As If The Rest Of The World Didn't Already Hate Us Enough

[RayNAustin]

It's inhumane treatment, and by definition, un-American behavior, plain and simple, with no room for debate about reasons or definitions or justifications.

You, sir, are clearly ignorant of American history. Without comment on my opinion right or wrong, and like it or not, American History is riddled with the use of torture. As one example, ask the Maori. Ask the Comanche. Ask Kunte Kinte. Not hard at all to find examples.

Un-American behavior? You must ignore history in order to say that. You can call torture many things. Un-American behavior is, unfortunately, not one of them.


BTW... flying 3 airliners into office buildings is not only inhumane, but inhuman. Should I go on?

Yes please do go on, and tell us all how wonderful torture is. But remember the old saying 'better to remain silent and let others think you are ignorant, rather than opening your mouth and proving it".

But to correct you Sir, (and as Irn-Bru pointed out to you...thank you Irn-Bru !) I was referring to American values as defined by that Constitution we were talking about, and of the ideals that most decent human beings embrace. I said nothing remotely close to suggesting that the historical actions of the US Government have been demonstrative of those values. I'm the last person you'll ever hear suggesting that. If you would spend a little more time comprehending and a little less time being insulting, that obvious point might not have required clarification.

Of American history, I'm fairly educated, including the current history now being made. And the only difference I see now, as opposed to those historical examples you referred to is that today's blood sucking cretins in Washington DC have dispensed with much of the pretense they used to observe in the past. And mindsets like yours have no doubt contributed to their hubris.

Yes, I'm all too familiar with the history of our government, but are you? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to call certain things fairy tales, as you did in another thread.

Are you familiar with the Gulf on Tonkin incident? The false story of a US Navy ship supposedly attacked by the N. Vietnamese that LBJ used to justify a full blown war? How about the USS Liberty (another LBJ operation) The US Navy ship attacked for hours by Israel that was to be blamed on Egypt as a pretext for US involvement in the Arab-Israeli war in 1967? Only problem was they were unable to sink the ship. It and many crew survived to tell the story in spite of the fact that LBJ ordered the return of fighters from a nearby Aircraft carrier responding to Liberty's mayday. That's right, pure unadulterated treason. How about the Nothwoods plans developed by the Pentagon, approved by the Joint Chiefs of staff and presented to JFK for approval that outlined covert CIA actions to sink a US Navy ship....to down a US commercial airliner....to engage in terrorist style activities in US cities to be blamed on Castro as pretext for a Cuban invasion? Is this the history that you think I'm not aware of? Well, you're wrong.

As for the three planes crashed into buildings....I couldn't agree more...both inhumane and inhuman if there is a difference. But you shouldn't have brought that up.

Of course, that 911 thing was performed by 19 ragtag A-rabs, which were able to defeat the most sophisticated air defense system in the world for over an hour and a half, perform flying maneuvers of military precision, and pull off the perfect 7-10 split by knocking down three buildings with only two planes, all the while changing the laws of physics (the law of conservation of momentum) by bringing down those buildings at virtual free fall speed. I won't give you a physics lesson here, but the quick and dirty on the law of momentum conservation would preclude the possibility that the WTC buildings could have "pancaked" at free fall speed due to the fact that each floor would have to first "absorb" the momentum of the floor crashing down on top (otherwise pictured as resistance) before giving way and crashing down into the next floor and so on. In effect, without some means to remove that resistance (explosives), the building would have taken anywhere from 30 to 100 seconds to reach the bottom, and not the 10-11 seconds that we witnessed.

Of course, that is not the only law of physics violated that day. The melting point of steal was also drastically changed, if only for an instant, and thank goodness for that. Otherwise, all of our fine automobiles would be rendered useless when the engines melted on the way to work tomorrow, as would all of the jet engines on the thousands of planes taking off tomorrow.

And don't bother quoting "Popular Mechanics" debunking 911 conspiracy theories to me...I'm familiar with all of that too, including the fact that the author of that peice of propaganda was none other than Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. How utterly coincidental.

Please forgive the rant. I don't generally engage in politics here, as I save that for other discusion boards, but these issues deserve everyone's attention.

