White House Insists, Torture Is Legal

[theHawk]

And I will ask you again, “Where in the Constitution does it say U.S. constitutional due process rights are limited to U.S. citizens?

The Constitution and all of the rights has always been implied to apply to US Citizens. There isn't anywhere that states "due process rights" are limited to U.S. citizens. But if you're suggesting that we give foreigners our Constitutional "due process rights" (Amendments V and VI) then why stop there? Why woudln't they be given all other Constitutional rights? Such as the ability to vote, free speech, ect ect ect?
Where in the Constitution does it say that any or all of its rights extend to foreigners?

 

[theHawk]

You are trying to say that terrorists don’t have any U.S. due process rights because they are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.

I am saying terrorists (foreign born ones) do not have U.S. due process rights (Amendments V and VI) because they are not U.S. Citizens. They can be under the jurisdiction of some kind of U.S. court system created by Congress as you point out, but that does not mean they would be given the same rights as a U.S. citizen.

We need to make the distinction between generic "due process rights" and Amendments V and VI of the Constitution. I agree that some type of due process should be given to terrorists, and they already do have some type of due process(after all we aren't just rounding them up and doing mass executions). That does not mean they have the rights given by Amendments V and VI for U.S. citizens. Its basically whatever rights we feel like giving them. They do not have the right to a speedy trial by jury. So they will be held for as long as we want, and released if and when we want.

 

[theHawk]

BTW: If we torture a terror suspect and he doesn't tell us what we want to know, are we entitled to torture his son, daughter, wife, brother, sister, father or mother?

It would depend on the situation. If we knew the terrorist knows about a nuke about to go off, then yes - by any means necessary.

 

[MtnBiker]

In the 3 plus years I have been on this board, Flaja displays the worst ability to use the quote function I have yet to witness.













O.K. - resume thread.

 

[flaja]

The Constitution and all of the rights has always been implied to apply to US Citizens.

Prove it.

 

[flaja]

I am saying terrorists (foreign born ones) do not have U.S. due process rights (Amendments V and VI) because they are not U.S. Citizens.

And you persist in failing to show me that the Constitution says, point blank, non-citizens are not entitled to U.S. due process rights. All you have provided is your own opinion.

 

[flaja]

It would depend on the situation. If we knew the terrorist knows about a nuke about to go off, then yes - by any means necessary.

If you knew that a terrorist knew that a nuke was about to go off, how would not already know enough about the imminent explosion to stop it without needing any more information from the terrorist? And just how good would your intel saying the suspect knows about a pending nuclear blast be- as good as the intel that said Iraq had WMD?

If you say whether or not we can torture someone depends on the situation, you are calling for the rule of man rather than the rule of law. Such thinking was the hallmark of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In a civilized country you cannot punish people on a whim or exercise police power in the arbitrary manner you describe.

 

[flaja]

In the 3 plus years I have been on this board, Flaja displays the worst ability to use the quote function I have yet to witness.

How so?













O.K. - resume thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[MtnBiker]

I rest my case.

 

[theHawk]

And you persist in failing to show me that the Constitution says, point blank, non-citizens are not entitled to U.S. due process rights. All you have provided is your own opinion.

How about you answer a question and stop fencing. You need to come out and say if you believe all consitutional rights extend to foreigners. If not all, which ones do? And why just those ones?

If you cannot prove that the consitution says its rights extend to foreingers, then, as in your words ..."all you have provided is your own opinion."

 

[theHawk]

If you knew that a terrorist knew that a nuke was about to go off, how would not already know enough about the imminent explosion to stop it without needing any more information from the terrorist?

Because maybe hard evidence and other informants led authorities to him, but gave no further details. Use your own imaginiation.

And just how good would your intel saying the suspect knows about a pending nuclear blast be- as good as the intel that said Iraq had WMD?

Wouldn't know until we investigate and found out. Some of us aren't willing to sit around and wait to be blown up by terrorists.

If you say whether or not we can torture someone depends on the situation, you are calling for the rule of man rather than the rule of law. Such thinking was the hallmark of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In a civilized country you cannot punish people on a whim or exercise police power in the arbitrary manner you describe.

