No Waterboarding, Your Child Dies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
BTW - the Supreme Court only ruled that Bush lacked Congressional authority to set up the military tribunals- a legislative procedural issue (and a disputable one) - not a legality of methodology issue . . . . AND the president always has the authority to interpret the terms of any treaty . . . thus the legal counsel and legal opinion memos . . . but why am I even bothering . . . go chew on your crayons . . .

And why did he not have author�­ty to set up these tribunals?

Because…

in part…

the did not comply with the Geneva Convention!

How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?

[/quote]

what a load of BS!!

All the Supreme Court was requiring was for Congress to approve the MILITARY tribunals set up by the Commander-In-Chief through legislative process - a disputed opinion mixing executive and legislative branch responsibilities at best!

How does it feel to be a mental flyweight?

162

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
BTW - the Supreme Court only ruled that Bush lacked Congressional authority to set up the military tribunals- a legislative procedural issue (and a disputable one) - not a legality of methodology issue . . . . AND the president always has the authority to interpret the terms of any treaty . . . thus the legal counsel and legal opinion memos . . . but why am I even bothering . . . go chew on your crayons . . .

And why did he not have author�?�­ty to set up these tribunals?

Because…

in part…

the did not comply with the Geneva Convention!

How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?

what a load of BS!!

All the Supreme Court was requiring was for Congress to approve the MILITARY tribunals set up by the Commander-In-Chief through legislative process - a disputed opinion mixing executive and legislative branch responsibilities at best!

How does it feel to be a mental flyweight?[/quote]

Stop being a periwinkle!

V

163

oh you little pansy you . . .

165

Veg (and orion) goes and sits on his high horse on his high moral ground as the terrorist’s friends torture and then kill his family, rape his dog and take all of his possessions . . . . but he did not sully his reputation with torture so he can hold that wonderful superiority as his home burns to the ground . . . .

166

[quote]Vegita wrote:
pushharder wrote:
For the detractors of waterboarding here please do me a favor and list the interrogative practices that would be acceptable to you, the ones that you suggest would NOT be considered torture.

The ones police officers in this country on US citizens should be adequate, after all there is just as much if not more of a chance that a police interrogation is going to save a live, yet they don’t resort to torture or waterboarding. I was just watching a video not too long ago, it might have even been posted around here. It was about using your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself and never under any circumstances talk to the police. A veteran detective came on and supported that message, he also went into his experiences “questioning” they aren’t allowed to interrogate, suspects. He was under the impression it was quite easy to get someone to start spilling the beans once you got to know them a little, from hardened criminals to street thugs to one time rookie offenders. There is highly developed ways to get people to talk and none of it involves beating them or making them think if they don’t talk they are going to die. I say we use those techniques.

V[/quote]

is naivete contagious? I think it wise to steer clear of this kind of thinking . . .

167

It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

168

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.[/quote]

As I said, it is about what is holy.

169

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.[/quote]

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .

170

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .[/quote]

Nah, they’re just weak willed pussies, that’s all.

171

[quote]tom63 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .

Nah, they’re just weak willed pussies, that’s all.[/quote]

Does that apply to Colin Powell, Col. Larry Wilkerson, David Kilcullen, Captain Ian Fishback (torture whistleblower with the 82nd Airborne), and tens if not hundreds of thousands of other servicemen who are opposed to torture? Are they all “weak willed pussies” too?

172

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .[/quote]

Well, speaking of the religious (being Christian, I’m thinking mostly along those lines) isn’t that our stance? Shouldn’t we be at the forefront (as many are) when drawing the line in sand?

And, I’d ask you to think think about this; who are the statists in this specific arguement? Those who refuse to give the state even an inch of this kind of power? Or, those who trust the state with torture? To never expand it’s powers of torture beyone the original mandate?

173

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .[/quote]

I’m pretty much the least religious person you could have next to true atheists. I don’t subscribe to any major religion, or minor one for that matter, and while I don’t have predudice against anyone who does follow them, I think it’s just another way for people to be controlled by leaders. Not necisarrily a all bad thing, but anytime people follow, they might follow a bad leader or two and become bad themselves. I pretty much make all me decisions based on my own personal experience, I use my own thoughts as my moral guide. The one nice thing about doing this is that I really can’t blame any of my thoughts or actions on anyone else. If I do good, then I own it, if I do bad, then I own it also. Seems to work out ok.

