Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 12:04:34 PM

Title: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 12:04:34 PM
and hopefully it happen.

(julie have fond memories how people on this site very upset with her pointing out, many times, u.s. torture.  now we know beyond dispute.)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Remarq on April 22, 2009, 12:22:25 PM
Prosecute the people who told the CIA agents it was legal, abso-f-in-lutely! I don't think the people who were given the go-ahead by the D.O.J. should be prosecuted though. They asked if it was legal, were told it was, then did it. It's not their fault they were lied to IMO.   
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 12:52:02 PM
they TORTURED people. I can agree that it might not be totally fair to prosecute them, but not doing so says "hey, as long as someone tells you to do it you don't have to use your own judgement"

These people are either robots with no minds/morals of their own, or people with EXTREEMELY poor judgement. Either way, I don't want them in positions of responsibility.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on April 22, 2009, 12:55:54 PM
It's so tempting to Godwin this thread.

But also, waterboarding one person 6 times a day, on average, for a month, certainly falls outside of the guidelines and is, imo, beyond criminal.

ETA: That's not to say that I don't personally think one time is criminal. I do. Any willingness I have place most of the blame on higher-ups (who have their own share of guilt, regardless), however, flies out the window when the already-problematic guidelines weren't even followed.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
and now, of course, captured americans hardly can expect better treatment.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Jamie Stringer on April 22, 2009, 12:58:52 PM
It's so tempting to Godwin this thread.

But also, waterboarding one person 6 times a day, on average, for a month, certainly falls outside of the guidelines and is, imo, beyond criminal.

(http://irritationx.googlepages.com/emot-godwin.gif)

I was a half-second from it, Cady. Is it better to My Lai it instead?

^^^I see you failed at staying away :D
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 01:53:05 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it. 
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 03:21:48 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it. 

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it. 

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

There are good reasons we have civilian oversight. The most important one day-to-day is to reign in the extremes that military forces have been known to go to. As a nation we decided when we declared independence that there are lines we are unwilling to cross to preserve stability or even freedom.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:20:09 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:20:26 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
Regardless of whether or not torture should be legal, the bottom line is that it is not. 
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:24:25 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:26:15 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy?  what want happen--or not happen--then?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:26:23 PM
Regardless of whether or not torture should be legal, the bottom line is that it is not. 

(nodding in agreement)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: heartbreaker on April 22, 2009, 04:27:05 PM
Torture has also been proven (I'll look for the cites) to be ineffective in getting information...that's part of the problem of the debate. It's not 'torture and save lives' vs. 'don't torture and be a sissy.' Torture just doesn't work in the way many people think it does.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:28:21 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?

certainly an insult to slaves, but pretty much beside point in light of slavery itself.  julie doubt it made much difference them.

but emancipation proclamation and 13th amendment sweet.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:29:27 PM
Regardless of whether or not torture should be legal, the bottom line is that it is not.

(nodding in agreement)

it also internationally recognized as war crime, including by u.s.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy?  what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:33:42 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:33:53 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

you mean just as they no longer trust us?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:34:41 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?

Last I checked, the 3/5 compromise was rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment. It's not about selectively defending the Constitution, it's about prosecuting what's illegal. According to the treaty we signed, we're not even allowed to send someone back to their own country if we can reasonably believe they could be tortured, and we sure as @#!* aren't allowed to do it.

Someone likes Wikipedia, eh? BE HONEST!!!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:34:53 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

alert media.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:35:36 PM
I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?

Last I checked, the 3/5 compromise was rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment. It's not about selectively defending the Constitution, it's about prosecuting what's illegal. According to the treaty we signed, we're not even allowed to send someone back to their own country if we can reasonably believe they could be tortured, and we sure as @#!* aren't allowed to do it.

Someone likes Wikipedia, eh? BE HONEST!!!

it ok:  convenient, but must be checked.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:36:37 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

you mean just as they no longer trust us?

Objection - lacks relevance.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:37:37 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

you mean just as they no longer trust us?

Objection - lacks relevance.

overruled.  answer question.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 04:37:50 PM
so because hitler killed 6 million jews, 500k gypsies, and god only knows how how many gays and communists, we can't trust france not to torture americans?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:39:31 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

alert media.

Ohh, Julie! You are incorrigible!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want.  torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:40:45 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy?  what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades.  That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:41:15 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want.  torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:41:33 PM
so because hitler killed 6 million jews, 500k gypsies, and god only knows how how many gays and communists, we can't trust france not to torture americans?

french not problem, although they irritable.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:42:20 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

alert media.

Ohh, Julie! You are incorrigible!

not try sweet-talk julie.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades. That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?

well our engaging in torture certainly not help.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:43:45 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

Well..we were talking about the Constitution briefly. I had brought up the 3/5's compromise to Julie as some silly example of why just because it's in the Constitution doesnt make it right. Then you brought up the Constitution again by citing a Wikipedia reference, you know, the mootness rendered by the 13th Amendment.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:44:21 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

only you, gump, and cheney think so.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 04:45:05 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy?  what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades.  That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?

