prosecute torturers!

[Julie Fern]

I'm being semi-inciting.

I really was!

and it fine work you do.

[Scentless Apprentice]

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.

[Julie Fern]

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.

[bl825]

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.  

[bl825]

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.

[Julie Fern]

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?

[Scentless Apprentice]

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..

[sheltron5000]

pure vanilla, white as the driven snow.

[Julie Fern]

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.

[Julie Fern]

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.