Now I understand that many cannot conceive of government involvement in 911. Many can believe, and must believe (because it has been admitted) that we were lied into the Vietnam war in which 56,000+ Americans died. We were lied into the Iraq war in which 4000+ Americans have died, with no end in sight...certainly no official plans for an end, yet those that understand that still cannot believe that the same government could kill 3000 civilians? I got news for you....many of those 56000 killed in Vietnam were civilians until they were kidnapped at gunpoint and sent to their death in Southeast Asia. And unless many of you wake up, that same thing could happen again very soon....with the age groups of 18-42 in the next military draft. Farsi anyone?

So these things might be of particular interest to many of you on this board....I would venture a guess that the majority here fall within that 18-42 demographic?

Better wake up fellas. All of the draft boards have been reconsituted and are fully manned right now, as we speak. Rep. Rangal, among others have authored legislation for a new military draft: H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007 Ref. Undated January 2008.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-393

Who was it that thought the Democrats were going to end the war? They're just waiting for the next big terror attack by Al-CIA-DA to blame it on that psychopath in Iran, and many here are going to be trading in those jammies for cammies.

Said to say it. But it's going to be too late to protest after the letter hits your mailbox.

No running off to Canada....Canada has an agreement in place now...and no College deferments other than Military Academy (Read: Highly connected and priviledged rich politician's referals).

Still want to insult me and cry fairy tale? Hmm?

Don't worry...you just might get a chance to torture somebody.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That's an opinion. Another one is that cowardice is doing nothing while good people die because that's easier then thinking and making hard decisions. Let people die and then pat ourselves on the back for our "morality" which ended up being the easy choice. Our enemies see us weak and our friends as naive.

So it's naive, weak, and the easy way out not to torture POWs? Or were you getting at something else. . .

- First of all you commit the logical fallacy called "begging the question" by assuming as fact that water boarding for information is "torture," your own position, and using it as fact in your argument when I've repeatedly argued it isn't. The poll pretty well showed you being the outlier in your view, at least on this board, not me.

- Second, you ignored my point that "cowardice to doing nothing while good people die" and just asked if I'm saying it's the easy way out to not torture. Since you ignored my point, there's nothing to respond to.

- Third, you applauded an idiotic post with this little gem, "If congress passed a law legalizing child molestation....would that make such an act acceptable and legal?" So, waterboarding adults, who put themselves in positions of at a minimum closely associating with terrorists, to SAVE LIVES is equivalent to child molestation. Your post applauding that is not something I expect from you.

And finally, I am just asking, I keep repeating a better solution to the whole problem which involves our changing our policies to not be there in the first place. I criticize both parties as equally guilty in having done so. While you haven't disputed that, to me that would seem like the most libertarian point in the discussion and you haven't really supported it either directly. You do rail against Iraq, I mean as an overall change in policy. Like I said, I'm not implying anything, I'm asking, but don't you think that's a better approach then just arguing that once we are in places we shouldn't be if we should water board any prisoners we believe MAY be able to save lives?

[Irn-Bru]

- First of all you commit the logical fallacy called "begging the question" by assuming as fact that water boarding for information is "torture," your own position, and using it as fact in your argument when I've repeatedly argued it isn't. The poll pretty well showed you being the outlier in your view, at least on this board, not me.

Okay, but that's a different conversation. In fact, I don't remember having a conversation about whether or not waterboarding is torture. . .although you are right in saying that my position is that it is torture and that it's wrong. What's the thread that you had in mind here?

- Second, you ignored my point that "cowardice to doing nothing while good people die" and just asked if I'm saying it's the easy way out to not torture. Since you ignored my point, there's nothing to respond to.

Well, I was responding to what I thought was a false dichotomy: either we waterboard people for information or we let good people die.

I agree with you that this conversation hinges on what constitutes torture.

- Third, you applauded an idiotic post with this little gem, "If congress passed a law legalizing child molestation....would that make such an act acceptable and legal?" So, waterboarding adults, who put themselves in positions of at a minimum closely associating with terrorists, to SAVE LIVES is equivalent to child molestation. Your post applauding that is not something I expect from you.

RayNAustin's post was heroic, not idiotic.

He used child molestation as an analogy, and using torture is analogous to molestation insofar as it's wrong. The hyperbole in saying "What if congress legalized molestation. . ." shows the absurdity in debating whether torture, if legalized, would be OK. (If for example, it was used to save lives.)

Would you admit that RayNAustin is correct here if we, say, replaced 'waterboarding' with 'mutilating with sharp instruments'--I assume that you then wouldn't find the analogy inappropriate?