Not only moral issues and the fact that torture is not effective, but we know that Al Qaeda uses stories of American mistreatment of muslims as a recruiting tool, considering their recent growth it appears to be working...
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy?  what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades.  That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?

I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:46:38 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

Well..we were talking about the Constitution briefly. I had brought up the 3/5's compromise to Julie as some silly example of why just because it's in the Constitution doesnt make it right. Then you brought up the Constitution again by citing a Wikipedia reference, you know, the mootness rendered by the 13th Amendment.

and then that incorrigible julie dare mention how torture illegal as matter of u.s. law.

in fact, gump administration torture memos essentially argue same standards apply american citizens.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades. That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?

well our engaging in torture certainly not help.

I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated.  Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:47:31 PM
Not only moral issues and the fact that torture is not effective, but we know that Al Qaeda uses stories of American mistreatment of muslims as a recruiting tool, considering their recent growth it appears to be working...

they not even have lie about us!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:47:42 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

only you, gump, and cheney think so.

LOL.  I think your heart's in the right place, but you're tripping over your arguments.  :)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
I'm being semi-inciting.


I really was!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:48:20 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:49:53 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

this make sense only if believe president not have obey federal laws.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:50:58 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:51:06 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:52:18 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

only you, gump, and cheney think so.

LOL. I think your heart's in the right place, but you're tripping over your arguments. :)

oh, there nothing wrong julie's arguments either.

how else americans control own executive branch except through enforcing constitution?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:53:00 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

apparently it someone who play international law expert on television.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 04:53:11 PM
It really comes down to: do americans torture? the other stuff is just the icing on the cake we use to convince amoral people to go along with what is right and just and godfearing and american.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:53:37 PM
I'm being semi-inciting.


I really was!

and it fine work you do.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:54:08 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:54:49 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

Well..we were talking about the Constitution briefly. I had brought up the 3/5's compromise to Julie as some silly example of why just because it's in the Constitution doesnt make it right. Then you brought up the Constitution again by citing a Wikipedia reference, you know, the mootness rendered by the 13th Amendment.

I hate to break this to you, jackhole: you're not the only person who has ever studied the Constitution in some stripe, and lots of people use the word "moot" to describe things that are, well, moot. Like myself and the person who wrote that article I just looked up to find out wtf you're talking about. And even if I had taken information from Wikipedia, it's accurate, and your point is moot. @#!* you very much, you condescending prick.

eta: and what's the deal with calling me out for Wikipedia use, when you so clearly looked it up yourself? ???

not hold back:  say what really think.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:55:11 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

I think you misunderstand me, but that's fine.  I'm just saying that the best justification for making torture illegal, under domestic or international law, is that it is contrary to our beliefs about the way people should treat each other.  If it prevents our enemies from torturing captured Americans, that's great.  But even if it doesn't, there's reason enough to make it illegal.

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that.  :)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 04:55:48 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:55:56 PM
It really comes down to: do americans torture? the other stuff is just the icing on the cake we use to convince amoral people to go along with what is right and just and godfearing and american.

what flavor icing?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 04:57:55 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

Well..we were talking about the Constitution briefly. I had brought up the 3/5's compromise to Julie as some silly example of why just because it's in the Constitution doesnt make it right. Then you brought up the Constitution again by citing a Wikipedia reference, you know, the mootness rendered by the 13th Amendment.

I hate to break this to you, jackhole: you're not the only person who has ever studied the Constitution in some stripe, and lots of people use the word "moot" to describe things that are, well, moot. Like myself and the person who wrote that article I just looked up to find out wtf you're talking about. And even if I had taken information from Wikipedia, it's accurate, and your point is moot. @#!* you very much, you condescending prick.

eta: and what's the deal with calling me out for Wikipedia use, when you so clearly looked it up yourself? ???

Haha, look how I incited you!

My post was merely reflecting the fact that we had discussed the Constitution. You had said, "We aren't even talking about the Constitution."

How in the world did you misinterpret what I wrote to think I was making fun of the word 'moot'?

jackhole?? I was just trying to engage in debate, but I want to be friends. Now I'm seriously wondering if that's even possible..
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 04:58:03 PM
pure vanilla, white as the driven snow.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 04:59:06 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations.  and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

I think you misunderstand me, but that's fine. I'm just saying that the best justification for making torture illegal, under domestic or international law, is that it is contrary to our beliefs about the way people should treat each other. If it prevents our enemies from torturing captured Americans, that's great. But even if it doesn't, there's reason enough to make it illegal.

if that what you mean, then julie have no quarrel with that.

but that not what said, either.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 22, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations.  and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


well said
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:02:22 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations.  and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


Sure, I wasnt trying to say they are bad things. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to suspect that there may have been some shady tactics going on..
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:03:22 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that. :)

julie never say "every," although would if specigic context checking presidential power, especially in military matters.

and you clearly have no familiarity with those torture memos, which are entirely about presidential power bypass statutes under constitution.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:04:40 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

Well..we were talking about the Constitution briefly. I had brought up the 3/5's compromise to Julie as some silly example of why just because it's in the Constitution doesnt make it right. Then you brought up the Constitution again by citing a Wikipedia reference, you know, the mootness rendered by the 13th Amendment.

