Torture

maineman said:
neither. Article VI is unambiguous about the status of the UN Convention against torture. It is the supreme law of the land. ...
Click to expand...
First you said the the UN rules where the Supreme law of the land, now you're saying that the Constitution is. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
 
maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...

i really thought you meant those things i PM...apparently more lies from you

i guess by now i am the fool and should be ashamed for trusting you

you know what you said is not true. my entire point is, if the constitution is wrong and a federal act is wrong, why would you uphold that law? i can't believe the founders meant for the constitution to be blindly followed and for us to ignore our conscience. you believe that one should ignore their conscience and morals and follow the constitution no matter what. i simply do not believe that.

with that said, that does not mean i will not defend and support the consitution. it does not mean i piss on teh document. if i break the law, i am willing to take pay for the consequences. there are countless court cases about laws that are unconstitutional and people breaking the laws because the law is immoral. so you see, there other people who believe in the constitution and the laws, but while they are waiting and working on getting the laws changed, they do not forego their morals and conscience.

you would.
 
Southern Man said:
First you said the the UN rules where the Supreme law of the land, now you're saying that the Constitution is. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Click to expand...

I wish there were tinier simpler words I could use for you but there really aren't.
the constitution says that treaties that our government signs - of which the UN convention against torture is one - are the supreme law of the land.

If you can't understand that, there is really nothing else I can say.

You may just be too dumb to talk to.
 
Yurt said:
i really thought you meant those things i PM...apparently more lies from you

i guess by now i am the fool and should be ashamed for trusting you

you know what you said is not true. my entire point is, if the constitution is wrong and a federal act is wrong, why would you uphold that law? i can't believe the founders meant for the constitution to be blindly followed and for us to ignore our conscience. you believe that one should ignore their conscience and morals and follow the constitution no matter what. i simply do not believe that.

with that said, that does not mean i will not defend and support the consitution. it does not mean i piss on teh document. if i break the law, i am willing to take pay for the consequences. there are countless court cases about laws that are unconstitutional and people breaking the laws because the law is immoral. so you see, there other people who believe in the constitution and the laws, but while they are waiting and working on getting the laws changed, they do not forego their morals and conscience.

you would.
Click to expand...

I did mean those things and am done fighting with you. We simply have an honest difference of opinion here. I know that your morals and conscience are perfectly OK with torturing captives. I also know that the US has signed a treaty which specifically prohibits the torturing of captives. That makes torturing our captives against the supreme law of the land. I personally find that not only a violation of our constitution, but I also find it violates my conscience and my sense of morality as well. I have NEVER said that someone should ignore their conscience and their morals and follow the constitution no matter what. If there were things in the constitution that were against my conscience and my morals, I NEVER would have taken an oath to support and defend the document against all enemies foreign and domestic.
 
maineman said:
....
the constitution says that treaties that our government signs - of which the UN convention against torture is one - are the supreme law of the land.

....
Click to expand...
It has been pointed out to you earlier that you have taken this out of context by eliminating a relevant portion of the sentence in Article VI. By continuing to misquote the Constitution in this manner you are purposely misleading, which is a form of a lie. This makes you a liar.
 
maineman said:
I did mean those things and am done fighting with you. We simply have an honest difference of opinion here. I know that your morals and conscience are perfectly OK with torturing captives. I also know that the US has signed a treaty which specifically prohibits the torturing of captives. That makes torturing our captives against the supreme law of the land. I personally find that not only a violation of our constitution, but I also find it violates my conscience and my sense of morality as well. I have NEVER said that someone should ignore their conscience and their morals and follow the constitution no matter what. If there were things in the constitution that were against my conscience and my morals, I NEVER would have taken an oath to support and defend the document against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

no, i'm not talking about wholesale torture, but you know that, more lies from you...

you're not worth it, all you do is lie and insult people, the very things you whine about others doing to you...

you really disappoint me, i honestly thought we had moved on and entered into a new relationship, my bad.
 
Yurt said:
no, i'm not talking about wholesale torture, but you know that, more lies from you...

you're not worth it, all you do is lie and insult people, the very things you whine about others doing to you...

you really disappoint me, i honestly thought we had moved on and entered into a new relationship, my bad.
Click to expand...

don't abandon our fledgling friendship yurt...

don't you understand that approving of a little torture is really like being a little pregnant? If we think that waterboarding someone and making them think that they are about to be drowned is OK today, or if we think that making someone standup for days and days on end and not sleep is OK today, that it is a short journey to thinking that pulling out their fingernails is OK tomorrow.
 