V

174

[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:

I would say we should abide by the treaty until we can take advantage of Article 31…

Article 31

  1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

  2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

  3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

I would say that my suspicions have been confirmed. You really are a total fucking idiot.
[/quote]

why is that?

175

[quote]orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it…

I would concede this is a valid point if true. Can you substantiate it?

You mean after I posted this like 5 times in the last weeks?

With links and all?

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The first five articles that shoul dtake aboz 2 min to read and answer all major questions:

Article 1

  1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
  2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

  1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
  2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
  3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

  1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
  2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

  1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
  2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

  1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
    1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
    2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
    3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
  2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
  3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Interestingly enough, had the Taliban signed that treaty they could not have even extradited Osama Bin Laden to you legally!

[/quote]

I must have missed in the other thread but have read it now. I think it’s horseshit but we did agree to it and should abide by it until we denounce via the section I referensed.

176

[quote]Vegita wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .

I’m pretty much the least religious person you could have next to true atheists. I don’t subscribe to any major religion, or minor one for that matter, and while I don’t have predudice against anyone who does follow them, I think it’s just another way for people to be controlled by leaders. Not necisarrily a all bad thing, but anytime people follow, they might follow a bad leader or two and become bad themselves. I pretty much make all me decisions based on my own personal experience, I use my own thoughts as my moral guide. The one nice thing about doing this is that I really can’t blame any of my thoughts or actions on anyone else. If I do good, then I own it, if I do bad, then I own it also. Seems to work out ok.

V[/quote]

Sorry - V, didn’t mean to take you out of your comfort zone - lol. Seriously though, as we both agree on the anarchy thread, I think in the final picture, you and I are much closer in our actually preferred governance and subsequent actions on our behalf, although the nuances on our current reality may place us at slight odds on this issue.

So- - all that to say good post and I agree with the sentiments exactly.

177

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Vegita wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It is a form of martydom, isn’t it? Accepting the possibility of even death, in order to hold to a moral code. Be it martyring yourself, or family, on a personal level. Or, citizens, at the national level.

wow - had no idea they were so religious . . . thanks for clarifying that. It makes much more sense to put their ideology into the correct religious connotation. So does that make them state-ists? and they can now form the High Church of America - uh oh, what about separation of church and state? oh wait - never mind their state is their church, so it’s all ok . . . .

I’m pretty much the least religious person you could have next to true atheists. I don’t subscribe to any major religion, or minor one for that matter, and while I don’t have predudice against anyone who does follow them, I think it’s just another way for people to be controlled by leaders. Not necisarrily a all bad thing, but anytime people follow, they might follow a bad leader or two and become bad themselves. I pretty much make all me decisions based on my own personal experience, I use my own thoughts as my moral guide. The one nice thing about doing this is that I really can’t blame any of my thoughts or actions on anyone else. If I do good, then I own it, if I do bad, then I own it also. Seems to work out ok.

V

Sorry - V, didn’t mean to take you out of your comfort zone - lol. Seriously though, as we both agree on the anarchy thread, I think in the final picture, you and I are much closer in our actually preferred governance and subsequent actions on our behalf, although the nuances on our current reality may place us at slight odds on this issue.

So- - all that to say good post and I agree with the sentiments exactly.[/quote]

There is much truth to this. Hell I bet even dhicky who blocked me after about 2 back and forths is in reality very close to my own political leanings. I see his don’t tread on me avatar and i’m not sure if it is the same exact one as people were using during the ron paul campaign, but either way the sentiments are the same. I want smaller less intrusive government. I want more freedom, and i’m ok with having less security if it means I have more freedom. If they allow me to defend myself by not limiting or taking my guns away, I feel pretty good about being able to defend my home and my family against most threats. I really really don’t see the US ever being invaded by another nations standing army. So either i’m going to be defending against the lunatics of our own society, or someone is dropping a bamb on my ass and i’m not defending against that (at least not now, I may build a bunker eventually). I don’t trust people who have guns that want me to not have a gun, especially when those people are telling me they want to torture “bad guys”. How do I know i’m not going to be a bad guy to them one day, I mean I already view them as borderline bad guys, They are big government. I am for small government, I just get this really uneasy feeling about THEM, torturing “bad guys”. But yea, i’m sure we are pretty close on a lot of other really important issues, and like I said, I would be the first to run my blade through someone neck who is coming after you, as you are my brethren, disagreements or not.

V

178

counting on it and honored to have you standing there

179

Wouldn’t you support a ban on guns if you knew your kid was going to die in a school shooting at the hands of a kid with his dad’s gun?