I just know that it is wrong to keep him locked up indefinitely without figuring out whether he is innocent or not.

1:34: That's pretty naive. First, you don't get proven innocent in court . . .you only get found not guilty. Big difference. Second, it's incredibly difficult to meet the BRD standard, which is a good thing in normal circumstances. But in these instances if there is good knowledge that the person is a terrorist, and the evidence might not be admissable, or might have been destroyed, etc., wouldn't common sense say hold the guy? If we know he's a terrorists, and we know that as soon as we release him he's going back to killing us, why on earth would we let him go? Really? Ideals and academic debates are great, but let's not throw common sense and basic intelligence out the window. The way terrorists operate it would be tough to gather enough admissable evidence to convict Osama, nevermind the average jihad joe.

1:40: Agreed. And no amount of fact or common sense will get the liberal elite to come down to reality so that we can actually protect our citizens from these animals.

And what's wrong with a man having a lot of testosterone? Perhaps you need some. It will counter all of the estrogen in you.

""1:21 asks "And who the f** says this guy is innocent?"

Innocent until proven guilty. Ask somebody who went to law school what it means.""

I went to law school, so I can explain. It means that when a person who is afforded the protection of the U.S. Constitution is tried for a crime, the burden of proving guilt is upon the prosecution. The question of who precisely is afforded such protection is hotly disputed. Some say that it is everyone under the sun, but others say that whoever else might have this protection - enemy combatants do not.

This question has nothing to do with the underlying concept of presumptive innocence. 1:34 is a petulant child.

You can tell Allah you never was my girl
You can burn your burqua when I'm gone
Or you can tell the village just what a fool I've been
And laugh and joke about me on the phone

But don't tell my heart, my achy breaky heart
I just don't think it'd understand
And if you tell my heart, my achy breaky heart
The bomb strapped to my chest might blow up and kill this man
Ooo

You can tell your ma I moved to Al-Anwar
Or you can tell your dog to bite my leg
Or tell your brother Hussein who's AK can tell my face
He never really liked me anyway

But don't tell my heart, my achy breaky heart
I just don't think it'd understand
And if you tell my heart, my achy breaky heart
The kilos of C4 under my shirt might blow up and kill this man
Ooo

1:51 said "Some say that it is everyone under the sun, but others say that whoever else might have this protection - enemy combatants do not."

Okay, but the point someone was making earlier was that technically, even an American citizen can be named an "enemy combatant." Jose Padilla may be a gang member (and probably a terrorist), but legally, he was presumed not guilty until proven guilty at trial -- just like any other American citizen.

When they can hold an American citizen indefinitely, without proving his guilt, we have real problems.

"1:34 is a petulant child. "

Yeah, petulant children do things like call people names.

First they came for the terrorists, and I shut my piehole because I was not a terrorist, and I hate terrorists and want them to die. Then, they were pretty much done.

1:28. IED. Bite me. And they're actually called EOD techs, not EOD. EOD is the career field.

Who said I was navy? I actually wasn't. But I wouldn't piss on the Navy, if I were you. If you think you're that tough, and the Navy is that weak, I suggest going down to Coronado, and when some seals run by, barking like a seal. Try it. And put the results on youtube.

Funny how no one answers the point that most of these guys weren't snatched off the battlefield.

How about the fact that we never declared war? Does that bug any of you strict adherents to the Geneva Conventions?

2:10pm, couple of points.

1. The "battlefield" is a pretty loose term when you are talking about the global war on terror. I would argue the entire world is the "battlefield" and everyone one of these guys were snatched from it.

2. How exactly do you declare war on terrorists? It would have been inaccurate to declare war on Afghanistan or Iraq because our goal was not to conquer those countries but rather to liberate them from their oppressive governments.

> Funny how no one answers the point that most of these guys weren't snatched off the battlefield.

That's because it's a lie.

Sorry, "everyone one" should have just been "every one".

2:10: Asking me to bite you is only further confirming to me that you were in the Navy.

I've been to Coronado, beautiful place. I didn't realize the island had legged seals though. You've seen these running seals? I'm glad I don't live there.

In all seriousness, I've seen the SEALs. Not impressed. I'm less impressed by the running as I am the ability to honk the horns with their noses and balance the big beach ball. Now that is good clean entertainment.

Your argument is not just dumb, it's army dumb.

Peace.

1:28

God, I have such a crush on Miley Cyrus.

argh. i never commented on the legality of the actions, just the realistic view that locking anyone up for years without trial is likely to make people harbor/support/become terrorists in their own right.

as to the legality, the guy might be "an offender against the law of war." figure out his role and then proceed with a trial or let him go. how in the world could that take 6+ years? holding him in limbo just pisses off a lot of people.