And finally, I am just asking, I keep repeating a better solution to the whole problem which involves our changing our policies to not be there in the first place. I criticize both parties as equally guilty in having done so. While you haven't disputed that, to me that would seem like the most libertarian point in the discussion and you haven't really supported it either directly. You do rail against Iraq, I mean as an overall change in policy. Like I said, I'm not implying anything, I'm asking, but don't you think that's a better approach then just arguing that once we are in places we shouldn't be if we should water board any prisoners we believe MAY be able to save lives?

I'm not 100% sure I understood what you're asking--can you rephrase this?

[Countertrey]

Austin:

I'm the last person you'll ever hear suggesting that. If you would spend a little more time comprehending and a little less time being insulting, that obvious point might not have required clarification.

Unfortunately, I know exactly what you wrote. If that is not what you intended, then, perhaps, you need to actually write what you meant. What you wrote is clear, and unambiguous. My response stands. History demonstrates that torture is NOT, unfortunately, "un-American". The Constitution does not address it, despite your efforts.

But remember the old saying 'better to remain silent and let others think you are ignorant, rather than opening your mouth and proving it".

Yes! And, yet, you continue to speak!

FFA asks:

Why is that relevant? Is the point that we can respond in kind?

The point is, when we can pre-empt, we must act. If that means using additional persuasion with a known terrorist who is highly likely to possess actionable information, we should consider doing that. You, and others, continue to see this as if there is some wish to collect criminal evidence. It is not. I do not care if this information contributes to a conviction or not. It is an attempt to save innocent lives. Sorry if that process is messy, but that is the terrorists doing... not ours. If they wish to be left alone, all that is required is that they not try to kill us.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well, I was responding to what I thought was a false dichotomy: either we waterboard people for information or we let good people die.

Another one is that cowardice is doing nothing while good people die because that's easier then thinking and making hard decisions.

I'm not sure how you got out of my quote that not water boarding for information is immoral. In fact that would seem to me to be the same sort of blanket rule I would oppose in my statement against banning water boarding. What I advocated were "thinking and making hard decisions." To apply blanket rules is intellectually lazy. There are difficult situations. How many lives could be saved? How did we capture the prisoner? What is the intelligence based on? How certain are we?

I see nothing moral about broadly water boarding prisoners for "information" to see what we could get, and I see nothing moral about when we capture a real bad guy who we have excellent reason could save lives in letting people die because we don't want to get our hands dirty. And that we pound our chest and declare ourselves moral for having ducked a hard question and potentially letting potentially dozens or scores of Iraqis and Americans die with their children becoming fatherless or motherless or orphans, spouses become widows/widowers.

The only reason I bring up morality is that it keeps getting thrown in my face (not by you, but in reference to what we are discussing) and I am saying I think it's NOT moral to let the deaths, orphans, widows, etc. occur in exchange for non-permanently damaging techniques based on cop out rules that avoid the difficulty of thinking and making hard choices.

RayNAustin's post was heroic, not idiotic.

He used child molestation as an analogy, and using torture is analogous to molestation insofar as it's wrong. The hyperbole in saying "What if congress legalized molestation. . ." shows the absurdity in debating whether torture, if legalized, would be OK. (If for example, it was used to save lives.)

We are discussing a terrorist war zone which is only a war zone because terrorists are using terror to destabilize a government. They are not getting rid of us, they are keeping us there. In the US we have a myriad of other ways to investigate criminals and they are under systems and laws in the US under our control. In Iraq there is little law and a weak government. We have the terrorist. To be effective, hyperbole needs to have a basis of comparison that is being advocated. In this case there is none. There is no "No Man's Land" in this country terrorists are destabilizing our government and killing our people with little law enforcement protection.

Then to compare the interrogation of prisoners there to the victimization of children here is just the height of idiotic comparisons in an idiotic post. The choice of child molestation was clearly to be inflammatory and not persuasive. It is the height of non-persuasiveness for that reason. It's a cluster for those who agree with him and an eye-roll for those who don't.

Would you admit that RayNAustin is correct here if we, say, replaced 'waterboarding' with 'mutilating with sharp instruments'--I assume that you then wouldn't find the analogy inappropriate?