I hate to break this to you, jackhole: you're not the only person who has ever studied the Constitution in some stripe, and lots of people use the word "moot" to describe things that are, well, moot. Like myself and the person who wrote that article I just looked up to find out wtf you're talking about. And even if I had taken information from Wikipedia, it's accurate, and your point is moot. @#!* you very much, you condescending prick.

eta: and what's the deal with calling me out for Wikipedia use, when you so clearly looked it up yourself? ???

Haha, look how I incited you!

My post was merely reflecting the fact that we had discussed the Constitution. You had said, "We aren't even talking about the Constitution."

How in the world did you misinterpret what I wrote to think I was making fun of the word 'moot'?

jackhole?? I was just trying to engage in debate, but I want to be friends. Now I'm seriously wondering if that's even possible..

julie understand you be claiming plagiarism.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:04:56 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:06:04 PM
pure vanilla, white as the driven snow.

julie prefer chocolate icing.

now julie's world view upset.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:06:30 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations. and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


well said

you fine american.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:06:35 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

I think you misunderstand me, but that's fine. I'm just saying that the best justification for making torture illegal, under domestic or international law, is that it is contrary to our beliefs about the way people should treat each other. If it prevents our enemies from torturing captured Americans, that's great. But even if it doesn't, there's reason enough to make it illegal.

if that what you mean, then julie have no quarrel with that.

but that not what said, either.

LOL.  Would you be so kind as to allow me to clarify and say that the above is what I meant?  :)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:07:33 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations. and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


Sure, I wasnt trying to say they are bad things. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to suspect that there may have been some shady tactics going on..

alert media again.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?

but no copy constitution.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:09:03 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations. and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


Sure, I wasnt trying to say they are bad things. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to suspect that there may have been some shady tactics going on..

alert media again.

You win!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:10:00 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

I think you misunderstand me, but that's fine. I'm just saying that the best justification for making torture illegal, under domestic or international law, is that it is contrary to our beliefs about the way people should treat each other. If it prevents our enemies from torturing captured Americans, that's great. But even if it doesn't, there's reason enough to make it illegal.

if that what you mean, then julie have no quarrel with that.

but that not what said, either.

LOL. Would you be so kind as to allow me to clarify and say that the above is what I meant? :)

ok, sure.  be reasonable about it and derail excellent argument.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:10:07 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?

but no copy constitution.

This post marks the first time you've amused me.

Media status: alerted.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:10:44 PM
I agree with the first part. Whether a "do unto others.." applies, or is relevant, I really don't know. Kind of silly in an international military conflict...probably more useful in interpersonal relationships.

it have do with respect and credibility.

Haha! This is the same country that enslaved people for generations and killed who knows how many Indians. Don't be so naive, Julie! If we had always been so respectful and credible, we'd probably be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

believe it or not, despite its many imperfections u.s. has been viewed, buy many, as moral leader among nations. and what we did about japanese and germans generally considered one our better hours.


Sure, I wasnt trying to say they are bad things. I don't think it's a leap of the imagination to suspect that there may have been some shady tactics going on..

alert media again.

You win!

of course.  but tell it to reporters.  (if only your phone in service.)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:11:25 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?

but no copy constitution.

This post marks the first time you've amused me.

Media status: alerted.

then perhaps your sense humor improving.  problem certainly not with julie.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:13:25 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that. :)

julie never say "every," although would if specigic context checking presidential power, especially in military matters.

and you clearly have no familiarity with those torture memos, which are entirely about presidential power bypass statutes under constitution.

I'd be careful about making assumptions.  ;)

I agree that the proper scope of congressional and presidential powers is a constitutional issue, but the way you're discussing it doesn't seem quite right: it's a constitutional issue because there are statutes forbidding torture?  That's not right.  It would have made more sense if you said it was a constitutional issue because it violated such and such clause or amendment (I was thinking the Eighth).
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:14:00 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?

The way I answer all accusations: no comment.  8)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
I think I need to reiterate that I don't think we disagree on anything substantive, Julie.  It's just in the presentation that we differ.  ;)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that. :)

julie never say "every," although would if specigic context checking presidential power, especially in military matters.

and you clearly have no familiarity with those torture memos, which are entirely about presidential power bypass statutes under constitution.

I'd be careful about making assumptions. ;)

I agree that the proper scope of congressional and presidential powers is a constitutional issue, but the way you're discussing it doesn't seem quite right: it's a constitutional issue because there are statutes forbidding torture? That's not right. It would have made more sense if you said it was a constitutional issue because it violated such and such clause or amendment (I was thinking the Eighth).

well, sort of:  memos argue preznit inherent constitutional authority violate statutes against torture.  it not get much more constitutional than that.

and julie's assumption holding up nicely so far.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:21:26 PM
I think I need to reiterate that I don't think we disagree on anything substantive, Julie. It's just in the presentation that we differ. ;)

well, and also details. but apparently we come out same rabbit-hole in end.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
bl825, you seem to have such a balanced temperament.