No I said it depends on the situation. Particular situations and be written, such as guidelines on how to proceed when certain critera is met. Its actually one of the few good things government is good at - we use it in the military all the time. If certain conditions are met, proceed this way. There is no reason such guidelines couldn't be drawn up for interrogation proceedures.

 

[red states rule]

Because maybe hard evidence and other informants led authorities to him, but gave no further details. Use your own imaginiation.


Wouldn't know until we investigate and found out. Some of us aren't willing to sit around and wait to be blown up by terrorists.



No I said it depends on the situation. Particular situations and be written, such as guidelines on how to proceed when certain critera is met. Its actually one of the few good things government is good at - we use it in the military all the time. If certain conditions are met, proceed this way. There is no reason such guidelines couldn't be drawn up for interrogation proceedures.

There is only one way to deal with these thug bastards

 

[flaja]

I rest my case.

A typo, which I corrected as soon as I found it.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
And you persist in failing to show me that the Constitution says, point blank, non-citizens are not entitled to U.S. due process rights. All you have provided is your own opinion.

How about you answer a question and stop fencing.

Why don’t you answer my question before you complain that I am not answering yours?

Where in the Constitution does it say non-citizens are not entitled to U.S. due process rights when they are held to answer to U.S. government authorities?

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say our government may torture people?

BTW: I don’t like responding to a quote that was made in reply to something that had been previously said without including what was previously said. The automatic quote function on this board only quotes new material in the post you are quoting. I use cut-and-past to include the previous material when I respond to a quote for the sake of clarity for anyone who may wish to join the conversation in progress. I don’t bother with nested quotes for the sake of saving some typing (due to arthritis). I am working with the assumption that the persons I am quoting will be able to remember and recognize what they have said previously. I don’t want to think that any of you have such short attention spans or lax reasoning skills to make nested quotes necessary.

 

[Annie]

BTW: I don’t like responding to a quote that was made in reply to something that had been previously said without including what was previously said. The automatic quote function on this board only quotes new material in the post you are quoting. I use cut-and-past to include the previous material when I respond to a quote for the sake of clarity for anyone who may wish to join the conversation in progress. I don’t bother with nested quotes for the sake of saving some typing (due to arthritis). I am working with the assumption that the persons I am quoting will be able to remember and recognize what they have said previously. I don’t want to think that any of you have such short attention spans or lax reasoning skills to make nested quotes necessary.

Which would be fine, IF you didn't make your posts consistently appear that you are arguing with yourself. Whatever you are doing, it's not working well.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
If you knew that a terrorist knew that a nuke was about to go off, how would not already know enough about the imminent explosion to stop it without needing any more information from the terrorist?
Because maybe hard evidence and other informants led authorities to him, but gave no further details. Use your own imaginiation.

How do you know your intel is anywhere near accurate? When it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists and rogue states, our intel ability certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

Originally Posted by flaja
And just how good would your intel saying the suspect knows about a pending nuclear blast be- as good as the intel that said Iraq had WMD?
Wouldn't know until we investigate and found out.

But, you wouldn’t mind torturing somebody in the meantime? I’m sorry, but after GWB’s Iraq debacle I don’t think it wise to set policy on a worst-case scenario just because you cannot know the truth with total certainty.

Originally Posted by flaja
If you say whether or not we can torture someone depends on the situation, you are calling for the rule of man rather than the rule of law. Such thinking was the hallmark of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In a civilized country you cannot punish people on a whim or exercise police power in the arbitrary manner you describe.
No I said it depends on the situation. Particular situations and be written, such as guidelines on how to proceed when certain critera is met.

Who writes the guidelines? Should GWB have been allowed to conduct his secret eavesdropping operations without the input of Congress or the oversight of the Courts? Should the surveillance operations of the PATRIOT Act be allowed without the input of the Courts?

 

[Annie]

How do you know your intel is anywhere near accurate? When it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists and rogue states, our intel ability certainly leaves a lot to be desired.



But, you wouldn’t mind torturing somebody in the meantime? I’m sorry, but after GWB’s Iraq debacle I don’t think it wise to set policy on a worst-case scenario just because you cannot know the truth with total certainty.



