Gary Johnson would not close Guantanamo Bay

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Unless you want to consider state of the art medical treatment, well balanced meals and exercise facilities torture I don't think you can make any case for torture.

What you are describing is what we do with criminals. The people at Gitmo are not criminals in that sense. They are POWs. We can keep them as long as we want.

And where does it say that in the Constitution?

So you are for doing away with SS and Medicare, the EPA, Education Dept, etc. too?

Yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And where does it say that in the Constitution?

Article I Section 8.

LMAO Good one Rabs.

Since these guys were picked up on foreign does our Constitution apply to them??

Good one? He didn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter whether the Constitution applies to them, it applies to our government and what our government is allowed to do.

 

[The Infidel]

I'm not really into torture porn, so you can go ahead and keep it to yourself.

Maybe you should try reading up on, and looking at some actual torture before you go and acuse our soldiers of it.
Im sure they would take exception to you acusing them of war crimes.

Well criminals usually do take exception to being charged with crimes, but that shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth. I suggest you allow somebody to water board you, or force you to stay awake for days at a time before you say these tactics aren't torture.

So I guess our soldiers torture eachother?????

Go look up Navy Seal training.... or Special Forces training..... you dimwit, we do that to our own guys so they know what affect it has on the enemy forces and how well they stand up to being put in a VERY uncomfortable situation.

You really should take your head out of the sand.

 

[The Infidel]

And where does it say that in the Constitution?

So you are for doing away with SS and Medicare, the EPA, Education Dept, etc. too?

Yes.

Alas.... some honesty!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe you should try reading up on, and looking at some actual torture before you go and acuse our soldiers of it.
Im sure they would take exception to you acusing them of war crimes.

Well criminals usually do take exception to being charged with crimes, but that shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth. I suggest you allow somebody to water board you, or force you to stay awake for days at a time before you say these tactics aren't torture.

So I guess our soldiers torture eachother?????

Go look up Navy Seal training.... or Special Forces training..... you dimwit, we do that to our own guys so they know what affect it has on the enemy forces and how well they stand up to being put in a VERY uncomfortable situation.

You really should take your head out of the sand.

These people volunteer for these positions knowing that they'll have to go through this type of ordeal. In other words they volunteer to be tortured. If people want to allow themselves to be tortured then that's their business. It doesn't mean we should torture people against their will, however.

 

[The Infidel]

Well criminals usually do take exception to being charged with crimes, but that shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth. I suggest you allow somebody to water board you, or force you to stay awake for days at a time before you say these tactics aren't torture.

So I guess our soldiers torture eachother?????

Go look up Navy Seal training.... or Special Forces training..... you dimwit, we do that to our own guys so they know what affect it has on the enemy forces and how well they stand up to being put in a VERY uncomfortable situation.

You really should take your head out of the sand.

These people volunteer for these positions knowing that they'll have to go through this type of ordeal. In other words they volunteer to be tortured. If people want to allow themselves to be tortured then that's their business. It doesn't mean we should torture people against their will, however.

Well DAMN IT... Lets let all the criminals go in America, b/c they didnt volenteer to sit in a cell all day.... I mean, just because they got caught does'nt mean they should be subject to such horrid conditions as a cell.
Hell.... these poor innocent little terrorists didnt volenteer to get caught after stepping into a battlefield and attempting to kill our soldiers and innocent civilians.

You Ron Paul types are idiots.... I swear!

Oh, and BTW... all cops should give up their sidearms b/c criminals shouldnt have to be shot at by other people just because they committed a crime

You sir are x 1,000,000!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So I guess our soldiers torture eachother?????

Go look up Navy Seal training.... or Special Forces training..... you dimwit, we do that to our own guys so they know what affect it has on the enemy forces and how well they stand up to being put in a VERY uncomfortable situation.

You really should take your head out of the sand.

These people volunteer for these positions knowing that they'll have to go through this type of ordeal. In other words they volunteer to be tortured. If people want to allow themselves to be tortured then that's their business. It doesn't mean we should torture people against their will, however.

Well DAMN IT... Lets let all the criminals go in America, b/c they didnt volenteer to sit in a cell all day.... I mean, just because they got caught does'nt mean they should be subject to such horrid conditions as a cell.
Hell.... these poor innocent little terrorists didnt volenteer to get caught after stepping into a battlefield and attempting to kill our soldiers and innocent civilians.

You Ron Paul types are idiots.... I swear!

Oh, and BTW... all cops should give up their sidearms b/c criminals shouldnt have to be shot at by other people just because they committed a crime

You sir are x 1,000,000!

Those straw-men are pretty easy to knock down, aren't they?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm a "Ron Paul type", I don't give a damn about terror suspects being tortured from a morality point of view, here's why I don't like it.