I would then oppose it, I voted to allow water boarding for information but to go no further. I wouldn't see the relevance of comparing it to it being legal in the US, but no, I wouldn't have the same reaction. But no, I would however still find the comparison of whatever is done to the guilty in Iraq against innocent children in the US to be highly offensive and stupid.

Ramble

I'm not 100% sure I understood what you're asking--can you rephrase this?

I'm not sure what I was asking either. If it comes to me I'll get back to you.

[RayNAustin]

Austin:

Unfortunately, I know exactly what you wrote. If that is not what you intended, then, perhaps, you need to actually write what you meant. What you wrote is clear, and unambiguous. My response stands. History demonstrates that torture is NOT, unfortunately, "un-American". The Constitution does not address it, despite your efforts.

You're the only one who misrepresented what I said. Point to one statement of mine that remotely suggests that claim. You can't. I don't feel that way, and have never even insinuated such a thing. So don't tell me what I think or what I said...others understood, you are the only one confused. And what is this business about "unfortunately"? You support torture, unfortunately.

And the constitution most certainly does address it, in many many ways, and in many areas. It does not need to incorporate the exact term "torture" to refer to acts which would reasonably fall within the category of torture, or for which the act of torture itself would violate other well defined principles or commit acts which are deemed unlawful by the constitution such as: imprisonment without due process.....unreasonable search and seizure....being secure in possessions, effects and person....cruel and unusual punishment.....certain rights to be deemed inalienable and God given, etc. All of these statements and protections imply a basic framework adhering to a set of values that an act of torture would therefore violate if done, fundamentally speaking. And it also provides a foundation that can be considered American Values, whether or not the criminals in charge choose to disregard those values or not. To adhere to them would therefore be American, and to act against them would be un-American. The frequency and the history of these values being disregarded does not in any way shape or form change those fundamental values. It is only an example of duplicity on the part of those who claim to be an American but choose not to behave like one.

Now you can argue semantics if you like, but what you are saying and supporting is quite clear, and shameless. Webster defines torture as anguish of body or mind.

You may claim that water boarding isn't torture, but the world at large disagrees with you, as does international law, as does common sense and common decency. The act itself is to simulate drowning....DEATH, for the purpose of extracting information from the victim of it. Extreme fear of losing one's life, not to mention the obvious discomfort of being prevented from breathing is absolutely torture, by any reasonable definition. There are many different forms of torture that include the types that inflict great physical pain, but are not limited to just inflicting physical pain alone. Psychological pain can often be far more damaging, and long lasting, and even more painful for the victim of it. Case in point...parents forced to witness the rape, abuse or torture (perhaps water boarding) of their children in order to get them to talk....such has been alleged to have occurred in Iraq by the US interrogators.

Not only that, but White House legal council openly stated that the President had the legal authority to order torture, including the crushing of a child's testicals in front of his parents to gain information. You can't make that kinda crap up. And this is what you support! And one can only wonder if this admission was done purposely to establish the legality of an act that had already been engaged in to protect Bush's cowardly arse.

The point is, when we can pre-empt, we must act. If that means using additional persuasion with a known terrorist who is highly likely to possess actionable information, we should consider doing that. You, and others, continue to see this as if there is some wish to collect criminal evidence. It is not. I do not care if this information contributes to a conviction or not. It is an attempt to save innocent lives. Sorry if that process is messy, but that is the terrorists doing... not ours. If they wish to be left alone, all that is required is that they not try to kill us.

There. That says it all. But before I finalize my thoughts on this admission of support for torture...and you do, by your own admissions and words, do exactly that...... why the subterfuge and mental gymnastics about what does or does not constitute torture? Just say "I, Countertrey, support the use of torture". Period. Then we can move on to the subject of your lack of morality instead...as if there could be any question of that at this point.

But let me remind you of a couple of relevant facts you fail to include ....1) Iraq had nothing to do with 911 as clearly admitted even by the purveyors of the official fairy tale of Osama Gonna Getcha....2) As admitted by one of the Generals in charge of the prison camps in Iraq, as well as other US military personnel...the detainees were by and large common citizens that had no involvement in any crimes....but simply scooped up off the street in mass arrests 3) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter....meaning we are the ones over there invading their country, bombing their cities, killing their citizens, imprisoning them, torturing them for information they don't have and could never provide. Or is that just really not an important distinction in your mind? How dare they defend themselves huh? How dare they refuse to submit, and allow themselves and their country to be destroyed without protest?

