Some Sane Thinking about Waterboarding

I find you amusing. Sad and not terribly bright, but amusing. I for one am offended that you don't think Americans go all the way. That makes us sound like teases.




I am shocked to find that the "legal world" is not "covered by the constitution."

Once again - quite amusing... in a Archie Bunker sort of way.



Well....We ARE teases! Many times America doesnt follow through on what we say we will do. That loses us street cred. And thanks for showing my error about the legal world....You know I didnt mean it like that.


In the legal world lawyers can and will interprete the law to which ever issue they are fighting for. There is the spirit of the law and straight up legal definition of the law.
 
Well....We ARE teases! Many times America doesnt follow through on what we say we will do. That loses us street cred. And thanks for showing my error about the legal world....You know I didnt mean it like that.


In the legal world lawyers can and will interprete the law to which ever issue they are fighting for. There is the spirit of the law and straight up legal definition of the law.

Just so I can better learn at the knee of such a distinguished legal mind as yourself, what is the "legal" definition of "law?" Is it a defined term in the pre-eminent and foundational legal document?

You see, I am only confused because you appear to have used the word "law" in your definition of the word "law," although I am at pains to understand exactly how this...

In the legal world lawyers can and will interprete the law to which ever issue they are fighting for.

is a definition.
 
"The editors of USA Today disagree. They say that the decision to use waterboarding “was understandable in the frenzied aftermath of the 9/11 and anthrax attacks. What’s inexplicable, however, is why, after having several years to assess the matter deliberately, the Bush administration continues to resist efforts to ban waterboarding.”

It’s only inexplicable if you think we’ll never have a “frenzied” moment like that again. Let’s hope."

Jonah Goldberg has to be a complete moron who would justify anything that agreed with his particular ideological preference at that moment. This was after the fact, what the hell did they find I wonder.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2 Create a gulag
3 Develop a thug caste
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
5 Harass citizens' groups
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7 Target key individuals
8 Control the press
9 Dissent equals treason
10 Suspend the rule of law
 
Here is the bullshit line you keep tooting your horn about....

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6


"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."


No where in the constitution does it say that waterboarding is illegal or baseless. In fact no where in the constitution does it say torture is illegal. And if you want to get into the stupid 'cruel and unusual' argument you yourself said that everyone knows that American who torture wont go all the way with it so you just shot your own argument down that it is supposedly 'cruel and unusual.'

treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. Are you aware of the provisions of a little treaty we signed called the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Guess what? It is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? tough shit.
 
Just so I can better learn at the knee of such a distinguished legal mind as yourself, what is the "legal" definition of "law?" Is it a defined term in the pre-eminent and foundational legal document?

You see, I am only confused because you appear to have used the word "law" in your definition of the word "law," although I am at pains to understand exactly how this...



is a definition.


To patronize will get you nowhere.


How about this...."Letter of the law"
 
treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. Are you aware of the provisions of a little treaty we signed called the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Guess what? It is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? tough shit.




Telll that "tough shit" to all the families you would like to see dead because of YOUR moral superiority!
 
Telll that "tough shit" to all the families you would like to see dead because of YOUR moral superiority!

our military members take an oath, not to protect America, but to support and defend the CONSTITUTION. Deal with it, prick.
 
our military members take an oath, not to protect America, but to support and defend the CONSTITUTION. Deal with it, prick.




Dude you are too easy....You get all riled up at the slightest provocation. Where you this touchy on the battlefield?

Ok I'll stop now before you blow a gasket.

That being said the constitition is a piece of paper, full of ideals, that are backed by the people. No people and the paper becomes meaningless.
 
Dude you are too easy....You get all riled up at the slightest provocation. Where you this touchy on the battlefield?

Ok I'll stop now before you blow a gasket.

That being said the constitition is a piece of paper, full of ideals, that are backed by the people. No people and the paper becomes meaningless.

without the document, the lives of the people are no better than the lives of citizens living in any other anarchy.

And I am hardly blowing a gasket, asshole. You called me a pussy and questioned my battlefield experience and simultaneously showed a total ignorance of the constitution. I see no reason to use kid gloves with YOU.

Like I said, I took an oath, not to defend America, but to defend the constitution.... douchebags like you are domestic enemies of it as far as I am concerned.
 
without the document, the lives of the people are no better than the lives of citizens living in any other anarchy.

And I am hardly blowing a gasket, asshole. You called me a pussy and questioned my battlefield experience and simultaneously showed a total ignorance of the constitution. I see no reason to use kid gloves with YOU.

