Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've never agreed with you on anything before, and I find it a little bothersome, but the fact that we even have to have a conversation about why torture is wrong in this country scares the shit out of me.That was a defining moment, wasn't it?
It reminded me of the McCarthy hearings where the witness says, "Have you no sense of decency sir? Have you, at long last, left no sense of decency?"
On further consideration it wasn't the waterboarding in any of those cases so much as the purpose for which the waterboarding was used. Especially so in the case of the first and the last.
And by the way, spies and saboteurs are exempt from the rules found in Geneva. The three people upon whom it was used are buy any rational definition both. Frankly in the case of those three assholes waterboarding them till they quit breathing would be little more than poetic justice for the lives they are responsible for ending.
Are you referring to Gitmo or what?
How quickly we forget. Is Gitmo in Iraq? Please try to keep up.
McCarthy was a senator, the hearings were in the houseShepard Smith Curses On National Television*Video
Shepard Smith channels Samuel Jackson in a lively discussion on the recently released torture memos. Fox News, where debate means keeping your pimp hand strong.
I have a crush on Shepard Smith now.
That was a defining moment, wasn't it?
It reminded me of the McCarthy hearings where the witness says, "Have you no sense of decency sir? Have you, at long last, left no sense of decency?"
noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture
all i see is case law that is not binding
noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture
all i see is case law that is not binding
Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?
noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture
all i see is case law that is not binding
Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?
was there a scotus ruling that said waterboarding is illegal? i thought they were lower court rulings as to those people, not a ruling the specifically said waterboarding is torture. lower courts are only binding as to their circuit or district.
i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
Thanks. I didn't learn any of that stuff in Law School. I especially enjoyed how you ignored the meat of my argument and instead attacked an inane portrion that had no bearing on the subject at hand and offering facts that I assure you I am well aware of.
Thanks for playing, you are dismissed.
i didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
Thanks. I didn't learn any of that stuff in Law School. I especially enjoyed how you ignored the meat of my argument and instead attacked an inane portrion that had no bearing on the subject at hand and offering facts that I assure you I am well aware of.
Thanks for playing, you are dismissed.
i didn't know you went to lawschool, exfuckingscuse me for thinking your comments were serious and i thought my answer helpful...
maybe you should put up a banner that says, hey i went to lawschool and gosh darn it, i'm special and its like so obvious and stuff
i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on thati didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on thati didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
any circuit that makes a ruling sets precedent unless overturned by SCOTUS
thats my understanding
noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture
all i see is case law that is not binding
Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?
noticeably absent is a specific law saying that waterboarding is torture
all i see is case law that is not binding
Case law isn't binding? When did that happen?
If waterboarding is illegal then why isn't JFK up on waterboarding charges?
i'm not sure, but i think you are wrong on thati didn't say only scotus makes case law. since i am assuming any trials will be at the federal level, i am only referring to federal law. there are 3 levels of federal courts, scotus, apps, districts...a 9th circuit ruling is only binding to the courts in its circuit, a district ruling is only binding in its district, a scotus ruling binds all courts in the nation.
any circuit that makes a ruling sets precedent unless overturned by SCOTUS
thats my understanding