Southern Man said:
It has been pointed out to you earlier that you have taken this out of context by eliminating a relevant portion of the sentence in Article VI. By continuing to misquote the Constitution in this manner you are purposely misleading, which is a form of a lie. This makes you a liar.
Click to expand...

which relevant portion have I missed?

"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."
 
maineman said:
which relevant portion have I missed?

"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."
Click to expand...
Finally you quote the entire sentence, portending that you were quoting it correctly all along.

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
Click to expand...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
 
maineman said:
don't abandon our fledgling friendship yurt...

don't you understand that approving of a little torture is really like being a little pregnant? If we think that waterboarding someone and making them think that they are about to be drowned is OK today, or if we think that making someone standup for days and days on end and not sleep is OK today, that it is a short journey to thinking that pulling out their fingernails is OK tomorrow.
Click to expand...

the slippery slope argument...maybe we should not question them at all...for questioning could lead to torture, so let's just stop right there. no questions. the slope goes both ways....

while i first thought your analogy to pregnancy was wrong, it actually is an interesting point. is there a difference in terminating the fetus one day before birth is expected than terminating the fetus one day after conception? is the fetus the same all the way through pregnancy?

care to change your analogy?
 
maineman said:
which relevant portion have I missed?

"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."
Click to expand...

i told you that you should have just said this earlier
 
"the slippery slope argument...maybe we should not question them at all...for questioning could lead to torture, so let's just stop right there. no questions. the slope goes both ways...."

That's absurd hyperbole. It destroys any argument you could hope to make.
 
Onceler said:
"the slippery slope argument...maybe we should not question them at all...for questioning could lead to torture, so let's just stop right there. no questions. the slope goes both ways...."

That's absurd hyperbole. It destroys any argument you could hope to make.
Click to expand...

and nothing to back up your point....

you're wrong because i said so...

(yawn)
 
If the Constitution expicitly states that we will abide by all treaties and agreements entered into, and the agreement we signed with the UN expicitly states that torture is not allowed, what is the disagreement?

It seems cut & dried to me.
 
Yurt said:
and nothing to back up your point....

you're wrong because i said so...

(yawn)
Click to expand...

My point was that your argument about the slippery slope was absurd hyperbole. It is. I presented your argument to back up that point.

Anyone reading it will likely be convinced.
 
Southern Man said:
Finally you quote the entire sentence, portending that you were quoting it correctly all along.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
Click to expand...


I was stating the essential nature of Article VI all along. I have never implied otherwise. I never suggested that I was quoting the article in its entirety. Your quote from sweetliberty.org is interesting reading, but it is certainly NOT on point in any way:

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions."

NOTHING in the UN Convention against torture allows any branch of government to exercise power under it without observing constitutional prohibitions. It only serves to prohibit certain behaviors on the part of governmental authorities and certainly, such behaviors are not otherwise expressly allowed by the constitution. NOTHING about the UN Convention against torture is otherwise prohibited in our constitution. There IS no conflict between them. Therefore, the UN Convention IS the supreme law of the land.

Did that clear that up for you?
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
the slippery slope argument...maybe we should not question them at all...for questioning could lead to torture, so let's just stop right there. no questions. the slope goes both ways....

while i first thought your analogy to pregnancy was wrong, it actually is an interesting point. is there a difference in terminating the fetus one day before birth is expected than terminating the fetus one day after conception? is the fetus the same all the way through pregnancy?

care to change your analogy?
Click to expand...


the slope only becomes slippery when we cross the boundaries of law. No one has suggested that questioning captives is, in any way, analagous with torture. Torture is analagous with torture. There are increasingly severe degrees of torture, but all of them are prohibited under the supreme law of the land. My analogy to pregnancy is precise. Either a woman is pregnant or she is not. She may be one day pregnant or nine months pregnant, but that does not change the fact that she is pregnant, and not "not pregnant". Torture is clearly defined in the law. If the things we do to captives meet the definition of torture as defined in the supreme law of the land, then we are violating the law, and to continue to willfully violate the supreme law of the land as defined by our constitution is, in fact, an act of disrespect TO that document.... or, in the vernacular, it is "pissing" on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top