If the Iraqis or Iranians or Chinese or Russians invaded America...bombed our cities, killed our fellow Americans, friends, family members, raped our women, imprisoned our young men and tortured them....I would take up arms and try to kill every last one of them til the day they got me...I don't know about you...well, yes...I think I do now...I suspect, like all chicken hawks, you'd start learning their language, and wearing their uniform, and participate with them against your own people just to save your own cowardly rear end, unless you were too frightened, and remained balled up in the fetal position soiling yourself.

You are one deluded, sick puppy, unredeemable in my mind. You are everything I rail against, and fall neatly into the same category as many of the sick individuals committing these dastardly acts. in that all of them share one common element with you...a complete absence of the most basic level of human compassion and empathy.

You have my deepest disdain and disrespect....no longer do I pity you, I find your mindset disgusting.

And I'm done.

[Countertrey]

You support torture, unfortunately.

This, apparently, is true. Otherwise, I would not encourage your repeated, manifestos.

I suspect, like all chicken hawks, you'd start learning their language, and wearing their uniform, and participate with them against your own people just to save your own cowardly rear end, unless you were too frightened, and remained balled up in the fetal position soiling yourself.

A chickenhawk! LOL!

You are one deluded, sick puppy, unredeemable in my mind. You are everything I rail against, and fall neatly into the same category as many of the sick individuals committing these dastardly acts. in that all of them share one common element with you...a complete absence of the most basic level of human compassion and empathy.

You have my deepest disdain and disrespect....no longer do I pity you, I find your mindset disgusting.

And I'm done.

My life is complete!

[GSPODS]

Torture and Punishment are two different entities. Punishment, as defined in the Constitution, is limited to the United States Penal Code. There is no definiton of, nor application of torture in the United States Penal Code.
The Constitution only applies to Domestic affairs. The Constitution does not apply to matters of international law nor to non-citizens of the United States.

To simplify, the Constitution has Zero relevance to foreigners on foreign soil, and Zero relevance to foreigners on U.S. soil.

[Irn-Bru]

The point is, when we can pre-empt, we must act. If that means using additional persuasion with a known terrorist who is highly likely to possess actionable information, we should consider doing that. You, and others, continue to see this as if there is some wish to collect criminal evidence. It is not. I do not care if this information contributes to a conviction or not. It is an attempt to save innocent lives. Sorry if that process is messy, but that is the terrorists doing... not ours. If they wish to be left alone, all that is required is that they not try to kill us.

I've not talked about it in the context of getting information for convictions. My opposition to waterboarding is on the principle that it's torture.

But suppose that we pick something that isn't debated as much as waterboarding--like my example above of mutilation with sharp objects. If military officials said that they used sharp-object mutilation as a last-resort enhanced interrogation technique in order to save American lives, would you object to it?

[Countertrey]

The point is, when we can pre-empt, we must act. If that means using additional persuasion with a known terrorist who is highly likely to possess actionable information, we should consider doing that. You, and others, continue to see this as if there is some wish to collect criminal evidence. It is not. I do not care if this information contributes to a conviction or not. It is an attempt to save innocent lives. Sorry if that process is messy, but that is the terrorists doing... not ours. If they wish to be left alone, all that is required is that they not try to kill us.

I've not talked about it in the context of getting information for convictions. My opposition to waterboarding is on the principle that it's torture.

But suppose that we pick something that isn't debated as much as waterboarding--like my example above of mutilation with sharp objects. If military officials said that they used sharp-object mutilation as a last-resort enhanced interrogation technique in order to save American lives, would you object to it?

Yes, I would object. Unless you know something I do not, that is not in use as a technique, so your point is lost on me.

However, (disapointing though this may be to the "heroic" Ray), my main concern, as repeated MANY times in several threads, is that I DO NOT WANT THE ENEMY TO KNOW WHAT OUR INTEROGATORS WILL OR WILL NOT DO. I do not want sleep deprivation, loud music, exposure to cold, extended maintenance of positions, or any of that to be eliminated as potential tools... and there are plenty of weak spleened individuals who would do that... and YOU know that to be true.

The left will demand that the intelligence people get answers, but would (as with the Church commission) castrate and hobble them to the point of uselessness, then impune them when they fail. They don't want solutions... they want someone to blame.