- a liberal who has posted on this thread

God bless America? No. God DAMN America!!!

--Barack Hussein Obama

3:08pm, well then how do you answer the very real problem of collecting POWs during a war that need to be held until the end of said war so that they do not return to aid the enemy further? If we released them the enemy would just learn to surrender when confronted by our military with the secure knowledge that we will turn around and let them return to killing us.

The answer is not simply to "give them a trial" as that would take enormous resources during a time of war and would detract from actually fighting the war. The humane thing to do is to hold such POWs until the war is over.

You flag waving, beer swilling tough guys will get yours when Obama's elected. Hopefully he starts replacing these so-called "enemy combatants" (one man's "enemy combatant" is another man's freedom fighter, btw) with red state idiots like yourselves.

You go into some of these law firms in New York, and like a lot of law firms, the jobs have been gone now for six months and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising then the associates get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to al-Qaeda sleeper agents being held in solitary confinement for 6 1/2 years without being tried for any crime as a way to explain their frustrations.

- BHO

BTW It is wonderful to be back on ATL. Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go!

- BHO

I had an uncle who was part of the first American big law associates to go into GITMO and liberate the terrorist detention camps. The story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic with a little pro bono plaque and a box of "Cohibas" and he didn't leave the house for six months

- BHO

Jesus christ, 2:32, why don't we just say "love is a battlefield"?

My point was directed at those who were stating that these guys were dangerous, and we know this because they were snatched right off of the battlefield. They were not. A west point study claims only 24 of the GITMO detainees were captured from the battlefield. http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2007/guantanamo_empty_battlefield_11807.htm

If we don't capture them on the battlefield, or with bombmaking materials, or prohibited weapons, etc., how do we know that they are terrorists?

Not impressed by the SEALs, huh? I would really, really love to hear you say that to a current SEAL. (Enlisted, not officer.) God you're a pansy.

I'd gladly express my low opinion of Navy SEALs to a current SEAL if you'd provide me with the name and contact info of one. I don't surround myself with many military types, who I generally find to be unintelligent and socially awkward.

Perhaps you should spend time with military types. Then they could benefit from your, erm, social elan and that intelligence you keep so cleverly hidden.

It has to be in person. And filmed. Like I said, just go to Coronado and ask around. Some of the teams like to run on the beach.

Why does it have to be enlisted, not officer? Is it because you were enlisted . . .and you were the sterotypical movie character that would go around badmouthing officers? Yeah, having to clean a toilet makes you much tougher. I think the NFL has replaced jerk and cleans with toilet cleaning for the linemen.

I have openly mocked SEALs, both officer and enlisted on many occasions. Contrary to the movies, they are incompetent and undisciplined. Plus, you can't get much gayer than the hotpants jungle boots combo they wear. I think that style was proposed and rejected by the village people as "too queer."

Your view of the world is that of a simpleton. Go jerk off to Charlie Sheen and the rest of the cast "Navy SEALs"

Wishy-washy here.

How do you try this guy or any other enemy combatant? How do you do a Brady disclosure or some reasonably similar standard of disclosing exculpatory evidence without completely burning useful intelligence assets? How do you put on a case without irrepably damaging those same assets for all future intelligence operations? Military tribunals as a middle ground don't seem to be satisfactory to most civil rights advocates in protecting combatants' rights, so the alternative seems to be damn the national security for the sake of due process?

Helen Lovejoy: "Somebody. please think of the children!"

7:13, No dumbass, because if you knew anything about SEALs or any special forces units, you would know it was the officers who generally fulfill admin. roles, and see very little action.

I was not enlisted. But I respected the enlisted people I worked with a great deal. Since the enlisted corps. are generally those we send into war, for now, they're kinda necessary.

Also, I'm a woman. And Charlie Sheen ain't my type.

But really, think of all the poor military people who, unlike me, do not benefit from your charm, wit, and bravado. I weep for them, I really do.

They let women in the military? Can't they find weak men to work in admin positions and cook?

As a woman, what would you know about SEALs or any special forces for that matter?

I'm going to go out a limb and venture a guess that you were stationed in SoCal, and were banging a seal . . .and possibly a sea otter. This would explain your fascination with them.

You being a woman also explains your divergence of opinion from the majority of the military on these issues . . . you were never really part of the military. You were basically playing dress up as part of the DOD's decades old AA plan to appease the voters.

I hope you had fun wearing a costume for a few years. I'm sure, to your face at least, the real soldiers were very appreciative of your valuable contributions.

Semper fudge!

Now I can see why military personnel should feel bereft when you deny them your august company!