Who writes the guidelines? Should GWB have been allowed to conduct his secret eavesdropping operations without the input of Congress or the oversight of the Courts? Should the surveillance operations of the PATRIOT Act be allowed without the input of the Courts?

 

[MtnBiker]

A typo, which I corrected as soon as I found it.

I was not referring to any typo in post #88,rather the use of my words; "O.K. - resume thread" that were not attributed to me. And the end of the HTML code for a quote, thus once again displaying your poor use of the quote function.

 

[theHawk]

How do you know your intel is anywhere near accurate? When it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists and rogue states, our intel ability certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

How would you know what our intel ability is? You are judging our whole intel capabilities by the 'WMD in Iraq' example? Most of that intel came from other countries. This just goes to show you have absolutely no respect for the thousands of men and women that do their jobs quite well in the intel field.

But, you wouldn’t mind torturing somebody in the meantime? I’m sorry, but after GWB’s Iraq debacle I don’t think it wise to set policy on a worst-case scenario just because you cannot know the truth with total certainty.

As I already said, no I wouldn't mind. I don't care to let the 'GWB's Iraq debacle' effect our ability to wage war against the Islamic extremists that seek to destroy us.

Who writes the guidelines? Should GWB have been allowed to conduct his secret eavesdropping operations without the input of Congress or the oversight of the Courts? Should the surveillance operations of the PATRIOT Act be allowed without the input of the Courts?

Guidelines and usually written by managers, high ranking officers in the military, and lawyers, in accordance with written laws and regulations.
Yes, I believe any President should be allowed to allow intell agencies (they are not 'his' operations) to conduct eavesdropping anytime known terrorists call into the U.S. It should not be left up to a judge if any particular call merits a wiretap. This subject upsets only people like yourself, who believe any citizen in the U.S. who wishes to conspire with terrorists should be able to do so without our authorities knowing about it.



Flaja, if you are so desperate to live in a country where terrorists are allowed to run free and do as they please, feel free to move to some shithole country in the middle east. America isn't going to let it happen, and if that offends you....well, we're doing something right.

 

[flaja]

How would you know what our intel ability is?

How do you know what our intel ability is? Iraq’s non-existent WMD shows either that our intel ability is zero or that our leaders had made their policy decisions without regard to what our intel was saying. Either way it’s a dangerous situation.

Originally Posted by flaja
But, you wouldn’t mind torturing somebody in the meantime? I’m sorry, but after GWB’s Iraq debacle I don’t think it wise to set policy on a worst-case scenario just because you cannot know the truth with total certainty.
As I already said, no I wouldn't mind. I don't care to let the 'GWB's Iraq debacle' effect our ability to wage war against the Islamic extremists that seek to destroy us.

If anything GWB’s Iraq debacle has allowed more of these Islamic extremists come out of the woodwork. And now that we are bogged down in Iraq, how could we possibly go after these extremists anywhere else. I seriously doubt that we could launch major military operations anywhere in the world right now because so much of our military capacity is committed to Iraq.

Guidelines and usually written by managers, high ranking officers in the military, and lawyers, in accordance with written laws and regulations.

You really trust these people after the way they have botched Iraq? And what happens if the guidelines these people formulate someday say you are a member of a terrorist group and thus should be subjected to torture?

Yes, I believe any President should be allowed to allow intell agencies (they are not 'his' operations) to conduct eavesdropping anytime known terrorists call into the U.S.[/quotes]

Without warrants? Without any legal definition of what a terrorist is? Without informing the Congress? Even when American citizens (who are entitled to U.S. Constitutional due process rights) are involved?

It should not be left up to a judge if any particular call merits a wiretap. This subject upsets only people like yourself, who believe any citizen in the U.S. who wishes to conspire with terrorists should be able to do so without our authorities knowing about it.

If our government can monitor the activities of our citizens without obtaining a warrant, what purpose does the 4th Amendment serve?

Flaja, if you are so desperate to live in a country where terrorists are allowed to run free and do as they please, feel free to move to some shithole country in the middle east. America isn't going to let it happen, and if that offends you....well, we're doing something right.

And once again a member of the fringe shows his utter lack of respect and lack of intelligence by using profanity.