[Irn-Bru]

Yes, I would object. Unless you know something I do not, that is not in use as a technique, so your point is lost on me.

My only point is to establish that we're on the same page when it comes to torture: even if it's allegedly used for noble ends, it's wrong and out-of-bounds.

However, (disapointing though this may be to the "heroic" Ray), my main concern, as repeated MANY times in several threads, is that I DO NOT WANT THE ENEMY TO KNOW WHAT OUR INTEROGATORS WILL OR WILL NOT DO. I do not want sleep deprivation, loud music, exposure to cold, extended maintenance of positions, or any of that to be eliminated as potential tools... and there are plenty of weak spleened individuals who would do that... and YOU know that to be true.

Sure, but there are real questions as to whether the U.S. has allowed torture as a part of interrogations, or would do so in the future.

Heck, at one of the Republican presidential primaries debates, several of the candidates implied that torture would be OK in the context of an emergency. This isn't a remote point at all.

The left will demand that the intelligence people get answers, but would (as with the Church commission) castrate and hobble them to the point of uselessness, then impune them when they fail. They don't want solutions... they want someone to blame.

. . .and I don't want conversations about torture to get caught up in this kind of stuff. Frankly, I'm not so much interested in getting them to turn the music down or turn the heater up as I am getting out of the foreign policy that we've advocated.

And I agree with you that the motivations of many in grilling current officials is political and not with an aim toward upholding principle.

[Countertrey]

I understand. Unfortunately, FFA, much of how one feels about this revolves around one's definition of torture, now, doesn't it?.

[RayNAustin]

Torture and Punishment are two different entities. Punishment, as defined in the Constitution, is limited to the United States Penal Code. There is no definiton of, nor application of torture in the United States Penal Code.
The Constitution only applies to Domestic affairs. The Constitution does not apply to matters of international law nor to non-citizens of the United States.

No, this statement is absolutely and positively inaccurate and untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, though totally irrelevant to the point being made with regard to American values as one might view them based on the constitution. The point being that the very essence of the constitution (aside from establishing the construct of our government) focuses heavily on maintaining the rights and protections of the people, by limiting the powers of government over domestic affairs to avoid an oppressive tyranny by the central government. Whereas torture would be the extreme opposite position, exemplifying tyranny as a legal tool for use by the government, which would be diametrically apposed to the very spirit of the constitution and it's provisions.

And just to point out specifically how your statement is inaccurate, the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law. All treaties entered into by the United States become US Law, period. By definition, treaties are agreements with foreign nations and such agreements being Law cover conduct both domestically and on foreign soil and include those persons or things regardless of their geographic location, or nationality.

Furthermore, most of the powers granted government pertain to the conduct of foreign commerce and treaty, and very little with regard to domestic affairs which are specific and very limited, with the majority reserved for the states and the people.

That was the reason why the double talkers in DC began using the terms "Enemy Combatent" and "Detainee" to skirt around the Geneva Convention rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war. Of course it is a transparent ploy being used by the US administration, and everybody knows that. It is also an admission that those Geneva Convention rules which are also US Law are being broken everyday.

Of course, anyone with a pulse knows that. And also understands why the US refused to be signatory on the international court. To do so would have placed way too many high level officials in jeopardy of indictment for well documented and provable war crimes.

[Countertrey]

No, this statement is absolutely and positively inaccurate and untrue.

[GSPODS]

And just to point out specifically how your statement is inaccurate, the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law. All treaties entered into by the United States become US Law, period. By definition, treaties are agreements with foreign nations and such agreements being Law cover conduct both domestically and on foreign soil and include those persons or things regardless of their geographic location, or nationality.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The Constitution only grants the President the power to make treaties with two-thirds approval of the Senate. The enumerated power ends there. The next enumerated power relates to ambassadors, ministers, consuls and Judges. The next clause allows for appointments which shall be established by law.

Where did you supposedly find "the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law" in the above, which is a direct quote of the Constitution?

Post the exact enumerated power from the Constitution that states that treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law.

[RayNAustin]

I understand. Unfortunately, FFA, much of how one feels about this revolves around one's definition of torture, now, doesn't it?.

I know you weren't addressing me, but let me say this to you...

You just identified the fundamental problem...though you weren't trying to.

This is not about one's definition of torture, but of how that definition might be expanded or more likely narrowed.