Combine that with the large sunglasses & the purse...I'm like, seriously, your biggest fan.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:23:04 PM
bl825, who is the person in your avatar?? It must be a TV/movie celebrity..I don't watch TV or many movies, so I'm usually out of the loop.

Blake Lively from GG.

Ohhh. How do you answer the accusation that you may have in your possession a pair of large sunglasses (Gucci or Prada) and possibly an oversized purse?

The way I answer all accusations: no comment. 8)

that never look quite right in police report.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:23:42 PM
bl825, you seem to have such a balanced temperament.

Combine that with the large sunglasses & the purse...I'm like, seriously, your biggest fan.

spoken like man who suddenly realize he need friend.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:25:52 PM
My point is that while there is a debate about constitutional powers involved, the idea of upholding the constitution is probably not the best way to go about arguing against torture.  (That's what it looked like you were doing.)  Why bring the constitution into it at all if you don't have to?  It's illegal, any way you cut it.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 05:26:25 PM
bl825, you seem to have such a balanced temperament.

Combine that with the large sunglasses & the purse...I'm like, seriously, your biggest fan.

spoken like man who suddenly realize he need friend.

I'm sorry Julie, I can't hear you over the fireworks that are going off above the ferris wheel that I'm riding with bl825.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:27:56 PM
bl825, you seem to have such a balanced temperament.

Combine that with the large sunglasses & the purse...I'm like, seriously, your biggest fan.

spoken like man who suddenly realize he need friend.

I'm sorry Julie, I can't hear you over the fireworks that are going off above the ferris wheel that I'm riding with bl825.

LOL.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:29:21 PM
My point is that while there is a debate about constitutional powers involved, the idea of upholding the constitution is probably not the best way to go about arguing against torture. (That's what it looked like you were doing.) Why bring the constitution into it at all if you don't have to? It's illegal, any way you cut it.

actually, no:  here how come up:

I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

nobody ever swear uphold geneva conventions.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:30:41 PM
bl825, you seem to have such a balanced temperament.

Combine that with the large sunglasses & the purse...I'm like, seriously, your biggest fan.

spoken like man who suddenly realize he need friend.

I'm sorry Julie, I can't hear you over the fireworks that are going off above the ferris wheel that I'm riding with bl825.

how very french and chinese of you.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 05:35:58 PM
My point is that while there is a debate about constitutional powers involved, the idea of upholding the constitution is probably not the best way to go about arguing against torture. (That's what it looked like you were doing.) Why bring the constitution into it at all if you don't have to? It's illegal, any way you cut it.

actually, no:  here how come up:

I dont see whats so bad about it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

nobody ever swear uphold geneva conventions.

Okay, okay, maybe I just misread the thing, okay?  :D

I still wouldn't have gone straight to the Constitution though.  :P
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 22, 2009, 05:50:36 PM
clearly, you wouldn't.  and julie didn't either.

now put tongue back in.  on ferris wheel, it get dried out.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 22, 2009, 07:20:52 PM
clearly, you wouldn't.  and julie didn't either.

now put tongue back in.  on ferris wheel, it get dried out.

Actually, I think you did.

Whatever, it's just splitting hairs.  :P
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 22, 2009, 08:01:41 PM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want.  torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

There is a constitutional separation of powers. If a president violates a law that congress has validly passed, and his action is not permissible under his war powers or some other inherent power, then that is unconstitutional. Folks may disagree about whether that's what happened here, but it is a constitutional argument.

I recognize that I am like ten pages behind and should probably not leap in, but I can't help it  :D
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 22, 2009, 08:04:19 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

I think you misunderstand me, but that's fine.  I'm just saying that the best justification for making torture illegal, under domestic or international law, is that it is contrary to our beliefs about the way people should treat each other.  If it prevents our enemies from torturing captured Americans, that's great.  But even if it doesn't, there's reason enough to make it illegal.

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that.  :)

Grumble. Again. See what I just posted.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 22, 2009, 08:06:40 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

And if you think that every statute raises an issue of upholding the Constitution, well you go on and think that. :)

julie never say "every," although would if specigic context checking presidential power, especially in military matters.

and you clearly have no familiarity with those torture memos, which are entirely about presidential power bypass statutes under constitution.

I'd be careful about making assumptions.  ;)

I agree that the proper scope of congressional and presidential powers is a constitutional issue, but the way you're discussing it doesn't seem quite right: it's a constitutional issue because there are statutes forbidding torture?  That's not right.  It would have made more sense if you said it was a constitutional issue because it violated such and such clause or amendment (I was thinking the Eighth).

Again, there is a constitutional separation of powers. Branches of government are limited, and when they overstep the powers they have been granted by the constitution, that is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 22, 2009, 08:11:00 PM
My point is that while there is a debate about constitutional powers involved, the idea of upholding the constitution is probably not the best way to go about arguing against torture.  (That's what it looked like you were doing.)  Why bring the constitution into it at all if you don't have to?  It's illegal, any way you cut it.

