Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you are a piece of shit TROLL who I don't have any more patience for or time for.
FUCK OFF! YOU ARE ON IGNORE!
OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
No, you are a piece of shit TROLL who I don't have any more patience for or time for.
FUCK OFF! YOU ARE ON IGNORE!
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Maybe it's the fact that you share a fondness for a certain emblem with your pinheaded pals that associates you with 'em.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
charver must be really bored today
Disclaimer: the author of this post is not an attorney and nothing here should be construed as legal advice.
It's nice that you've finally admitted it
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Yes, i followed your link and merely posted something from it.
Apparently, this upset you and for that i offer a thousand apologies and the sacrifice of my first born son.
Unlikely to suffice.
If all you were saying is the "US courts have no jurisdiction in Pakistan" then there would be no argument. But it isn't, what you have said is you believe that this guy's opinion that places where those courts have no jurisdiction = places where those rights don't exist. Again, those rights are either inalienable and should be observed by the nation preaching them, or they aren't and we've been promoting nothing but nonsense and air.
This is about allowing our government to simply ignore a fundamental premise of our nation in order to "feel safe"...
Yes, it is about that, Dix. I refuse to submit to fear and give up on a fundamental premise of what I believe, these people have rights even when the US courts have no jurisdiction. Those rights are inalienable. Rights do not come from government, Dix, they are not limited by the jurisdiction of one nation.
It is not about making it so people "feel" safe. It is about making it so people "are" safe-an actual responsibility of government. The fact of the matter is that enhanced interrogation techniques were used-So the question becomes was that unconstitutional? The rule of law as practiced my our military with POW's and with unlawful combatants is different...this is why we could go into Pakistan, a sovereign nation, and shoot an unarmed guy.
Yes, that's what you did and you also attempted to accuse me of purposefully leaving something important out of my post...that you needed to be an ass is well...yeah. I accept your apology at being an ass though.
I'll quote one of my favorite founders:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
It doesn't matter about "lawful" or "unlawful" combatant. Either people have inalienable rights which should be observed by the government attempting to promote them, or they do not and we should just disband and give up. Either rights come from government, in which case we are wasting our time in this experiment of a constitutional republic, or they do not and we should behave as we preach.
Again, when the current Administration is out "declaring" people to be "not-citizen" rather than following a constitution which gives them no such power, then promoting the use of this against "unlawful combatants" is dangerous, anybody can be an "unlawful combatant" now, we've ceded the rights of natural born citizenship to the AG of the US who can just "declare" you something, even up to "unlawful combatant".
This doesn't necessarily mean that they should be given Miranda and attorneys et al. It just means we should treat them as if they have the same inalienable rights that we promote around the world. We agreed long ago not to torture people in Treaties that became the "law of the land" according to our constitution. We should expect and demand our government follow those limitations.
The rules on the battlefield have always differed. The fact that unlawful combatants used to be lined up against a wall and summarily shot was never considered breaking with ones inalienable rights in warfare. And again, with the war on terrorism, we are not discussing a "little safety" but mass murder.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If your reasoning were true, there would never be anyone incarcerated. If you have an inalienable right to liberty, how can you ever be put in jail or prison? If you have an inalienable right to life, how can you be stopped from engaging in a shooting spree by the SWAT team? Do you just not see the stupidity of what you are saying? We may as well bring all our warships home and destroy them along with all the guns in America, and we need to disband the military... we don't have the right to alienate people of their right to live, so why do we need these things? The Constitution does not mandate inalienable rights, that is the principle on which the Constitution was written, and it is found in the Declaration of Independence. If you aren't abiding by the Constitution (The Law) then your rights can certainly be 'alienated' as is very often the case.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners.
The 19 approved interrogation techniques in the military field manual include "good cop/bad cop," "false flag" — making prisoners think they are in the custody of another country — and the separation of a prisoner from other prisoners for up to 30 days at a time.
It prohibits military interrogators from hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes.
They may not be stripped naked or forced to perform or mimic sexual acts.
They may not be beaten, electrocuted, burned or otherwise physically hurt.
They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions.
It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld, and dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23153516/ns/us_news-security/t/senate-votes-ban-waterboarding/
The 19 approved interrogation techniques in the military field manual include "good cop/bad cop," "false flag" — making prisoners think they are in the custody of another country — and the separation of a prisoner from other prisoners for up to 30 days at a time.
It prohibits military interrogators from hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes.
They may not be stripped naked or forced to perform or mimic sexual acts.
They may not be beaten, electrocuted, burned or otherwise physically hurt.
They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions.
It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld, and dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23153516/ns/us_news-security/t/senate-votes-ban-waterboarding/
Holy shit. The collective I.Q. of the entire internet just dropped a few points.
Quote, "FACTS & FIGURES (About torture)
The Bush administration carried out torture by redefining torture and narrowing it down as only acts that "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Crimesofwar.org
The Interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. has resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody. Salon
According to the U.S. military's own classifications, 34 out of 100 detainee deaths are suspected or confirmed homicides. Salon
In April 2009 President Obama published reports about four secret memos detailing legal justification that were used for the Bush-era CIA interrogation program. SmartPolitics.tribe.net
After the published report, Obama issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employee will be prosecuted for his/her role in the interrogation program. Thetorturereport.org
re-posted by Armando Rozário ¹²³ macaense - Cabo Frio, Brazil - May 06, 2011
http://www.atimes.net/The-Edge/Othe...led-to-Bin-Laden-s-death/Ex-CIA-official.html
The Bush administration carried out torture by redefining torture and narrowing it down as only acts that "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Crimesofwar.org
The Interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. has resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody. Salon
According to the U.S. military's own classifications, 34 out of 100 detainee deaths are suspected or confirmed homicides. Salon
In April 2009 President Obama published reports about four secret memos detailing legal justification that were used for the Bush-era CIA interrogation program. SmartPolitics.tribe.net
After the published report, Obama issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employee will be prosecuted for his/her role in the interrogation program. Thetorturereport.org
re-posted by Armando Rozário ¹²³ macaense - Cabo Frio, Brazil - May 06, 2011
http://www.atimes.net/The-Edge/Othe...led-to-Bin-Laden-s-death/Ex-CIA-official.html
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You mind explaining that? Is something I said incorrect? The argument was presented, that we guarantee inalienable rights to everyone, and that simply is NOT the case. We don't, we can't, it's not possible unless we want to live in utter anarchy! We can not say that everyone under any condition is endowed with inalienable rights which can't be taken away, if we did, we could never enforce the law! How can you put someone in jail? It would violate their right to liberty, wouldn't it? How could you take down a crazed gunman who was randomly shooting people at a shopping mall? He has an "inalienable" right to life, doesn't he? If we applied the "inalienable rights" to everyone under all circumstances, we would never be able to enforce the law or punish anyone who broke the law. What part of that are you not comprehending, retard?
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I can agree that waterboarding of suspected terrorists is not unconstitutional.
Just because it's not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea, though.
Just because it's not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea, though.
christiefan915
Catalyst
A few days ago you said there is no battlefield in the war on terror.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Stop acting like you are retarded, it's not clever or cute. There isn't a battlefield 'per say' because the terror networks are in a variety of places around the globe. That doesn't change the fact that enemies of the state are captured on the 'proverbial' field of battle in the war on terror. DIMWIT!
Not if they are only suspected-these 3 men were known terrorists...indeed they were at the top of the terror food chain and had vital information that could save thousands of lives.