You see, tyrants are always looking for ways and means to expand the laws which apply to you and me...thereby making it virtually impossible for us to be in complete compliance with those ever expanding laws. At that point, the laws can be selectively enforced or not, at their discretion as a means of total control. You offer undying obedience, and pay whatever is demanded of you, and you aren't harassed so much. Failure to comply however will be met with swift enforcement of all of those laws. Total tyranny is the only outcome that can be expected.

Conversely, the tyrants are always looking for ways to narrow the laws which pertain to their conduct, thereby giving them cart blanch to do as they please. And once they gain a power...however limited to start, they will never relinquish it and will always expand it far beyond it's originally defined scope.

I said this before, but I'll say it again....today's "justification" for the use of torture might be to gain information from someone they have proof of being a source of critical information. Tomorrow that justification might be relaxed to include those suspected of having knowledge of desirable information, but next month or next year, that justification might be that you are acquainted with someone who knows someone else who might have information that could be useful to someone at some point in the future.

The error was committed when you agreed to rationalize and justify an irrational and unjustifiable act of torture in the first place. Not because someone abused a power entrusted to them, but because all powers ultimately are abused. By nature, it is certain that those who most actively seek such power do so in order to use it. And they will always abuse it, be it to satisfy their desire for money, power, or sadistic pleasure. And don't for a second discount the idea that many of the most powerful aren't also the most sadistic.

Now I never use this argument against torture because the moral argument is the only meaningful argument needed. But intelligence gathering experts in majority agree that torture is an unreliable means to collect information. First, you don't know if the target has information, and two you don't know what that information is. People who are tortured will eventually make up any story just to get the torture to stop. Such information has no value. Those that might have information can do the same thing...make up a story to deceive. So it's really not an effective tool. But people who are engaged in the business of torture do so because they enjoy it...not because it works. The information is secondary to the sadistic pleasure they receive in inflicting torture. They enjoy it. They are pure evil, as is the act itself. That is the best reason, and the best argument against it.

You can have your possessions taken away...your liberty too....even your life can be taken. But no one can take from you your humanity, and your integrity. These things are yours, and you can only lose them by giving them away. Embracing such evil as torture is litterally giving away your humanity...your very eternal soul.

Maybe you are a good guy, but you'd never convince me of that based on your support and attempts to justify torture. Because good guys don't do that. Remember that. We live in a twisted world today. Not long ago it was the bank robbers and other bad guys that wore black ski masks. Today, the police wear the black ski masks. You need not ask why...the answer is self evident

Not long ago, the Taser was introduced as a non lethal alternative to a service weapon, to be used only in police situations that would otherwise require the use of deadly force. But it didn't take long for it to be abused, and now, the abuse is off the charts. It's now being used as pain compliance, and a tool of retribution, and in some cases for no other reason than to teach a young person a lesson in the proper etiquette of how to bow down to the almighty authority of a bully cop.

Go on youtube and search taser and watch the countless videos of cops nationwide using their tasers on children, the elderly, and anyone who isn't able to get their driver license out of their wallet fast enough for the angry cop having a bad day. And you can bet that for every video of it available there are countless other incidents that were never recorded. And rarely is the cop punished...more often than not, the police defend the cop's actions if for no other reason than to defend against a lawsuit. And that is a bloody taser. BTW, 100's of deaths suggest this non lethal weapon is in fact very lethal.

But we are talking about torture here. And it cannot be tolerated...under any circumstances can it be justified. The very moment you do...the clock starts ticking for when that power WIL BE ABUSED.

Just like the taser was developed to be used on big tough combative bad guys, it's now being used on 9 year olds and little old ladies.

Today's torture scenario is discussed in terms of the "enemy" and that we must do it to save lives. Nonsense. These criminals in DC are proven liars, many of them psychopaths devoid of the ability to experience empathy. That's why they can bomb a city to rubble, and never lose a wink of sleep over the countless innocent lives lost.

Their answer to this is similar to yours....hey, sometimes war is messy.

My answer is most of the time war is unnecessary, and the death of innocents during the conduct of an unnecessary war is murder, pure and simple. Torture for whatever reason will always be evil. It is performed by the evil, and it is promoted by the evil.

[Countertrey]

Did you say something?