Because those are the highest law of the land, and the crux of the arguments that the memos are making is about what constitutional powers are. The whole point is that if the president has overstepped his powers, either by violating international law, legitimate statutes passed by congress, or just otherwise acted in some way that he is not permitted to act by the constitution, that is a constitutional problem. Now, the memos (more or less - full disclosure, I haven't read them all) argue that he is allowed to violate these laws because of his inherent war powers and other inherent Presidential powers. If that is a winning argument, if his inherent presidential powers are so strong that he is allowed to trump U.S. statutes and international law, then it doesn't matter whether there are other laws prohibiting torture or not. It all comes back to the constitution, and how much power the President really has. That's why this is fundamentally a constitutional argument.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 22, 2009, 08:12:22 PM
clearly, you wouldn't.  and julie didn't either.

now put tongue back in.  on ferris wheel, it get dried out.

Actually, I think you did.

Whatever, it's just splitting hairs.  :P

Disagree  :P
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on April 22, 2009, 08:37:25 PM
100 replies in one day?  WTF?  Is this TLS?  ::)

I incited.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 22, 2009, 09:06:48 PM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

Only applies to uniformed combatants, which terrorists aren't. We could give them a summary execution as soon as we captured them as we wanted to
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on April 22, 2009, 09:59:52 PM
...these torturers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...and if they don't confess and come clean...we can torture them into confessing and then we can put them on trial and then put them to death...

...and then we can shoot them...

...yes...this will all be very productive...


...meanwhile in other parts of the world...torture is part of everyday life.


...so let us all stay on our moral high horse...


ps. there have been developed more expeditious ways these days to interrogate prisoners to get information...and it doesn't involve torture...very effective, too...cia now employs these methods... :)


Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 05:03:51 AM
100 replies in one day?  WTF?  Is this TLS?  ::)

Apparently part of the problem is that I'm having difficulty communicating exactly what I am trying to say.  :(

I should probably work on that.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 05:13:22 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify.  I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved.  All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure.  Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know.  :)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:18:21 AM
Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

Not exactly a constitutional argument there...

There is a constitutional separation of powers. If a president violates a law that congress has validly passed, and his action is not permissible under his war powers or some other inherent power, then that is unconstitutional. Folks may disagree about whether that's what happened here, but it is a constitutional argument.

I recognize that I am like ten pages behind and should probably not leap in, but I can't help it :D

you did fine.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:20:03 AM
100 replies in one day? WTF? Is this TLS? ::)

it older, and better,lsd.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:23:00 AM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

Only applies to uniformed combatants, which terrorists aren't. We could give them a summary execution as soon as we captured them as we wanted to

here go again, from other direction.  julie only mentioned geneva conventions because want cite example of international law ban torture.  american law also forbid it, period.

and you going have prove summary execution thing.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:24:38 AM
...these torturers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...and if they don't confess and come clean...we can torture them into confessing and then we can put them on trial and then put them to death...

...and then we can shoot them...

...yes...this will all be very productive...


...meanwhile in other parts of the world...torture is part of everyday life.


...so let us all stay on our moral high horse...


ps. there have been developed more expeditious ways these days to interrogate prisoners to get information...and it doesn't involve torture...very effective, too...cia now employs these methods... :)




why, julie totally shocked find you take troglodyte position, as usual.

apparently this one those gump defense positions obama supposedly perpetuating.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:30:24 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

it not your writing that at fault, but your reading:  early on, discussion veered off into what laws in place enforce ban on torture, and leverage over members military mentioned.  so, julie bring up oath required of them (as well as president).  then you apparently believe this center of discussion, and so forth.

relax.  julie absolutely agree torture morally reprehensible.  for those who believe otherwise, that their option--but, thankfully, our laws limit their options inflict torture.  of course, it appear our laws broken and so julie glad see so much support here for enforcing those laws.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 05:32:39 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

it not your writing that at fault, but your reading:  early on, discussion veered off into what laws in place enforce ban on torture, and leverage over members military mentioned.  so, julie bring up oath required of them (as well as president).  then you apparently believe this center of discussion, and so forth.

relax.  julie absolutely agree torture morally reprehensible.  for those who believe otherwise, that their option--but, thankfully, our laws limit their options inflict torture.  of course, it appear our laws broken and so julie glad see so much support here for enforcing those laws.

You don't exactly make the reading part easy you know.  :P

But like I said before, I don't think we disagree.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:33:41 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

even to define this issue this narrowly, julie disagree.  provisions of constitution limiting preznit's powers just as important as bill of rights.  constiotutional violation constitutional violation.  and torture generally  more serious because it also crime, which violations you mention are not.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:40:53 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

it not your writing that at fault, but your reading: early on, discussion veered off into what laws in place enforce ban on torture, and leverage over members military mentioned. so, julie bring up oath required of them (as well as president). then you apparently believe this center of discussion, and so forth.

relax. julie absolutely agree torture morally reprehensible. for those who believe otherwise, that their option--but, thankfully, our laws limit their options inflict torture. of course, it appear our laws broken and so julie glad see so much support here for enforcing those laws.

