RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ?

RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 12:32:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, actually your posts are rife with spelling errors as your logic is rife with illogic, and this is all a very pretty bunch of jingoes......... Cute.....wrong but cute. As for the rest of your statement. [8\|] Not even worth my time. And your "lennon quote".....well, I've never been one to worry about counting cowards out.

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 5:30:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Please explain your reasoning exactly why your simply providing another example of torture is supposed to legitimize the unlawful violent felonies committed against prisoners in US custody. I'm having trouble understanding your promotion of unlawful acts and the commission of violent felonies. It's really quite elementary, Mr. Watson. Water boarding, though incredibly scary and unpleasant, does not kill and it doesn't leave lasting physical damage. Decapitating someone on youtube does all of those. How does the lack of death, or permanent PHYSICAL damage legitimize the unlawful violent felonies committed against prisoners in US custody by US Officers, Agents, and Employees? ( keep in mind that torture committed WITHIN the US is a State Crime covered under your State Law, but here's the Federal Anti-Torture Statute defining MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING as torture under 18 USC 2340. THE LAW states: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and You have completely failed to support your claim. Why do you hate America so much to be so contemptuous of her Laws?

DomKen -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 7:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Well, attending history class in school taught me one thing. Evil is determined by they who write the history books. Personally, I'd like students 100 years or so from now to read something like "Though regretable, the US went to extreme measures to protect itself in extreme times, and succeded." I'd rather they didn't read something like "After many more cities fell to terrosit attacks, the US wasn't able to cope and began to crumble." (Written in another language of course.) Nice try. These aren't extreme times. 1941 to 1945 was an extreme time but we chose to not torture prisoners. 1861 to 1865 was an extreme time and we chose not to torture. And we haven't suceeded. Torture did not produce information on the Bali, Madrid or London bombings, to name just the most prominent islamic extremist terrorist actions since 9/11. Torture in Iraq did not lead to Saddam Hussein or to al-Zarqawi or to the prevention of a single attack. Toture does not produce useful intelligence. This is well known and very thoroughly studied. Why our government decided to start using it will be used as evidence that we are no better than those we oppose forever just as slavery, japanese detainment camps and the use of the a bomb are now.

farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 7:50:30 AM)
quote: 1861 to 1865 was an extreme time and we chose not to torture. At that time, the very existence of the Republic was in the balance.

luckydog1 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 11:46:28 AM)
Though in WW2 and after we (the Allied Command) turned Nazi leaders and SS folks over to the Brits for torture. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1533464.htm "Citing Foreign Office files that were opened after a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the newspaper says Britain had held men and woman at a prison in Bad Nenndorf until July 1947. Locals at the time said you could hear prisoners scream at night. The Foreign Office files detailed an investigation carried out by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward, who found evidence of torture and said at least two inmates had starved to death while another had been beaten to death. "Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the 'living skeletons' on their release," the newspaper said. " The POW camps of the Civil War were death camps (on both sides) of sqaulor and abuse.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 12:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How does the lack of death, or permanent PHYSICAL damage legitimize the unlawful violent felonies committed against prisoners in US custody by US Officers, Agents, and Employees? Simple. Since they aren't wantonly killing the prisoners, I'm willing to give them a pass.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 12:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Nice try. These aren't extreme times. 1941 to 1945 was an extreme time but we chose to not torture prisoners. 1861 to 1865 was an extreme time and we chose not to torture. And we haven't suceeded. Torture did not produce information on the Bali, Madrid or London bombings, to name just the most prominent islamic extremist terrorist actions since 9/11. Torture in Iraq did not lead to Saddam Hussein or to al-Zarqawi or to the prevention of a single attack. Toture does not produce useful intelligence. This is well known and very thoroughly studied. Why our government decided to start using it will be used as evidence that we are no better than those we oppose forever just as slavery, japanese detainment camps and the use of the a bomb are now. No torture in the 40's? Apparently you aren't Japanese American. I'm sure they didn't like being rounded up and put in "concentration camps." If you say "torture" doesn't produce useful results, how would YOU find out the information we need? Tea and crumpets?

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 12:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 No torture in the 40's? Apparently you aren't Japanese American. I'm sure they didn't like being rounded up and put in "concentration camps." If you say "torture" doesn't produce useful results, how would YOU find out the information we need? Tea and crumpets? Americans of Asian heritage were put in concentration camps, sadly, not tortured. Your first posit does not link the very separate ideas in any logical way. Regarding the useful intelligence, yes; by god; it comes from the 'tea and crumpet' crowd, actually. Further, regarding the best way of extracting the most useful information you can from low level players, you get what you can; figure out who is the private in the chain of command, line them all up and blow his head off, and go up and eat your powdered eggs while S-2, S-3, and them CID whatever fuckers get the shit the others know. Ron

DomKen -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 2:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Though in WW2 and after we (the Allied Command) turned Nazi leaders and SS folks over to the Brits for torture. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1533464.htm "Citing Foreign Office files that were opened after a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the newspaper says Britain had held men and woman at a prison in Bad Nenndorf until July 1947. Locals at the time said you could hear prisoners scream at night. The Foreign Office files detailed an investigation carried out by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward, who found evidence of torture and said at least two inmates had starved to death while another had been beaten to death. "Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the 'living skeletons' on their release," the newspaper said. " The POW camps of the Civil War were death camps (on both sides) of sqaulor and abuse. I do so love the fact that you think I don't actually follow the links and read the articles. It's sort of funny that you are absolutely unable to learn from past experience. From the article you quote: quote: The newspaper says the then Prime Minister Clement Attlee had been briefed about the camp and was told guards were instructed "to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the object of ... making them more amenable to interrogation". Three men were court-martialled following the report. Two were acquitted and another found guilty of neglect of inmates and dismissed from the service. So its pretty clear that neither the American nor British governments intended those detained be tortured. onto smith quote: If you say "torture" doesn't produce useful results, how would YOU find out the information we need? Tea and crumpets? Infiltration, electronic and physical surveillance and aggressive measures to shut down the flow of currency to the terrorists. The methods that actually work. BTW I don't say that torture doesn't work the facts prove torture doesn't work.

