Torture

Yurt said:
and you would have loyally returned slaves, that is a fact, for to not return slaves would be to piss on the constitution.
Click to expand...

**yawn**

in case you missed this earlier:

"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."
 
stop denying that not returning slaves would not have been pissing on the constitution, that is intellectually dishonest...

you can't accept someone not obeying the constitution and say that to not return slaves would not be pissing on the constitution since you believe not obeying the constitution is to piss on it....

try being honest about this
 
maineman said:
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?
Click to expand...

Liar. The principle of self preservation allows us to say "fuck you" to the UN anytime we need to. Besides, water boarding isn't torture: lie #2 from you.
 
Southern Man said:
Liar. The principle of self preservation allows us to say "fuck you" to the UN anytime we need to. Besides, water boarding isn't torture: lie #2 from you.
Click to expand...

We must honor all treaties and agreements
Otherwise we are no better than any other big fat liar.

Like we honored all the treaties with Native Americans.

Come to think of it we are an untrustworthy nation.
 
uscitizen said:
We must honor all treaties and agreements
Otherwise we are no better than any other big fat liar.

Like we honored all the treaties with Native Americans.

Come to think of it we are an untrustworthy nation.
Click to expand...

We are no better and no worse than any other nation when it comes to breaking treaties. Stronger and more advanced nations almost always break treaties with weaker less developed nations when it suits their purpose.
 
Southern Man said:
Liar. The principle of self preservation allows us to say "fuck you" to the UN anytime we need to. Besides, water boarding isn't torture: lie #2 from you.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that waterboarding isn't torture. But everyone who has had it done to them agrees it is torture. It was regarded as torture when it was used on our troops. But now it has suddenly changed?

The principle of self preservation is listed where in the US Constitution?
 
WinterBorn said:
You keep saying that waterboarding isn't torture. But everyone who has had it done to them agrees it is torture. It was regarded as torture when it was used on our troops. But now it has suddenly changed?

The principle of self preservation is listed where in the US Constitution?
Click to expand...


And people who are locked up for years, say it's inhuman punishment; so I guess we should listen to them, when it comes time for sentencing!! :whip:
 
Yurt said:
stop denying that not returning slaves would not have been pissing on the constitution, that is intellectually dishonest...

you can't accept someone not obeying the constitution and say that to not return slaves would not be pissing on the constitution since you believe not obeying the constitution is to piss on it....

try being honest about this
Click to expand...


not obeying the constitution IS pissing on it. Does that mean that I would have been so morally accepting of slavery two hundred years ago that I would have returned a slave to his or her owner? I have no idea. I would like to imagine that my moral outrage at slavery would have made me a staunch abolitionist at that time which would have, I can only hope, moved me to disobey the constitution and fight for its amendment. I cannot say what sort of person I would have been two hundred years ago, and neither can you. I can say, that if I found slavery so morally repugnant THEN that I could not support it, I would certainly NOT have joined any government employment that required me to take an oath to support and defend it. In THIS time, I am not only a staunch supporter of the constitution, but I am also morally outraged by the thought of the United States of America torturing captives. Clearly, you are not so staunch a supporter of the constitution at THIS time as I am, and you are not at all morally outraged by the thought of the USA torturting captives. That is a clear dividing line between our characters, I think.
 
Southern Man said:
Liar. The principle of self preservation allows us to say "fuck you" to the UN anytime we need to. Besides, water boarding isn't torture: lie #2 from you.
Click to expand...

the constitution provides a means to thumb our noses at the UN.... that would be by abrogating the treaty. Until then, the constitution states it is the supreme law of the land. And your opinion of waterboarding does not mean that I must agree with it. I don't. Lot's of people don't.
 
maineman said:
the constitution provides a means to thumb our noses at the UN.... that would be by abrogating the treaty. Until then, the constitution states it is the supreme law of the land. And your opinion of waterboarding does not mean that I must agree with it. I don't. Lot's of people don't.
Click to expand...