You don't exactly make the reading part easy you know. :P

But like I said before, I don't think we disagree.

not mock handicapped.

julie admit certain sensitivity this point because former (ah, that lovely word!) preznit gump pretend there no limits his authority, and this country need get back to realization this patently untrue regardless however many specious legal opinions produced.

even obama fudge this somewhat in recent discussion of prosecutions:  it not his decision.  decisions about prosecution those of attorney general, and it always understood ag must make these decisions independently and without political motive.  so, those in cia who tortured prisoners may be off hook, but properly so only if "following orders" operate as defense.  however, this not available protect gump administration high-ups, who ones issued orders.  job of ag prosecute those violate law.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 05:42:17 AM
To be fair, the line that I'm drawing might be arbitrary.  I just think that if Congress has the power to forbid X but could also allow X, then it's more of a statutory than a constitutional issue, because otherwise it would be a constitutional issue every time Congress passed a law.

And I'm not clear on why executive violation of a law that makes something a crime is more of a constitutional issue than executive violation of any other law.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 05:44:29 AM
Okay, I'll try one more time to clarify. I don't disagree at all that there's a constitutional issue involved. All I was trying to say was that I expected, when I heard the discussion going into upholding the constitution, to hear something like this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such clause or amendment of the constitution."

rather than this:

"Torture is unconstitutional because it violates such and such statute, which congress has authority to pass under the constitution."

I mean yes the second is right, but it's not quite the same as something being unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or because it is an illegal search and seizure. Eh, maybe I was just thrown off by things not going the way I expected, I don't know. :)

it not your writing that at fault, but your reading: early on, discussion veered off into what laws in place enforce ban on torture, and leverage over members military mentioned. so, julie bring up oath required of them (as well as president). then you apparently believe this center of discussion, and so forth.

relax. julie absolutely agree torture morally reprehensible. for those who believe otherwise, that their option--but, thankfully, our laws limit their options inflict torture. of course, it appear our laws broken and so julie glad see so much support here for enforcing those laws.

You don't exactly make the reading part easy you know. :P

But like I said before, I don't think we disagree.

not mock handicapped.

julie admit certain sensitivity this point because former (ah, that lovely word!) preznit gump pretend there no limits his authority, and this country need get back to realization this patently untrue regardless however many specious legal opinions produced.

even obama fudge this somewhat in recent discussion of prosecutions:  it not his decision.  decisions about prosecution those of attorney general, and it always understood ag must make these decisions independently and without political motive.  so, those in cia who tortured prisoners may be off hook, but properly so only if "following orders" operate as defense.  however, this not available protect gump administration high-ups, who ones issued orders.  job of ag prosecute those violate law.

I don't see anyone doing any mocking.  :P

But that's a fair point in terms of why we might want to emphasize the constitutional aspect of the issue.  I wouldn't want to bring it up if it wasn't already on the table though, because it would open the door to exactly the same kind of arguments that were used to justify the last administration's actions.  But I guess the door's already open and all.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 05:48:37 AM
To be fair, the line that I'm drawing might be arbitrary. I just think that if Congress has the power to forbid X but could also allow X, then it's more of a statutory than a constitutional issue, because otherwise it would be a constitutional issue every time Congress passed a law.

And I'm not clear on why executive violation of a law that makes something a crime is more of a constitutional issue than executive violation of any other law.

when congress enact statute and executive claim not bound by it, that inherently constitutional issue.  if president obey statute, then no problem unless statute itself unconstitutional.  is no statute at all, then any challenge to executive action presumably inherently on constitutional grounds.

constitutional issues apparently much more common you think.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 06:04:03 AM
I don't see anyone doing any mocking. :P

julie have brain cloud.  show some sensitivity.


But that's a fair point in terms of why we might want to emphasize the constitutional aspect of the issue. I wouldn't want to bring it up if it wasn't already on the table though, because it would open the door to exactly the same kind of arguments that were used to justify the last administration's actions. But I guess the door's already open and all.

it open because asshats like tricky male private part nixon and gump (even "honest" abe) knock it down.  someone who morally oppose torture simply won't do it.  laws are for those who need other constraints.  happily, our new president has made clear he is closing door.  (now if he'd only do same on wiretapping.)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 06:10:12 AM
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

And sensitivity isn't one of my strong suits, I'm afraid.  :P
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 06:20:44 AM
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 06:23:13 AM
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right?  It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that.  Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

And I can't believe you left out Truman.  :P
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 09:30:55 AM
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly. constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again: laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right? It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that. Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

well, ok:  if preznit gump not try push limits by torturing, not necessary discuss what limits--sort of.  but actually, discussion must be had in any case so that preznits know what limits they supposedly avoiding.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 09:32:11 AM

And I can't believe you left out Truman. :P

truman not notable for pushing limits presidential power, with arguable exception seizure of steel mills.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 09:34:04 AM

And I can't believe you left out Truman. :P

truman not notable for pushing limits presidential power, with arguable exception seizure of steel mills.

Yeah but that's where half our conversations about this stuff start.