1.) Think of the affect it has on the mental health of our soldiers, being told to do things like this.
2.) I find it ineffective, if I were being tortured I'd say whatever it was that stopped the torturing, truth or lie.
3.) Slippery slope when you tell gov't this is ok, will it then be ok to torture regular american suspects later on down the road?

 

[The Infidel]

I'm a "Ron Paul type", I don't give a damn about terror suspects being tortured from a morality point of view, here's why I don't like it.

1.) Think of the affect it has on the mental health of our soldiers, being told to do things like this.
2.) I find it ineffective, if I were being tortured I'd say whatever it was that stopped the torturing, truth or lie.
3.) Slippery slope when you tell gov't this is ok, will it then be ok to torture regular american suspects later on down the road?

If I truly thought they were being asked to commit actual torture, I'd agree with the both of ya, but I just dont see what they are doing as torture. Uncomfortable...scary... YES, but not toture.
Plus, if we can ask them to drop bombs on targets, blow entire city blocks up, shoot other humans with a gun... I think we can ask them to extract information from a lawful combatant on the battlefield... I will go so far as to say... do away with Gitmo and take care of the justice in the field of battle, but thats just me



The slippery slope arguement I dont see in this case.... no evidence that this happens to Americans in most police stations.... (sarcasm alert)

Thanks for the debate guys, but I got to go now

 

[Claudette]

Article I Section 8.

LMAO Good one Rabs.

Since these guys were picked up on foreign does our Constitution apply to them??

Good one? He didn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter whether the Constitution applies to them, it applies to our government
and what our government is allowed to do.

The General Welfare clause in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution has been used to cover anything anyone thinks falls into the category of the General Welfare of the country.

Killing and imprisoning enemy combatant dirtbags is in the best interest of this country. i.e. the General Welfare.

So it could conceivably fall under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

It would be up to the Supreme Court to say yea or nay on the issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

LMAO Good one Rabs.

Since these guys were picked up on foreign does our Constitution apply to them??

Good one? He didn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter whether the Constitution applies to them, it applies to our government
and what our government is allowed to do.

The General Welfare clause in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution has been used to cover anything anyone thinks falls into the category of the General Welfare of the country.

Killing and imprisoning enemy combatant dirtbags is in the best interest of this country. i.e. the General Welfare.

So it could conceivably fall under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

It would be up to the Supreme Court to say yea or nay on the issue.

I thought belief in the supposed "general welfare clause" was a progressive position. Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[The Rabbi]

And where does it say that in the Constitution?

Article I Section 8.

Could you quote the relevant wording for me? I seem to be having trouble finding it.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Do you need me to explain what that means?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article I Section 8.

Could you quote the relevant wording for me? I seem to be having trouble finding it.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Do you need me to explain what that means?

Apparently.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you quote the relevant wording for me? I seem to be having trouble finding it.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Do you need me to explain what that means?

Apparently.

"government and regulation" refers to codes of conduct. That would include treatment of POWs, which are inevitable in warfare. "Land and naval forces" would refer to the military (the airforce was originally an arm of the Navy anyway).
These are powers of Congress.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you need me to explain what that means?

Apparently.

"government and regulation" refers to codes of conduct. That would include treatment of POWs, which are inevitable in warfare. "Land and naval forces" would refer to the military (the airforce was originally an arm of the Navy anyway).
These are powers of Congress.

So this particular clause gives the military a blank check to do essentially whatever it wants to detainees, in your opinion?

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently.

"government and regulation" refers to codes of conduct. That would include treatment of POWs, which are inevitable in warfare. "Land and naval forces" would refer to the military (the airforce was originally an arm of the Navy anyway).
These are powers of Congress.

So this particular clause gives the military a blank check to do essentially whatever it wants to detainees, in your opinion?

This particular clause, yes. It would also allow the military to treat their recruits in any manner they wanted.
Other clauses, laws and treaties restrict the military's ability to do that. But all of them are dependent on this clause.

 

[Vanquish]

You could fill a thimble with what Rabbi knows and understands about the Constitution and our laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

You could fill a thimble with what Rabbi knows and understands about the Constitution and our laws.

And that's still about 10million times what you know in toto.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Well, that's a bit of a disappointment.

However, I agree with him on 99% of the other issues...and I agree with Ron on about 95% or so.

Like you said, Kevin...compare those percentages...

I'm going with Johnson.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Rather disappointing. Looks like Ron Paul will be the only candidate worth voting for again.

well, not that I'd ever vote for Gary Johnson, if i were you, i'd ask myself what issues are most important, given that it looks like no one who has a shot to win in 2012 will close Gitmo.

You know my feelings about Ron Paul. His foreign policy is naive

And you know that viability won't affect who I vote for. Supporting indefinite detention and torture is a disqualifier in a candidate for me, regardless of their chances.

BTW, Rand Paul said the same thing, if I'm correct.