Torture impairs ability to tell the truth

SmarterThanYou said:
actually, no you didn't. I understand you need to be elusive now though.



the constitution applies to one entity and one entity only.
Click to expand...

No exclusivity necessary. How do you expect me to answer an irrelevant question, or one with a false premise?

The Constitution is a contract between "the People of the United States" and their government. Read the first line of it.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, according to federal attorneys who advised the CIA and the Bush Administration, the techniques that the CIA used were not.
Click to expand...

and federal agents define a shoe string and duct tape as a machine gun. I realize you fully support brutal tyranny when it suits you, but are you sure you want to give the government that much power?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I don't, which is why I didn't ask one.


and you're interpeting that to mean that non US citizens have no rights?
Click to expand...
Since you're being such a wad about it, here is your question:
[Do y]ou feel perfectly fine with denying constitutional rights to anyone the government declares a terrorist?
Click to expand...

A relevant question would be:
Do you feel perfectly fine with denying constitutional rights to anyone the government declares a foreign terrorist?

And my answer of course is Yes.

Non US Citizens do not have US Constitutional rights. They do, however have "human rights", regardless of their behavior, and thus the normal human rules of conduct apply. In this particular instance, that means that the standard dictionary definition of torture applies. And the CIA, of course, did not "cross the line" into torture by that definition.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and federal agents define a shoe string and duct tape as a machine gun. I realize you fully support brutal tyranny when it suits you, but are you sure you want to give the government that much power?
Click to expand...
You are venturing from the state of simply irrelevancy to pure emotional straw man and beyond. This is an excellent indication that you are realizing how weak your argument is. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Non US Citizens do not have US Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

your simple inference of the first sentence as a contract meaning only US citizens have rights under the constitution is totally without merit and I don't believe that there was ever case law until the late 19th century that ever stipulated such. The US constitution is prescribes specific powers to the federal government, leaving all else out of the mix. This can in no way be taken to mean that non US citizens do not have 'rights' by default without that person taking a serious leap headlong in to intellectual dishonesty. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are not rights belonging to citizens, they are rights belonging to human individuals. 'Human rights' is a term utilized in UN and other assorted interest groups and belongs on the garbage heap.

In your particular instance, you've chosen to look upon the government designation of 'foreign terrorists' as less than human and are quite willing to allow that federal government to violate the constitution at will. This is why I asked the earlier question, which were perfectly relevant and nowhere near having a false premise. Purely emotional strawmans never came in to being. I simply tried to help you state that your reliance on federal government lackeys concerning your ideological stances can be and will be very detrimental which SHOULD require you to rethink your stances since it could very well become the norm that the current admin could name 'domestic terrorists' as outside the protections of the constitution.

again, do you want the federal government to have that kind of power?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
your simple inference of the first sentence as a contract meaning only US citizens have rights under the constitution is totally without merit and I don't believe that there was ever case law until the late 19th century that ever stipulated such. The US constitution is prescribes specific powers to the federal government, leaving all else out of the mix. This can in no way be taken to mean that non US citizens do not have 'rights' by default without that person taking a serious leap headlong in to intellectual dishonesty. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are not rights belonging to citizens, they are rights belonging to human individuals. 'Human rights' is a term utilized in UN and other assorted interest groups and belongs on the garbage heap.

In your particular instance, you've chosen to look upon the government designation of 'foreign terrorists' as less than human and are quite willing to allow that federal government to violate the constitution at will. This is why I asked the earlier question, which were perfectly relevant and nowhere near having a false premise. Purely emotional strawmans never came in to being. I simply tried to help you state that your reliance on federal government lackeys concerning your ideological stances can be and will be very detrimental which SHOULD require you to rethink your stances since it could very well become the norm that the current admin could name 'domestic terrorists' as outside the protections of the constitution.

again, do you want the federal government to have that kind of power?
Click to expand...

As a simple test of my assertion please refer to Amendment XV which guarantees the right for citizens t vote. That right is not extended to non-citizens, nor is any other.
 
Southern Man said:
As a simple test of my assertion please refer to Amendment XV which guarantees the right for citizens t vote. That right is not extended to non-citizens, nor is any other.
Click to expand...

so 100 years after ratification, an amendment is made to restrict each government from prohibiting citizens to vote, and since the word citizen is used, it applies to all amendments? is that your argument for validation?
 
Southern Man said:
As a simple test of my assertion please refer to Amendment XV which guarantees the right for citizens t vote. That right is not extended to non-citizens, nor is any other.
Click to expand...

So only US citizens are guaranteed the right to be free from unreasonable search & siezure?

Only US citizens are allowed the freedom of religion?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so 100 years after ratification, an amendment is made to restrict each government from prohibiting citizens to vote, and since the word citizen is used, it applies to all amendments? is that your argument for validation?
Click to expand...
Its a simple test to verify the intent of the lawmakers who wrote the document and its amendments.
 
WinterBorn said:
So only US citizens are guaranteed the right to be free from unreasonable search & siezure?

Only US citizens are allowed the freedom of religion?
Click to expand...
You must also realize the fact that these interrogations took place outside of US soil. T answer your question in this context, I don't suppose that foreigners in a foreign land have any such rights.
 
Southern Man said:
Its a simple test to verify the intent of the lawmakers who wrote the document and its amendments.
Click to expand...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the bolded part must have been overruled due to the 15th Amendment because of the word 'citizen'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top