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 2:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Infiltration, electronic and physical surveillance and aggressive measures to shut down the flow of currency to the terrorists. The methods that actually work. And that worked sooooo well on 9/11 didn't it?

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 2:25:11 PM)
It would have, had we done any of it, as a matter of fact. As I said, before; jingoes, trying to get to the I know everything onliners, but they are falling flat on their face, no facts here from you. Ron

Smith117 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 2:54:32 PM)
Wow, speaking of lack of facts. Since you "know" what was and wasn't done previously, and what did and didn't work, can I have tonight's lotto numbers, Miss Cleo?

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:01:33 PM)
Perhaps you could learn to read the many newpaper, magazine, and book accounts, failing that, check out some websites, or failing even that, there have to be newscasts archived on the web somewheres. Regarding your pitiful retort, seems to me that you were the one misspelling the word so, and that is what started this little side excursion, so by your conviction, you are in possession of the facts contrary to my statement, why not give us just one of them? You have been on the thread long enough, telling Ken, myself and others about what it was, what it ought to be, and all that sort of shit, and never once marshalling one fact or supporting pov. Ron

ModeratorEleven -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:05:44 PM)
Ok kids, settle down please. XI

DomKen -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:10:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Infiltration, electronic and physical surveillance and aggressive measures to shut down the flow of currency to the terrorists. The methods that actually work. And that worked sooooo well on 9/11 didn't it? Did you read the 9/11 commission report? The report is pretty clear that the US government had the intelligence and evidence necessary to stop the attacks. The intelligence simply wasn't analyzed in a timely fashion and pieces that should have been connected weren't. One pretty serious example. A known terrorist is arrested after he attended flight school where he showed no interest in take offs or landings. He wasn't talking but those facts are in hand. Why not get in touch with every other flight school in the country that teaches jetliner flying and see if they have/had any unusual students? Which would have led to the other pilots without which the whole plan falls apart. Other examples include the failure to prevent money from OBL's fortune from being transferred into this country in sizable amounts, hundreds of thousands if memory serves. No money would have meant no flight school, no cross country airline tickets, and no way to live while doing the recon and setup for the attacks. At the very least those transfers should have been detected after the fact and those who received those funds tracked down. The intelligence community in the US failed to put the pieces together but that doesn't indicate we should start torturing people so we can chase after lies. BTW why didn't torture reveal the Madrid bombings plot or any of the other post 9/11 attacks??

mnottertail -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:19:14 PM)
I would rather ask that question forward than backward, Ken. Show me something somewhere that says you know, we had that fucker in custody for 5 fucking years, feeding him tea and crumpets, and by god, we strapped his ass to a chunk of marine plywood with some duct tape, hooked it behind the old cigarette boat that we got from George Sr, and trolled that shitweasel around Guantanemo Bay for a couple hours and that goddamn hummus eater told us all kind of true shit, we checked it out and it was right. So, the question, what useful, strategic intelligence have we gleaned from our torturing prisoners, in fact? Ron

Shawn1066 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: azropedntied If a person or person's come to the USA in a non legal manner do they get the same constitutional rights as a US citizen ? Do they have constitutional rights? No, not in any real sense of the phrase. They're not citizens. There are still international things that the US goes along with, though. They are also still bound by are laws. They also, in my view, shouldn't be given constitutional rights. They should, of course, still be protected by various international laws. DV's Fox

popeye1250 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 3:39:01 PM)
"Would it be torture if it were you" Ted Kennedy "Would it be torture if it were Mary Jo Kopechne?" Popeye Hey guys, you know there's a lot of Sadists in here. You're probably not going to get very far with that "torturing" argument. Especially if it's al qeada that's being tortured. If it's al qeada that's being tortured I want to see it on ABC Sports!

DomKen -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 5:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shawn1066 quote: ORIGINAL: azropedntied If a person or person's come to the USA in a non legal manner do they get the same constitutional rights as a US citizen ? Do they have constitutional rights? No, not in any real sense of the phrase. They're not citizens. There are still international things that the US goes along with, though. They are also still bound by are laws. They also, in my view, shouldn't be given constitutional rights. They should, of course, still be protected by various international laws. DV's Fox Luckily for all of us your views have no weight of law. Any human being, no matter how they got here, is fully and completely protected by the laws of the US including the Constitution.

popeye1250 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/12/2008 5:08:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Shawn1066 quote: ORIGINAL: azropedntied If a person or person's come to the USA in a non legal manner do they get the same constitutional rights as a US citizen ? Do they have constitutional rights? No, not in any real sense of the phrase. They're not citizens. There are still international things that the US goes along with, though. They are also still bound by are laws. They also, in my view, shouldn't be given constitutional rights. They should, of course, still be protected by various international laws. DV's Fox Luckily for all of us your views have no weight of law. Any human being, no matter how they got here, is fully and completely protected by the laws of the US including the Constitution. LOL, DomKen, there you go again! So they can vote, work, and own firearms? Hey! Here's an idea, let's have DomKen buy them all condos,...oh, and Cadillacs too! "Hey! All you billion.2 Chinese, come on over and vote in our next election!"

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125