Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Thanks, that is what I was going to say.
OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Thanks, that is what I was going to say.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The truth is what you stated earlier, the Constitution was written so simple people could understand it, and it's pretty damn simple, it doesn't say you can't waterboard combatant enemies of state to divulge intelligence... just not in there, Damo.
That's a fairly disingenuous loophole. We either have standards for human rights, or we don't.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not a loophole, as Damo correctly stated, the Constitution is written so anyone can understand it. It simply doesn't say that it's unconstitutional to use 'enhanced interrogation techniques' to divulge intelligence information. It's not there... no loophole... what you claim it says, it just doesn't say.
And since when do 'human rights' apply to SUBhumans?
We do have standards for protecting US citizens from harm...in fact it's guaranteed in our Constitution. Likewise our citizens are entitled to be Mirandized- Unlawful combatants; specifically the 3 that were subject to enhanced interrogation, were not...of course we could have just put bullets in their faces and you'd be satisfied.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
ONLY IF it were Obama or a Democrat president giving the orders.... if a Republican did that, it would be reason to haul him to The Hague for War Crimes tribunals.
I wish a Republican President had gotten OBL - instead of putting most of our resources into a war w/ a country that didn't attack us.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But some of our resources were gathering intelligence through enhanced interrogation, which eventually led to OBL.... so there's that.
While the courts do not have jurisdiction, it is silly to say that. Anybody could be labeled an "unlawful combatant" then simply have "intelligence gathering" done on them. Especially when a desperately afraid Congress gives that kind of power to the White House. We have people on this board arguing that the President's AG has the power to "declare" a natural born citizen a "non-citizen" and then label them "unlawful combatant"...
Either the rights really are inalienable, or those documents we put together to make this nation really don't mean anything. I'd rather pay with a bit of safety for assurances of freedom, than give those up to be safe.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's not silly to say something that is true, Damo. You admit yourself, the courts have no jurisdiction, so what is "silly" about saying the courts have no jurisdiction???? I don't get it! The Constitution and our inalienable rights, do not apply to enemies of the state captured on a foreign field of battle, they never have and never will. Those people can not be forced by the courts or our authorities to comply with the Constitution, as it pertains to the rights of others, therefore, it can not be applied to them in order to bestow rights they do not have.
This isn't about "giving up" something to be safe, Damo... there is nothing to "give up" here... they don't have Constitutional rights, period. Now, when you start putting shit in quotes and making some off-the-wall hypothetical argument, that's a different story, and we aren't talking about that here. You want to twist it into that, like a fucking pinhead liberal goob, but that's not intellectually honest in this debate. No one is arguing that the president or the AG should have the right to determine if people are citizens and no one is suggesting law enforcement could violate Constitutional rights and call it something else. If you want to just make shit up to cover your ass and stubbornly refuse to admit the validity of the point made in the OP, that's your business, but I think it makes you look like a pansy-ass liberal, to be honest. ....Can't make your point, so you start making shit up out of thin air!
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Nice strawman you pro-life Christian types have built.
Only problem is, waterboarding of captives is torture and was banned in January 2009.
Constitutionality doesn't enter into it.
Only problem is, waterboarding of captives is torture and was banned in January 2009.
Constitutionality doesn't enter into it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Is that what this is about? You view us as "Christian types" and you're not, so you are going to automatically disagree? Because we are "pro life" and you are "pro choice" it means you must find disagreement with anything we say, because you can't separate your ideology from principle?
Waterboarding is not necessarily torture, that is YOUR OPINION! Others may have a different opinion, and just because they may happen to have a pro life stance, really doesn't have a thing to do with who's opinion is more valid. Now let me explain why it's a problem to state opinions as fact here... because, if that's how it's done, then one could say that ALL interrogation is torture! Surely that's not YOUR opinion, but it may be someone's opinion, and if opinions become facts... *poof* --then any and all interrogation IS torture!
We do not Mirandize POW's either...The rule of law domestically is different then the rules of combat, there is no actual slippery slope in this distinction. Further, the rules of combat likewise differ in how to treat an enemy combatant to that of a lawful one.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Who said I view you as Christian?
Does burning crosses make someone 'Christian' down in Alabammy?
Does burning crosses make someone 'Christian' down in Alabammy?
The fact remains that despite your frantic efforts to assign all credit to Bush, Obama got Osama. Deal with it.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Unfortunately for you fans of torture, your favorite water sport was banned by the CIC effective January 2009.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well you did, idiot... "you Christian types" ...isn't that in your post? What's the matter, you can't remember what you just typed, moron?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I certainly wasn't including you.
If I'd meant you, I would've said "Klansmen".
Glad we could clear that up.
If I'd meant you, I would've said "Klansmen".
Glad we could clear that up.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, the fact remains, you will only find posts from me, which credit Clinton, Bush and Obama, for the efforts in getting OBL. The fact remains, it is liberal scum like you, who wants to soak up all the credit and throw it in someone's face, as if that is your heartfelt opinion... only because OBAMA was president, did we get OBL... that is what liberals believe, and what they have articulated daily, since the event. It will be very interesting to see how many Americans believe as you do on election day. I think most rational and reasonable people, believe the getting of OBL was something which encompassed three presidencies, and the credit lies with everyone who contributed to the gathering of intelligence which led to OBL. Ironically, you liberals wish to convict some of the interrogators and put them in prison... they are heroes, in my opinion.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Firstly, I am not a "liberal" according to the usual litmus test.
Tell me, how many "rational and reasonable" people of your acquaintance predicted Obama's defeat by McCain?
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I certainly wasn't including you.
If I'd meant you, I would've said "Klansmen".
Glad we could clear that up.
I guess you put "Klansmen" in quotes because it's slanderous hyperbole and not truthful? You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no idea who I am or who I associate with. You don't know what organizations I belong to, or ever have belonged to, and you don't know my views on race or race relations, or much of anything else about me. But you felt compelled to spew pure hate at me, in the form of a graphic insult, which has no basis in reality or truth. It's good to know that I got under your skin, that makes me smile from ear to ear.... you just don't know!