quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1

So it's okay to murder indiscriminantly, but it's not okay to torture someone to get information that might save millions of lives?

Where in the hell is the logic in this?

Nope, as stated, nobody will disagree with it, it is useful politic.

Please be so kind as to enumerate the indiscriminant murder (and who it was performed by) and the discriminate torture (and who it was performed by) and how that logicic is appliant here, vis a vis; eye-for-eye or any other generally understood principle.  

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I can't have this conversation. I think your brain is separated from reality.

My apologies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I just don't live in fear like that. It's no way to live your life nor is it a sound basis for policy decisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

As far as the International Criminal Court...that has problems...the United States (as well as Israel and most of the mid-east) are not members. The US Senate in fact voted unanimously NO to the Rome treaty several years ago on fears the ICC would try to overrule the US Supreme Court in future cases. So there is a jurisdiction problem here.
Another problem is the US has immunity. And the reason why is because the United States threatened to withdrawl troops from Kosovo and pull military support out of NATO. The Europeans didnt want that to happen so they agreed to make the US immune from the court.

This is the letter that the United States sent to the ICC back in 2001:
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."
 
Other big nations such as Russia and China also refuse to be part of the court. So it's backed by Europe, Africa, and 3rd world country. So it doesnt have much power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I just don't live in fear like that. It's no way to live your life nor is it a sound basis for policy decisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

Down with torture. Let's give all of the suspects rooms at the marriot. So what if they might have critical intel we need? What's a few more American cities lost? Might help us with our population problem, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

Down with torture. Let's give all of the suspects rooms at the marriot. So what if they might have critical intel we need? What's a few more American cities lost? Might help us with our population problem, right?

Go read the Constitution. It explicitly specifies all the legitimately delegated authority the US Government has.

And you will NOT see "Torturing Prisoners". In fact, the explicit protection of Due Process and Equal Protection is clear evidence the Government is acting in an extra-judicial manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1

are you french?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, amend the constitution FIRST, and then do it.

OR, go sit in jail for 20 years for torturing a prisoner in your custody. That's what really gets me... The TORTURERS haven't surrendered themselves to authority for their crimes.

Some "Honor", eh? Fucking pussies is more like it....

quote:

You never cease in making me laugh, if only by your absurdity. "Amend the consitution first" you say in one statement....."ohhhh look how they're eroding our beloved constitution" you cry in another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

You never cease in making me laugh, if only by your absurdity. "Amend the consitution first" you say in one statement....."ohhhh look how they're eroding our beloved constitution" you cry in another.

What's absurd about it? On one hand I'm decrying those who CHOOSE to violate the Law and their oaths, and on the other I'm admitting that it's *possible* for the Torturers to get legal authority, that there's a well defined process, and that they must either follow that process, OR go to prison for their CHOICE to not follow that process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Oh, I get it. You're making up both the preliminary conditions ( that they Torturers are successful at amending the constitution ) and my reaction to the hypothetical event.

You can set the hypothetical conditions of the scenario just fine, but you failed miserably in predicting my response.