But fair enough.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 09:42:42 AM
what, with truman?  how unimaginative.  and he only get precedent that limit presidential power.

of course, preznit actually have care about what limits are.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 09:45:23 AM
what, with truman?  how unimaginative.  and he only get precedent that limit presidential power.

of course, preznit actually have care about what limits are.

No, with Steel Seizure.

And if he doesn't care, somebody should be able to do something about it.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 10:08:33 AM
they can, but you should know it involve discussing constitution.  can handle that?

as to gump, democrats afraid impeach, so they wait until next election.  and gop wrecked and getting worse.  hooray!

Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 10:15:08 AM
You'd be surprised.

I'm not sure why I'm catching so much flak about saying don't go constitutional at first.  Narrowest possible grounds and all that, no?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 10:39:36 AM
two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 10:40:26 AM
two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go.  :D
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 23, 2009, 10:53:49 AM
So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right?  It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that.  Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

And I can't believe you left out Truman.  :P

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the President/Executive branch were not involved, no. If there were just some rogue CIA agents torturing without permission from above, then this would be a different situation. And... it would also be different if Texas tried to secede? I mean, you can come up with different scenarios, but in this scenario, it has to be about the Constitution.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: goaliechica on April 23, 2009, 10:54:41 AM
two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?


It not being a constitutional issue, or it not being the "best" argument to bring up the constitution.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
two reasons: you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go. :D

no one ever say "go constitutional at first."  julie just say "prosecute torturers."  discussion go from there, as they will.

now you let go first.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
two reasons: you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go. :D

no one ever say "go constitutional at first."  julie just say "prosecute torturers."  discussion go from there, as they will.

now you let go first.

Okay, if you're saying that I'm wrong about the way I read your posts, I'm ready to concede that.

This is me slowly letting go.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 11:42:01 AM
trick is not look down.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 23, 2009, 11:47:35 AM
I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

Only applies to uniformed combatants, which terrorists aren't. We could give them a summary execution as soon as we captured them as we wanted to

here go again, from other direction.  julie only mentioned geneva conventions because want cite example of international law ban torture.  american law also forbid it, period.

and you going have prove summary execution thing..

In WW2 we captured a bunch of german soldiers in american uniforms, who were promptly executed.
 We also captured a handful of German soldiers in civilian clothing who were once again, promptly executed


Quote
International Law, including the relevant Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, continues to recognize the fundamental distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Only the former are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war when captured, and even then are subject to prosecution by the capturing party for violations of the laws of war. Unlawful combatants, on the other hand, are entitled to no such protections.

So how does international law define the two different categories? Lawful combatants, entitled to prisoner of war status, can be either members of the regular armed forces of a party to the conflict or members of other militias or volunteer corps they meet certain conditions that were initially adopted in Article I of the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention, namely, that they are 1) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2) have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3) carry arms openly; and 4) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Clearly the Al Queda network does not meet these conditions. Osama Bin Laden may be commanding his subordinates, but he is certainly not taking responsibility to ensure that they do not violate international law and the laws of war. Its members do not have a fixed distinctive emblem. They do not carry their arms openly--unless one considers hidden box cutters and tennis-shoe bombs as "open" arms. And most fundamentally, they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war, particular the rule prohibiting deliberate attacks on civilian populations such as occurred in New York, without warning, on September 11. Individuals who join such an unlawful force, therefore, are not entitled to prisoner of war status even if individually they did not violate the laws of war. Rather, they are to be treated as unlawful combatants, essentially members of an international criminal conspiracy of terrorists, and can be prosecuted as such before a military tribunal. Indeed, the old rule in international law, which has not been fully abrogated, was that such individuals could even be subjected to summary execution. A 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Convention provides that unlawful combatants be afforded certain procedural rights that were not previously required by international law, but the United States is not a signatory to that Protocol.

Considering that we never signed that protocol, we are not bound by its rules. The parts of the GC that we have ratified make a clear distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants, which terrors certainly fall into the later category. They are afforded no rights as POWs, and technically, we can pretty much do with them as we please



http://www.claremont.org/projects/pageid.1829/default.asp (http://www.claremont.org/projects/pageid.1829/default.asp)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 23, 2009, 12:35:57 PM
And the whole "Americans do not torture" relates to the Geneva Convention how? Just because we signed parts of it does not mean it is the sole source of law on this subject, nor does it mean we are ONLY limited by it.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 23, 2009, 12:42:09 PM
We're foolish to think we don't torture. But then again, I'm pretty sure every nation ever has as well, so its kind of a moot point
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 23, 2009, 12:58:55 PM
but does that make us foolish to expect us to TRY to avoid torture? Just because we expect that it happens (like any crime) doesn't mean we should let people get away with it.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 23, 2009, 01:09:49 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Jamie Stringer on April 23, 2009, 01:15:16 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 23, 2009, 01:33:58 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 01:52:59 PM
We're foolish to think we don't torture. But then again, I'm pretty sure every nation ever has as well, so its kind of a moot point

which, of course, why gump administration officials always claimed not torture.  lying, as well as public reaction olc memos, suggest it not moot point.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 01:56:46 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information. So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture? Just for shits and giggles? Retribution? Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

not you hear?  republicans can look at prisoner and tell if guilty:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/republican-strategist-say_n_190141.html

Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 23, 2009, 01:57:31 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time

Unfortunately, torture does work 1000 times out of 1000 at getting information. If 999 times out of 1000 that information is false and sends investigators down the wrong trail, is it still worth it to you?

