Torture

[maineman]

You're the one who insists that our foreign treaties supersede the Constitution- they don't, not by a long shot. The Founders would find your concern for the psychological well being of our vicious enemies amusing if not so disturbing. Washington's troops extracted information from British spies and soldiers, and I doubt that they cared what the French thought about their methods.

I haver never said that our foreign treaties supercede the Constitution. NOT ONCE. Clearly, you cannot read for any level of comprehension. I have stated that the constitution, in Artiucle VI, states that treaties signed by our nation become the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or even specifically allows anything that is forbidden by the UN Convention against torture. Therefore, no conflict between the constitution and the UN convention, therefore, your silly quote about the supremacy of the constitution was and is irrelevant.


next.

 

[DamnYankee]

I haver never said that our foreign treaties supercede the Constitution. ... I have stated that the constitution, in Artiucle VI, states that treaties signed by our nation become the supreme law of the land. ....

You should make up your mind which lie you wish to tell- These two sentences contradict each other perfectly.

 

[maineman]

You should make up your mind which lie you wish to tell- These two sentences contradict each other perfectly.

no they don't. treaties are the supreme law of the land. That is what our constitution says. I have never said that any treaty supersedes the constitution. I have merely quoted the constitution itself regarding the status of treaties. Clearly, if a treaty contradicts the constitution, the constitution would take precedence, as your irrelevant quote shows. NOTHING in the UN convention against torture contradicts the constitution in any way... so your quote remains irrelevant. sorry.

*shrug*

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Excellent! This is exactly how I feel. Thanks for posting.

Today a story was published on cnn.com concerning a photograph of Nazis digging up the graves of POW's after the war was over. This was apart of an investigation into torture and war crimes against POW camp commands.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/berga.folo/index.html

The corresponding story along with photo details how some Uniformed Soldiers were peared off from other POW's because they were jewish, "looked" jewish, or were problem soldiers for the German captors. These POW's were force marched 150 miles in addition to being placed in slave labor camps, working on among other things, tunnels for the German government.

When they were liberated most were emaciated, weighing in around 80lbs.

This week President Obama released memos of mainly known information detailing how the US "tortured" enemy combatants, by such methods as stomach slapping, putting insects in confinement containers, pushing prisoners up against a wall, sleep deprivation, playing loud music and waterboarding. In addition these prisoners are/were fed well, clothed well, constantly monitored for health problems, provided with excellent health care, provided with worship material, and other horrible atrocities.

Morton Goldstein was one of the POW's kept at Berga. He was executed, shot in the head, and after his body fell, other german soldiers continued to shoot his corpse. 100 or more US Soldiers died on the forced march for looking or being jewish. 22 bodies were found in the mass grave represented in the photo from the CNN story.

We have lost perspective. Torture as of today now has no definition for any context in any conversation.

Could anyone have imagined that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks currently sits in an air conditioned cell, monitored 24 hours a day, fed well, provided with better medical care than anyone reading this post, medical technicians on duty 24 hours a day within walking distance from his or any of his other fellow terrorists cell, he's provided with a new Koran whenever he wishes. The actual man who planned the deaths of over 3,000 Americans had water poured on his face, never any threat of physical harm or death, and HE's a victim of torture?

If this is torture, then what is what happened to the US Soldiers who's bodies were exhumed in the photograph? It cant be torture, these men were actually physically harmed, actually criminally mistreated, actually lost their lives because of that treatment.

A little perspective might help some people in this country understand what the difference between something thats truly worth outrage, and the idiotic that is truly outrageous.

SR

 

[DamnYankee]

no they don't. treaties are the supreme law of the land. That is what our constitution says. I have never said that any treaty supersedes the constitution. I have merely quoted the constitution itself regarding the status of treaties. Clearly, if a treaty contradicts the constitution, the constitution would take precedence, as your irrelevant quote shows. NOTHING in the UN convention against torture contradicts the constitution in any way... so your quote remains irrelevant. sorry.

*shrug*

Again, is it UN shit the Supreme Law of the Land, or is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Make up your mind which lie you are going to tell.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

this has nothing to do with "listening" to the UN. It has to do with abiding by Article VI of our own constitution.

Which goes back to one of my previous questions.
Does this mean that we should abide by each and every decision that is reached by a body of individuals that are powerless.

 

[maineman]

Again, is it UN shit the Supreme Law of the Land, or is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Make up your mind which lie you are going to tell.

What LIE? There IS no contradiction between the Constitution and the UN Convention against torture. The Constitution states quite clearly that the UN Convention is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? abrogate it. Until then, follow it.

*shrug*

 

[maineman]

Which goes back to one of my previous questions.
Does this mean that we should abide by each and every decision that is reached by a body of individuals that are powerless.

Who said anything about "abiding" by "decisions"? We are talking about a TREATY that was signed by our government. Go read Article VI of the Constitution and see what our founding fathers said about treaties and how we should consider them.

