prosecute torturers!

[bl825]

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...

[Julie Fern]

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.

[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.

alert media.

Ohh, Julie! You are incorrigible!

not try sweet-talk julie.

[Julie Fern]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[sheltron5000]

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...

[Scentless Apprentice]

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.

[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.

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.

[bl825]

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?