The religion of peace strikes again

[HenryHill9323 65]

Nope. Not against targeted strikes that keep our troops out of harms way. The benefits of technology.

Nor are they the same as torture.

So, the 150-200 innocent children Obama has ordered killed using drone strikes is ok..............but waterboarding 3 high level terrorists destroys the USA's credibility with the terrorists we are in a war with.

 

 

Interesting stance.

[Voltaire 4,557]

The children killed were the sons and daughters of Army officers and soldiers so maybe this will help the Pakistani military leadership to clear the confusion and better figure out who the real bad guys are.

[drobeski 3,061]

Wonder if any of the 5 terrorist Obama released had anything to do with this attack

[rholio 339]

Wonder if any of the 5 terrorist Obama released had anything to do with this attack

That'd be great, wouldn't it? No way he gets elected again!

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Has Worms informed the Pakistani people of what exactly they did to warrant the killing of their children?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Wonder if any of the 5 terrorist Obama released had anything to do with this attack

 

You wonder? Or hope it was?

Im sure you will let us know if it was them.

[rholio 339]

The children killed were the sons and daughters of Army officers and soldiers so maybe this will help the Pakistani military leadership to clear the confusion and better figure out who the real bad guys are.

You know it's bad when the Taliban in Afghanistan is condemning the Taliban in Pakistan over this.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

Has Worms informed the Pakistani people of what exactly they did to warrant the killing of their children?

Try to make some sense Timmy Pilot

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

That's cool. Not many people are honest enough to admit that they think our Constitution is nothing more than a quaint little document that should just be discarded when things get difficult. And hey, if a few innocents get snatched up along the way. You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

 

Wait a minute. Does the 8th amendment cover non US citizens and those from other countries who we are at war with?

 

I thought the whole "cruel and unsual punishment" stuff was for US citizens.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Wait a minute. Does the 8th amendment cover non US citizens and those from other countries who we are at war with?

 

I thought the whole "cruel and unsual punishment" stuff was for US citizens.

no it does not

[Mike Honcho 4,023]

So, the 150-200 innocent children Obama has ordered killed using drone strikes is ok..............but waterboarding 3 high level terrorists destroys the USA's credibility with the terrorists we are in a war with.

 

 

Interesting stance.

 

Really, President Obama, just ordered drone strikes on children. Link?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

 

Really, President Obama, just ordered drone strikes on children. Link?

To be fair, Bush never ordered water boreding on terrorist, he said give them a bath and it was collateral damage.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Really, President Obama, just ordered drone strikes on children. Link?

feinsteins report should be out any second

[HenryHill9323 65]

To be fair, Bush never ordered water boreding on terrorist, he said give them a bath and it was collateral damage.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Okay, I was busy ranking breakfast cereals yesterday so I just read up on this school attack in Pakistan by the Taliban. Ugh.

 

As a person who on one hand would hope America would hold itself to a much higher standard and treat all human beings with a certain amount of respect, these stories bring back emotions that were felt during 9/11. And if all of us remember back then, its just a tad bit easier to understand why certain interrogation techniques (or torture) were approved to be used.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that 13 years later its a bit easier to sit behind our lttle desk at work, safe in our little bubbles, and get all offended at waterboarding and keeping some asswole alive by feeding him up the ass.

[parrot 789]

 

Wait a minute. Does the 8th amendment cover non US citizens and those from other countries who we are at war with?

 

I thought the whole "cruel and unsual punishment" stuff was for US citizens.

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

That's the text of the entire amendment. My belief is that the founders meant that as a general prohibition against our government - the whole "All men are created equal" and "inalienable rights" stuff. (And yes, before a certain assbag jumps in here, I know that's from the Declaration, not the Constitution.) That is a personal opinion. I'm not sure about all the legal ins and outs. And it's not just the 8th amendment, there are also treaties we have entered into that we are violating.

 

Here's what Washington had to say about it;

 

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

 

Then there is also the fact that many of these people weren't even combatants, they were just basically snatched up off the street or grabbed under faulty intelligence. Somehow I just don't see the guys who wrote the Constitution saying "Nah, it's cool. Go ahead and inflict all the cruel and unusual punishment you want on them. Their bad luck for living in the wrong country."