[RayNAustin]

And just to point out specifically how your statement is inaccurate, the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law. All treaties entered into by the United States become US Law, period. By definition, treaties are agreements with foreign nations and such agreements being Law cover conduct both domestically and on foreign soil and include those persons or things regardless of their geographic location, or nationality.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The Constitution only grants the President the power to make treaties with two-thirds approval of the Senate. The enumerated power ends there. The next enumerated power relates to ambassadors, ministers, consuls and Judges. The next clause allows for appointments which shall be established by law.

Where did you supposedly find "the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law" in the above, which is a direct quote of the Constitution?

Post the exact enumerated power from the Constitution that states that treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law.

I don't care for your tone...and I don't take orders from you Mr. "Post this exact thing" so you've put me in this rather menacing response mood that I try to avoid, but sometimes it's fun too.

But to answer you...I didn't find it in your above referenced Article II because it ain't there, and brilliant of you to notice....and they say you are slow....I'll correct them next time they say such a thing. I got your back.

You were warm though....all you needed to do is read a bit more. But you should read the whole book if you're going to write a book report or otherwise act as an authority on the subject.

I'm only going to post this, this one time. In the future, if you are more polite, (as in please show me the reference) I'll oblige. Otherwise no more free education for YOU! You'll just have to do your own research and legwork all by yourself.

Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now say you're sorry!

[RayNAustin]

No, this statement is absolutely and positively inaccurate and untrue.

Yes that's the safest place for you...on the sideline eating popcorn.

[RayNAustin]

And as GSPODS frantically combs the internet, hoping there is an updated version of the constitution or any technicality to extricate himself from the jam he got himself into......please....just one lousy spelling error.......

rats.

[RayNAustin]

Very quiet. I hear the chomping of popcorn, with General Smokescreen adjusting his bud light label to ensure it is dead center and straight on his forehead, as any self respecting officer would do.

Lookin gooood General. Oooh haa!

[GSPODS]

Where did you supposedly find "the US Constitution does recognize international treaty ratified by congress to be US Law" in the above, which is a direct quote of the Constitution?

Post the exact enumerated power from the Constitution that states that treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law.

Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [/quote]

Excellent. All I asked for was proof you had any idea what you were talking about. There is no need to become defensive when someone askes for proof of a post that you state as fact.

Bear in mind that I am not the only person reading your post. And while I do happen to know every clause of the Constitution as a matter of my education and employment, not every member wants to research your points for you. Without posting the Proof to back the Statement, most people reach the analysis that you're simply a ranting conspiracy theorist.

If your intentions are to be taken seriously, and to receive honest and intelligent responses to your posts, and I assume they are, I would suggest less Statement, more Proof, and concise Analysis. Most members simply don't have time to read a novella during the workday, much less to respond intelligently to numerous, random points contained within a single post.

It also hurts your cause to make off-hand commentary about anyone who does or has served in our military. Every male member of my family dating back to the Civil War has proudly served in the armed forces. You could be the most intelligent poster on the message board. Nobody cares if you are when your posts become negatively directed towards military personnel. We may disagree on whether or not we should be in the Middle East. We may argue and debate the reasons why we are there. We may argue and debate whether or not there should be immediate withdrawal, scale-down, etc..

What no one debates is that We The People of the United States Of America care about our men and women in the armed forces. And every side of the fence treats the People who are serving, or have served, with the dignity and respect of which they are deserving. Ask any soldier who served in VietNam if that was always the case. We continue to argue the Policy. Only your posts have the unmitigated gaull to argue with the People.

Don't bother to directly respond to this post.
Whether or not it meant anything to you will be clearly, convicingly, and perhaps painfully evident upon your next post.

[Irn-Bru]

I understand. Unfortunately, FFA, much of how one feels about this revolves around one's definition of torture, now, doesn't it?.

It does, O Socrates.

[GSPODS]

I understand. Unfortunately, FFA, much of how one feels about this revolves around one's definition of torture, now, doesn't it?.

It does, O Socrates.

Stop posting link information that directly condradicts and refutes the usual "E=F because I said so and it proves my point" posts. Most of us can look ignorant enough without your help.

In all seriousness, great link.

Concrete proof that the ability to read and write is over-rated as a measure of intellect.

[Countertrey]

I understand. Unfortunately, FFA, much of how one feels about this revolves around one's definition of torture, now, doesn't it?.

It does, O Socrates.

OUTSTANDING!