You have now demonstrated that you are only brave on the internet, that your ad homs are puerile and lack any bite, and that you know fuck-all not only about SF, but about the military as a whole.

As for how well I did in the military, the only good opinions I care about are those of my peers, my subordinates, and my superiors. In that order. Pantywaists like you don't get a vote.

If you're such a big tough man, why don't you join? Recruitment is down.

There is no such thing as an enemy combatant. Bush made the term up.

To our government's credit, they have allowed him some amenities, but it's manifestly dishonest to suggest that his living conditions are "better than most Manhattanites" or that he is living better than a first-year associate.

Being confined as a POW indefinitely is really better than being paid $160,000 a year??? Come on! And New Yorkers with their tiny, over-priced apartments can go outside.

I have an idea that the people on this board who like to talk tough about killing and humiliating prisoners would be the first ones to whine if they got arrested for DUI and had to spend a weekend in jail in New Jersey.

I was in the coast guard.

Wait, is 12:23 actually 11:13?

Yes. I am the very same.

I won't take this opportunity to trash the coast guard, although it is tempting. I will say that I am sorry if anyone, particularly a female, was ever trapped on a boat with you.

But if you seriously think that someone in the CG is in a position to talk down to anyone SF, or anyone who went through a real basic training, you can, once again, bite me. Rich people take up sailing for fun. And the CG is not now, and never has been, part of the military. So if you're such a big believer that women destroy the actual military, JOIN the actual military, you big tough man.

The CG was part of the DOD, therefore making it part of the military. Also, the CG's boats have engines . . .therefore not sailing.

Get your facts straight.

The CG is the tip of the spear in the war on terrorism.

Semper P

No, the CG has never been part of the DOD. It has always been part of the DOT or DHS. That is why navy folks take coasties with them, because if they run accross drug smugglers, the coastie can perform an arrest. It doesn't violate the posse comitatus act, b/c CG isn't military.

Now I doubt you were even in the CG. Nice try, slick.

So, your point is that it is even easier than sailing. From what I'd heard, some of the training happened on boats with sails. Yet another reason to doubt your alleged credentials.

So, how many terrorists has the CG captured and sent to Gitmo? If you're the tip of the spear, the spear is locked in some military history museum while the cluster bombs, 50 cals, and small arms fight the war in Iraq. Idiot.

And here is the CG's one remaining sailboat.

http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/wixtrain.asp

Whoa, slow down honey. I didn't realize administrative and supply jobs were so hardcore. Go count some tents and make sure the real soldiers get paid.

And while you're at it, would it kill you to spruce yourself up a little. The men have needs.

Also, did you just call the coast guard a bunch of pussy communists? How dare you!

Like I said, I doubt you ever were in the coast guard, and if you were, my heart goes out to anyone stuck on a boat with you.

But please, continue proving my point (about YOU) and showcasing your ignorance. Realize that it might make the good people who serve in the coast guard look bad, but it does entertain me, and it has been a while since I have faced such a fearless, brave and dauntless opponent on the interwebs.

All the honey talk in the world won't make it so, kid. If I'm the closest thing you've got to an affectionate connection with a living breathing female---well, I might almost start to feel SORRY for your lying ass.

From what I've seen in the army, referring to yourself as female strains the imagination. Badly disfigured tranny, maybe. Female, no.

It's ok, you know it's true. Just think back to the ghouls you worked with in supply. It's like the burn ward in Uglyville.

Never said I was army.

And yet, although you have this unflattering picture of me in your head, you call me honey and encourage me to pretty myself up. Interesting. Low standards, even in your own imagination.

Like I said, if women being in the military is such a crying shame, join the actual military, and bring the male to female ratio up. Until you're actually in a job where a bullet might cross your path, your opinions of women and the military are just the words of a coward who attacks the patriotic contribution of women braver than him. (Probably because it bothers him so much that many, if not most women ARE braver than him.)

Go play in traffic or something.

Dear Sugartits,

Who exactly is shooting at you in your chair force job in Kansas? Look, the manager of the baseball team is not a member of the team. He's support staff. Just like you.

I hope that in your hardcore job you didn't get too many papercuts.

Aim High baby!

90% of the military is support, jackass. But 100% of women in the military are deployable, unlike you.

Because you weren't IN the military. And it is highly unlikely that you were a coastie. What are you, twelve?

And no, I will still not tell you what branch I was in. Just that I wasn't navy.

I have no more use for this conversation with a coward. Your insults aren't even that creative.

It's understandable. If I were in any branch of the military besides the Marines, I'd want to keep it secret as well. Do they let women in the Marines? Probably why they have the best reputation.