Like I said, I took an oath, not to defend America, but to defend the constitution.... douchebags like you are domestic enemies of it as far as I am concerned.


:rofl:


Yeah you are!


You dared me to call you a pussy. What did you expect?

I call you out about your battlefield experince and you act like John Kerry.


In the real world this domestic enemy would have no problem saving your life at the expense of bloodying my own. Your ideals, which only serve you in a utopian society, would get yourself killed.
 
your ignorance is glaring.


Your slavish dedication to foreign law is glaring as well. Last time I checked, the Constitution was written to protect the United States from foreign powers by removing the system of tyranny that had been placed over us. You sir, are the domestic enemy and if you're feeling froggy, leap. Never seen a squid that I couldn't take.
 
I'd be oppossed to 'torture' methods mainly from a practical stand point. At some point people will say anything to make the pain stop. Hurting people isn't really all that reliable a method of getting information. Sure they'll say something. Will it be the truth? Who knows.
 
I would suggest that you would not be wise to assume you can guarantee anything about my service, chump.:rofl:

you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...but feel free to insult yet another veteran because he doesn't suck Bush ass the way you do.

I know that since you were in the Navy, you're a wimp. I also know that since you were an officer, you didn't do anything, except tell the enlisted people to handle the problem. Therefore, you are totally unqualified to say shit to me.

I don't suck anyone's ass by the way, I stand up for my country the way I was taught to. Too bad the Navy doesn't teach that.
 
treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. Are you aware of the provisions of a little treaty we signed called the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Guess what? It is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? tough shit.


Considering the UN is a nuch of simpering idiots that like dictators and terrorists more then freedom, I think we should not pay much attention to anything from them. And the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, above the treaties, and it doesn't say we can't waterboard.
 
Considering the UN is a nuch of simpering idiots that like dictators and terrorists more then freedom, I think we should not pay much attention to anything from them. And the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, above the treaties, and it doesn't say we can't waterboard.

Not to quibble... but just because the Constitution doesn't say we can't do something, that doesn't mean we can. That is we have all those statute books full of what we experts like to call "laws." MM's point is that the same authorizing document that makes those "laws" valid also gives the same status (in this sense) to treaties. Did you take high school civics?
 
Torture Memo Released by Pentagon
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon has released a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects.

The newly declassified memo says President Bush's wartime powers trump any international treaties banning torture.

The memo was written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo in March 2003. He has since left the agency.

Yoo's memo to top Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes outlines legal reasons why military interrogators could use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees. Yoo wrote that the techniques could be used as long the interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

The memo was rescinded in December 2003, about nine months after Yoo sent it to the Pentagon.


http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
 
Torture Memo Released by Pentagon
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon has released a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects.

The newly declassified memo says President Bush's wartime powers trump any international treaties banning torture.

The memo was written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo in March 2003. He has since left the agency.

Yoo's memo to top Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes outlines legal reasons why military interrogators could use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees. Yoo wrote that the techniques could be used as long the interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

The memo was rescinded in December 2003, about nine months after Yoo sent it to the Pentagon.


http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm




Do you ever have an original thought? Just asking... Seeing as I have only seen posts from you with OTHERS thoughts.
 
Yoo's memo is evidence of the Bush Administration's contempt for domestic and international law, so it's relevant.

On waterboarding. It's a torture technique, must be, since Japanese officers were charged with war crime offences after WWII for using the technique. What's changed since? Is the water softer now? :rofl:
 
Your slavish dedication to foreign law is glaring as well. Last time I checked, the Constitution was written to protect the United States from foreign powers by removing the system of tyranny that had been placed over us. You sir, are the domestic enemy and if you're feeling froggy, leap. Never seen a squid that I couldn't take.

I have no dedication to "foreign law". I have a slavish dedication to the Constitution, and last I checked, Article VI(2) hasn't been amended yet. The phrase "supreme law of the land" is pretty fucking unambiguous.
 
:rofl:


Yeah you are!


You dared me to call you a pussy. What did you expect?

I call you out about your battlefield experince and you act like John Kerry.


In the real world this domestic enemy would have no problem saving your life at the expense of bloodying my own. Your ideals, which only serve you in a utopian society, would get yourself killed.

YOu didn't "call me out" on anything...you "guaranteed" you knew that I had never been in harm's way. I pointed out that your mouth writes checks your ass can't cash.

Anyone who pisses on the constitution IS my enemy... apparently, that would include YOU.
 

Forum List

Back
Top