Rather than contributing to all this debate about who is and who is not pissing on the constitution, and what is the definition of torture, I would respectfully refer all those who have set in stone thoughts on the subject to read the “Old Scout’s “ column by clicking on the link shown below.

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/columns/...200904281258TMS_____GKEILLOR_ctngk-a_20090428
 
April 30th, 2009
Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds
Posted: 01:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

suffer.jpg
 
WinterBorn said:
You keep saying that waterboarding isn't torture. But everyone who has had it done to them agrees it is torture. It was regarded as torture when it was used on our troops. But now it has suddenly changed?

The principle of self preservation is listed where in the US Constitution?
Click to expand...
What do you expect terrorists to call it? When was it used on our troops in the manner administered by the CIA?

I suggest that you read the SCOTUS brief on this issue that I provided through the references earlier in the conversation for an explanation of the principle of self preservation.
 
maineman said:
the constitution provides a means to thumb our noses at the UN.... that would be by abrogating the treaty. Until then, the constitution states it is the supreme law of the land. And your opinion of waterboarding does not mean that I must agree with it. I don't. Lot's of people don't.
Click to expand...
I see now that you've lost the argument you're falling back to your usual "opinion" tactic again. How surprising.
 
signalmankenneth said:
April 30th, 2009
Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds
Posted: 01:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

suffer.jpg
Click to expand...



Yes a sad thing, Just becuse you go to church does not mean you are a real Christian and will go to heaven.
 
Southern Man said:
What do you expect terrorists to call it? When was it used on our troops in the manner administered by the CIA?

I suggest that you read the SCOTUS brief on this issue that I provided through the references earlier in the conversation for an explanation of the principle of self preservation.
Click to expand...

The terrorists calling it torture was not mentioned at all in my post. We called it torture until we did it. Does that not strike you as odd?

It was torture when someone else did it. Then we did it and suddenly its not torture? I think there is a word for that.
 
Southern Man said:
I see now that you've lost the argument you're falling back to your usual "opinion" tactic again. How surprising.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you want to ignore the US Constitution? It requires that we follow treaties and agreements we enter into.
 
maineman said:
not obeying the constitution IS pissing on it. Does that mean that I would have been so morally accepting of slavery two hundred years ago that I would have returned a slave to his or her owner? I have no idea. I would like to imagine that my moral outrage at slavery would have made me a staunch abolitionist at that time which would have, I can only hope, moved me to disobey the constitution and fight for its amendment. I cannot say what sort of person I would have been two hundred years ago, and neither can you. I can say, that if I found slavery so morally repugnant THEN that I could not support it, I would certainly NOT have joined any government employment that required me to take an oath to support and defend it. In THIS time, I am not only a staunch supporter of the constitution, but I am also morally outraged by the thought of the United States of America torturing captives. Clearly, you are not so staunch a supporter of the constitution at THIS time as I am, and you are not at all morally outraged by the thought of the USA torturting captives. That is a clear dividing line between our characters, I think.
Click to expand...

thank you, you just proved my point that you keep tap dancing away from, those who did not return slaves pissed on the constitution. the oath has nothing to do with your definition of pissing on the constitution. sad.
 
WinterBorn said:
The terrorists calling it torture was not mentioned at all in my post. We called it torture until we did it. Does that not strike you as odd?

It was torture when someone else did it. Then we did it and suddenly its not torture? I think there is a word for that.
Click to expand...

Not a word for it. Just read George Orwell - 1984.
 
WinterBorn said:
The terrorists calling it torture was not mentioned at all in my post. We called it torture until we did it. Does that not strike you as odd?

It was torture when someone else did it. Then we did it and suddenly its not torture? I think there is a word for that.
Click to expand...
We called it torture when the Japanese used a different technique on our legal troops. That's not at all the technique and situation at Gitmo. Do you know the difference? You might want to get an education on this before you embarrass yourself further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top