[drobeski 3,061]

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

That's the text of the entire amendment. My belief is that the founders meant that as a general prohibition against our government - the whole "All men are created equal" and "inalienable rights" stuff. (And yes, before a certain assbag jumps in here, I know that's from the Declaration, not the Constitution.) That is a personal opinion. I'm not sure about all the legal ins and outs. And it's not just the 8th amendment, there are also treaties we have entered into that we are violating.

 

Here's what Washington had to say about it;

 

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country. - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

 

Then there is also the fact that many of these people weren't even combatants, they were just basically snatched up off the street or grabbed under faulty intelligence. Somehow I just don't see the guys who wrote the Constitution saying "Nah, it's cool. Go ahead and inflict all the cruel and unusual punishment you want on them. Their bad luck for living in the wrong country."

the so called torture victims were not enemy combatants ? Or some of those incarcerated. Shouldn't mingle the two together if that's not the case.

[parrot 789]

the so called torture victims were not enemy combatants ? Or some of those incarcerated. Shouldn't mingle the two together if that's not the case.

 

Some were, some weren't. Even Cheney admitted to this the other day, when he was saying how he didn't really give a fock about the innocent people who got tortured, just any potential guilty ones that might have gotten away.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

That's the text of the entire amendment. My belief is that the founders meant that as a general prohibition against our government - the whole "All men are created equal" and "inalienable rights" stuff. (And yes, before a certain assbag jumps in here, I know that's from the Declaration, not the Constitution.) That is a personal opinion. I'm not sure about all the legal ins and outs. And it's not just the 8th amendment, there are also treaties we have entered into that we are violating.

 

Here's what Washington had to say about it;

 

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

 

Then there is also the fact that many of these people weren't even combatants, they were just basically snatched up off the street or grabbed under faulty intelligence. Somehow I just don't see the guys who wrote the Constitution saying "Nah, it's cool. Go ahead and inflict all the cruel and unusual punishment you want on them. Their bad luck for living in the wrong country."

 

I'm not really arguing with you, but simply thought it was odd to me that we were discussing how a Taliban terrorist had Constitutional Rights. Seemed odd to me.

 

I mean, when they're protesting in the streets and shooting guns in the air over in Pakistan, it never crossed my mind to think "Yes! its their American Constitutional Right to assemble and bear arms"

[drobeski 3,061]

Just a reminder, no charges were filed as the procedures were found legal.

 

Meaningless info of course but might as well throw it out there.

[parrot 789]

 

I'm not really arguing with you, but simply thought it was odd to me that we were discussing the how a Taliban terrorist had Constitutional Rights. Seemed odd to me.

 

I mean, when they're protesting in the streets and shooting guns in the air over in Pakistan, it never crossed my mind to think "Yes! its their American Constitutional Right to assemble and bear arms"

 

I don't think our government has much say about what people do on their own turf. It's different once we take them into our custody.

 

Also, I was responding to this post when I mentioned the Constitution;

 

 

 

When animals are murdering children and innocent people, they lose all their rights to everything, and that includes not being "tortured".

 

I never said they should necessarily have the full Constitutional protections that a U.S. citizen would have, just certain basic ones, like not being tortured, and a level of due process. I feel like the FF would agree with that.

[crackattack 513]

The constitution does not cover terrorists or enemy combatants in a foreign country. The constitution didn't cover German, Japanese, North Vietnamese, Korean combatants in Europe and Asia. The Geneva convention covers enemy combatants from countries that have signed on. What a silly argument to say the United States constitution, even just some basic parts of the constitution, covers Muhammad, who has blown up a school, has beheaded children, has killed civilians. Who has been captured, and is being held in a prison in Turkey. He has no constitutional rights.....none.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

I don't think our government has much say about what people do on their own turf. It's different once we take them into our custody.

 

Also, I was responding to this post when I mentioned the Constitution;

 

 

I never said they should necessarily have the full Constitutional protections that a U.S. citizen would have, just certain basic ones, like not being tortured, and a level of due process. I feel like the FF would agree with that.

So that whole due process thing, does it apply with drone strikes ?

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

Wait a minute. Does the 8th amendment cover non US citizens and those from other countries who we are at war with?

 

I thought the whole "cruel and unsual punishment" stuff was for US citizens.

This was covered in another thread that you came gallivanting into but obviously hadn't bothered to read.

