Torture

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...


what bullshit. YOUR argument against the clear and unambiguous wording of the U.S. Constitution is that we have some "right of self preservation" which allows us to thumb our noses at those governments with which we have signed treaties. Please show me where THAT heretofore unmentioned right is mentioned in the Constitution. What a moron!

Again... don't feel like following the terms of a treaty that we have signed and that is, therefore, the supreme law of the land.... fine... ABROGATE IT. Until then, follow it.
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

and slavery is morally repugnant to nearly everyone in America today, where it wasn't so morally repugnant two hundred years ago.

Interestingly enough, torturing people held in captivity is considered morally repugnant to a large portion of the world TODAY.

It is REALLY sad that someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, would not be in that group of people.

Your purported faith is a lie.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I suggest you read my earlier reference, as I'm starting to get embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

Projection is an interesting psychological phenomenon. Practice it much?

The US Constitution clearly requires that we abide by treaties and agreements we sign. We signed an agreement as a member of the UN that states that what we did was wrong.

Nothing at all to be embarrassed about.
 
maineman said:
and slavery is morally repugnant to nearly everyone in America today, where it wasn't so morally repugnant two hundred years ago.

Interestingly enough, torturing people held in captivity is considered morally repugnant to a large portion of the world TODAY.

It is REALLY sad that someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, would not be in that group of people.

Your purported faith is a lie.
Click to expand...

you live a lie preacher, might want to watch out for the glass as you throw your rocks around your glass house you lying sack of shit...you have no right to talk about my faith asshole. mr. gets in trouble by his church because someone forwarded your posts to them....LOL.

oh yeah, you know you have lied....too funny how you claim the moral highground with me because i don't mind a little roughhouse in order to save lives. teddy roosevelt approved of waterboarding...
 
maineman said:
what bullshit. YOUR argument against the clear and unambiguous wording of the U.S. Constitution is that we have some "right of self preservation" which allows us to thumb our noses at those governments with which we have signed treaties. Please show me where THAT heretofore unmentioned right is mentioned in the Constitution. What a moron!

Again... don't feel like following the terms of a treaty that we have signed and that is, therefore, the supreme law of the land.... fine... ABROGATE IT. Until then, follow it.
Click to expand...
In spite of the fact that Liberal America-haters like you wish to have the UN usurp the Constitution, the principle of self-preservation has been consistently upheld by the SCOTUS, as referenced several days ago in this tread. Sorry.
 
WinterBorn said:
Projection is an interesting psychological phenomenon. Practice it much?

The US Constitution clearly requires that we abide by treaties and agreements we sign. We signed an agreement as a member of the UN that states that what we did was wrong.

Nothing at all to be embarrassed about.
Click to expand...
Again, I suggest you read my earlier reference.
 
Its nice to see liberals taking a straight reading of the Constitution approach on this matter. But, geez, what motherfucking lengths we need to get to for this to occur!!!
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, Three, just delete that post and I'll never mention you said it again, K?
Click to expand...

LOL I'm not sure exactly how fun it would be, because my guess is that a girl that out of it is not much better than Uma Thurman in a coma...

But sex/rape was the only analogy I could come up with...
 
WinterBorn said:
Why would I reread anything? The Constitution says we abide by agreements, and we signed an agreement. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

Actually, what it says is this:

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...

Note the last portion of the sentence, emphasis mine. My original citation in this thread gives the SCOTOS interpretation of this, specifically the last portion of the sentence that was artfully deleted by the liar maineman:

This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
Click to expand...
 
Threedee said:
Its nice to see liberals taking a straight reading of the Constitution approach on this matter. But, geez, what motherfucking lengths we need to get to for this to occur!!!
Click to expand...

Now if we could only get them to read it in its entirety instead of picking portions of sentences.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, what it says is this:



Note the last portion of the sentence, emphasis mine. My original citation in this thread gives the SCOTOS interpretation of this, specifically the last portion of the sentence that was artfully deleted by the liar maineman:
Click to expand...

And if you could show me where anything in the constitution is at odds with the UN Convention against torture, that would be interesting. Oddly enlough....you can't and haven't been able to...relying on this idiotic self preservation mumbo jumbo. Let me know when you can answer the question honestly. I won't hold my breath.
 
Yurt said:
i don't mind a little roughhouse in order to save lives. teddy roosevelt approved of waterboarding...
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think that Jesus would condone waterboarding?

and I would LOVE to see a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that suggested that he approved of violating Article VI of the constitution in order to waterboard anyone.
 
maineman said:
And if you could show me where anything in the constitution is at odds with the UN Convention against torture, that would be interesting. Oddly enlough....you can't and haven't been able to...relying on this idiotic self preservation mumbo jumbo. Let me know when you can answer the question honestly. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Your premise is flawed, since enhanced interrogation isn't torture, nor does the UN thing cover terrorists. Just admit that you lied about Article VI, or that you're too stupid to have a clue what it means.
 
Southern Man said:
Your premise is flawed, since enhanced interrogation isn't torture, nor does the UN thing cover terrorists. Just admit that you lied about Article VI, or that you're too stupid to have a clue what it means.
Click to expand...


I have not lied about anything. Article VI clearly lays out the founding father's views on treaties. Your OPINION about "enhanced interrogation" NOT being torture is irrelevant. ANd the UN thing covers EVERYONE.... the Geneva Conventions may not cover terrorists, but the UN Convention against torture is all inclusive.

Now...I am still waiting for you to show me where the US COnstitution says ANYTHING that would put it in conflict with the UN Convention on torture. Until you can do that, all you are doing is flapping your gums.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, what it says is this:



Note the last portion of the sentence, emphasis mine. My original citation in this thread gives the SCOTOS interpretation of this, specifically the last portion of the sentence that was artfully deleted by the liar maineman:
Click to expand...

And has the SCOTUS ruled on the UN agreement concerning the treatment of prisoners?

I agree that the treaties and agreements cannot be in violation of the US Constitution. But I am not aware of any ruling by the courts that disallows the UN agreement to be law.
 
Southern Man said:
Your premise is flawed, since enhanced interrogation isn't torture, nor does the UN thing cover terrorists. Just admit that you lied about Article VI, or that you're too stupid to have a clue what it means.
Click to expand...

The UN thing covers all persons. Is this about the topic or about a personal attack? I have not seen anything that maineman posted that warrants namecalling.

Did I also not see you claim points (what kind of points?) for yourself because someone else resorted to name calling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top