If you think that America should be free to torture our captives, then all you have to do is take the steps to abrogate that treaty. Until then, follow it because it is the supreme law of the land.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Who said anything about "abiding" by "decisions"? We are talking about a TREATY that was signed by our government. Go read Article VI of the Constitution and see what our founding fathers said about treaties and how we should consider them.

If you think that America should be free to torture our captives, then all you have to do is take the steps to abrogate that treaty. Until then, follow it because it is the supreme law of the land.

OK, now I understand.
The only thing that can be considered is what you want.
You could have said that at the beginning and it would have saved all the trouble.

 

[Socrtease]

OK, now I understand.
The only thing that can be considered is what you want.
You could have said that at the beginning and it would have saved all the trouble.

Here, since you and SM are too fucking dense to go read it yourself, I got it for you. This is what the founders intended.

Article VI (in pertinent part)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[signalmankenneth]

 

[maineman]

OK, now I understand.
The only thing that can be considered is what you want.
You could have said that at the beginning and it would have saved all the trouble.

nobody is suggesting that we need to abide by everything that the UN says or does. The constitution says that we must obey any and all treaties that we sign. Why is that so freakin' hard for you to understand? Again...if you think that America should be able to torture our captives without interference from the rest of the world, all you have to do is to convince congress to abrogate the UN Convention against torture. What part of that escapes your comprehension? I can dumb it down some more, but it will be difficult. I'd like it better if you just admitted that you understood what I said and understood what the constitution says but you think that we should just piss on the constitution and torture those ragheads anyway.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

maineman would return slaves as to not do so would have piss on the constitution and the law of the land....he would also have obeyed the fugitive slave bill without question

conscience be damned, maineman will forgoe his conscience in order to obey the us constitution

 

[DamnYankee]

What LIE? There IS no contradiction between the Constitution and the UN Convention against torture. The Constitution states quite clearly that the UN Convention is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? abrogate it. Until then, follow it.

*shrug*

Taken out of context like you did is a lie. You're a fucking liar.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here, since you and SM are too fucking dense to go read it yourself, I got it for you. This is what the founders intended.

Article VI (in pertinent part)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So someone else has the good sense to see that abiding by treaties that we sign is the law of the land.

Thank you for posting this Socrtease.

 

[maineman]

Taken out of context like you did is a lie. You're a fucking liar.

taken out of context? How did I take Article VI out of context?

Are you suggesting that the founding fathers were, in any way, ambiguous about the importance they placed on keeping our word in the community of nations?

you don't know what you are talking about. that is clear.

*shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

taken out of context? How did I take Article VI out of context?

Are you suggesting that the founding fathers were, in any way, ambiguous about the importance they placed on keeping our word in the community of nations?

you don't know what you are talking about. that is clear.

*shrug*

Not ambiguous at all when you cite the entire sentence instead of a fraction of it. Otherwise you're intentionally misleading, stupid, or a liar. Which one are you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What LIE? There IS no contradiction between the Constitution and the UN Convention against torture. The Constitution states quite clearly that the UN Convention is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? abrogate it. Until then, follow it.

*shrug*

hey mr. ignore's conscience in order to obey the constitution...

perhaps if you stated in a different way....because on its face the constitution does not say UN conventions are the supreme law of the land...

you're being too literal

and white slave owners thank you for supporting the return of slaves because the constitution and the fugitive slave act said so....

 

[maineman]

hey mr. ignore's conscience in order to obey the constitution...

perhaps if you stated in a different way....because on its face the constitution does not say UN conventions are the supreme law of the land...

you're being too literal

and white slave owners thank you for supporting the return of slaves because the constitution and the fugitive slave act said so....

the constitution says that any and all treaties entered into by our government are the supreme law of the land.

And there are no white slave holders in my life so no, none of them will be thanking me for anything... I have done nothing that would earn their thanks in any case. I live in the 21st century. Your idiotic moronic pathetic harping on something that happened long before my father's father was born is getting really tedious. Give it up. I have said that I support and defend the constitution of the united states. Clearly, you don't. You can try to make some moral excuse for why you are willing to piss on the constitution, but it doesn't change the fact that your urine is all over the document. You don't care what Article VI says... you think that torturing our captives is a perfectly acceptable thing to do and that we should just be able to do it whenever we want regardless of whether or not that makes us liars within the community of nations. I think differently. The founding fathers thought differently. I have more respect - obviously - for the constitution than you do. I served under arms for the majority of my adult life to protect and defend it. You have not and, by your own admission, would not have been able to honestly take the oath of service in order to wear the uniform. For you, the constitution is something to be blithely ignored at your pleasure. That is the biggest difference between us.

 

[maineman]

Not ambiguous at all when you cite the entire sentence instead of a fraction of it. Otherwise you're intentionally misleading, stupid, or a liar. Which one are you?

neither. Article VI is unambiguous about the status of the UN Convention against torture. It is the supreme law of the land. period.

don't like it. abrogate it. then it would no longer BE the supreme law of the land.

now.. are you being intentionally obtuse, or deliberately annoyingly argumentative for no purpose, or just your usual prickish self?