 

It's called the Supremacy Clause. Look it up and note the language on treaties. HTH

[parrot 789]

So that whole due process thing, does it apply with drone strikes ?

 

I would like to see it, but I know it's not practical. I would hope we at least demand a pretty high level of assurance before we launch a strike. But again, once we have someone in our CUSTODY, it's a different ball game in my mind.

[HenryHill9323 65]

This was covered in another thread that you came gallivanting into but obviously hadn't bothered to read.

It's called the Supremacy Clause. Look it up and note the language on treaties. HTH

Which treaty covers terrorists?

[IGotWorms 3,310]

Which treaty covers terrorists?

Also covered in the other thread, Henry Pilot

[crackattack 513]

Which treaty covers terrorists?

I was wondering what treaty we have with Al Qaeda, ISIS and other non countries/terrorist organizations also?

[HenryHill9323 65]

Also covered in the other thread, Henry Pilot

Nope.

 

You kept avoiding that question, Sport.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Really, President Obama, just ordered drone strikes on children. Link?

 

Yeah...don't think Obama (or anyone) ordered children killed...and to equate the torture program now to just waterboarding 3 people is as bad as just saying it was loud music.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

Nope.

 

You kept avoiding that question, Sport.

I'm not playing this game with you, troll. Folks can check out the other thread if they want to.

 

I can't remember exactly which thread it was though since, you know, you started about ten of them on the same subject

[KSB2424 3,083]

This was covered in another thread that you came gallivanting into but obviously hadn't bothered to read.

 

It's called the Supremacy Clause. Look it up and note the language on treaties. HTH

 

That's quite a reach. I think I'll take A supreme court justice's take on the contstitution over a fake lawyer.

[HenryHill9323 65]

I'm not playing this game with you, troll. Folks can check out the other thread if they want to.

I can't remember exactly which thread it was though since, you know, you started about ten of them on the same subject

I bumped that thread to make it easy for you to find where you answered it.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

That's quite a reach. I think I'll take A supreme court justice's take on the contstitution over a fake lawyer.

Can you show me where a supreme court justice has said otherwise?

 

And it's not a "reach", the Constitution literally says treaties (like the various conventions against torture) are "the supreme law of the land."

 

HTH, next time maybe stick to what you know

[KSB2424 3,083]

I think its pretty evident to most folks that this story isn't about what was constitutional or if a "Crime" was committed. Cause, well, nobody will be charged for a crime and those techniques were authorized by all.

 

So can we stop with the illegal and constitution talk, its silly?

 

The question is a MORAL question of when, if, and how American interrogation turns to torture. It's a moral question not a legal question.

[crackattack 513]

So what treaties do we have with Al Qaeda and ISIS? We don't have any, so how does that cover them?

[IGotWorms 3,310]

I think its pretty evident to most folks that this story isn't about what was constitutional or if a "Crime" was committed. Cause, well, nobody will be charged for a crime and those techniques were authorized by all.

 

So can we stop with the illegal and constitution talk, its silly?

 

The question is a MORAL question of when, if, and how American interrogation turns to torture. It's a moral question not a legal question.

No, you're pretty much wrong on this. Thanks for trying to tell folks what is and isn't valid for them to discuss though.

 

Nobody will be charged, but only because it would set a precedent that nobody really wants to have out there.

 

But it is absolutely up for discussion whether torture is legal and allowed by the Constitution, because the entire point is that this should never be allowed to happen again.

 

HTH, again.

[HenryHill9323 65]

So what treaties do we have with Al Qaeda and ISIS? We don't have any, so how does that cover them?

None.....but.....but....THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE!!!!!!!!

[IGotWorms 3,310]

So what treaties do we have with Al Qaeda and ISIS? We don't have any, so how does that cover them?

Your opponent doesn't have to be a signatory - we don't have treaties with North Korea either but I think even the pro-torture crowd would agree that we would be prohibited from torturing their soldiers in the event of a war.

 

If your point is that al Qaeda and ISIS aren't nations, well I don't really see how that means we can go ahead and torture them. What is the difference? How come we can't torture them if they put on a uniform with a recognized national symbol but we can as soon as they shed that uniform? It is and always has been a specious argument.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Can you show me where a supreme court justice has said otherwise?

 

 

 

Justice Scalia says nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.