Not to mention that the interrogators will tell you themselves that there are other better methods. the real problem is the lack of well trained interrogators.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623 (http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623)
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 01:58:22 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information. So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture? Just for shits and giggles? Retribution? Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time

how supposed tell one time from other 999?

this tortured logic indeed.  julie glad grown-ups now in charge.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: sheltron5000 on April 23, 2009, 02:04:59 PM
It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information. So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture? Just for shits and giggles? Retribution? Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time

how supposed tell one time from other 999?

this tortured logic indeed.  julie glad grown-ups now in charge.

me too!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: dashrashi on April 23, 2009, 04:33:53 PM
Every time I look at this thread title I see "Torture Prosecutors!" 

I guess that's just me seeing what I want to see.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: bl825 on April 23, 2009, 04:36:47 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,4019389.0.html
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 23, 2009, 04:59:50 PM
hah!
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 24, 2009, 07:49:41 AM
lol internet (http://pol.moveon.org/torture/)

and you laughing because...
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 24, 2009, 08:30:27 AM
clearly you understand little about politics.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on April 30, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
     For anyone want know applicable laws:  http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2009/04/quick-review-of-torture-law.html
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on April 30, 2009, 10:59:42 PM
...oh? do people believe that the us military/cia tortured khalid sheikh mohammed?

woops...

and if you think that "waterboarding" was the worst he experienced to offer up information...k.s.m. was captured in pakistan in march 2003 and finally was brought to cuba in september 2003...so? all you newbies should let your imaginations out for a walk...

then perhaps you should look up the definition of naive.

aye'm going with bam' on this one...

recognize...and move on...


like some other questionable things our nation has done...like dropping atomic bombs on japan.


the example of k.s.m. as a "victim" of torture was no accident...if he is the posterboy...then "waterboarding" is going to be one big "woops"...face reality, folks...

there are some great methods to garner information from subjects that use psychological techniques which are far more effective and craftier than bodily harm...


Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 01, 2009, 06:42:56 AM
julie sure you have tried all torture techniques on your pets.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 01, 2009, 07:02:30 PM
...nah...but aye do enjoy opaquely torturing u, mistah bunker...


um...so how is this going to be prosecuted again? and how much time will be spent on it?

really?...no...um...really?



julie sure you have tried all torture techniques on your pets.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 01, 2009, 09:47:06 PM
...hey bigot boy...let bluewarrior know when want understand why folk not get prosecuted. ;D


...here hint...it start with k.s.m.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 02, 2009, 05:36:03 AM
...nah...but aye do enjoy opaquely torturing u, mistah bunker...


um...so how is this going to be prosecuted again? and how much time will be spent on it?

really?...no...um...really?



julie sure you have tried all torture techniques on your pets.

julie predict you escape prosecution, although lady at pet store now afraid of you.

gump and oh-so-male private part cheney different story.  war crimes are war crimes.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 02, 2009, 05:37:16 AM
...hey bigot boy...let bluewarrior know when want understand why folk not get prosecuted. ;D


...here hint...it start with k.s.m.

here hint:  shower curtain go on inside.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 02, 2009, 12:01:31 PM
...hey bigot boy...let bluewarrior know when want understand why folk not get prosecuted. ;D


...here hint...it start with k.s.m.

here hint:  shower curtain go on inside.

why u have water on brain then if think so knowledgeable?

you don't know who k.s.m is do you?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 02, 2009, 12:19:51 PM
yes, but julie not playing your game, dipshit.

now back away that sow.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 03, 2009, 09:17:57 PM
this not going to be prosecuted the way u would like...because k.s.m was valuable...

"w" smarter than u think.

u not know k.s.m is?

why so preoccupied farm animals? eh, bigotboy?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 04, 2009, 10:47:49 AM
gump war criminal.  how smart that?

and back away that ewe.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 04, 2009, 09:45:07 PM
k.s.m. is reason no war criminals to be prosecuted...

again with barnyard fetishes of yours?  what? u and mrs. split? :D :D
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 05, 2009, 05:24:59 AM
nonsense.

and leave that heifer alone.
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 05, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
 :D :D :D...prosecute torturers... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

my, oh my, oh my...why u such a bumbleclot?...aye read today that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D...what a big laugh aye had...particularly...now...th inking about the title of your thread... :D :D :D :D

k.s.m is reason...and good luck with subject of thread...it ain't gonna happen.

do what you wish with the barnyard animals...why u so preoccupied with them?
Title: Re: prosecute torturers!
Post by: Julie Fern on May 06, 2009, 06:29:13 AM
torture war crime.  with some people, that count for something.

doj report written by gump's people and leaked only now.  leakers leak so gumpers like you suggest it all over.

it now working.

and take your hands off that goat.