RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees"

RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (Full Version)

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

Message

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 11:29:43 PM)
(138) Lockedaway.... The argument is not that mistreating citizens of another country within our control is illegal. It's that it is wrong. As hard as it is to visualize, laws are just a way to formulate clear cut standards for morals.(1) Likewise: The GC matters not a bit.(2) It's the concept of fair treatment that engendered those provisions within the GC that counts. (1) This is increasingly difficult when one considers that "laws" are the domains of politicians and lawyers. As well as the fact that they cause people to argue law in the stead of morality. "Well, oral sex is illegal in michigan, so it's ok to evict this single mother and her children from her housing. She's admitted to having perpetrated said crime in the past, and it's legal to evict tenants that have broken crimes within their place of residence" This argument still presents no moral validity for evicting said single mother. Although she theoretically would have more experience in oral sex... providing an argument for letting her stay. Not something you want to be sanctioning, in my opinion. Think of your fellow man! (2) Even if it did... it specifically includes ALL individuals, in precluding them from torture, and not just those of the signature countries("Protected Individuals"). Just because it adds more semantics with respect to protected individuals means not a thing. Any physical suffering is still not permissible to individuals from non-signature countries under control of a signature country. This point is important- it's something people often overlook.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:26:15 AM)
Koja, sheesh, you really twisted things around there. If what you say is true then where is the incentive for any other country to become a signatory to the Geneva Conventions? They're using a "carrot and stick" approach in order to get more countries to join the G.C. why would the (already) member countries put themselves at a distinct disadvantage and also give "benefits" to any country that hasn't joined? The way you explained it I have to wear boxing gloves but my opponent can use a lead pipe! If they did that why would any country want to join? Say if we go to war with country "X" who's not a member of the G.C. Under your scenario we would have to treat their prisoners with kid gloves and they could do anything they wanted with our prisoners? That's ludicrous! A non signatory country can torture our people but we have to be "nice" to theirs? Then there would be no incentive for the U.S. to remain in the G.C. We win, we lose. We lose, we lose. And no matter if a country is "in" the G.C. or "not in" the G.C. if you're not in uniform you get shot as a spy. I don't think that there is any government currently that disagrees with that. As for "All Individuals" try going to Somalia or any of the Arab countries and telling them that. You might get lucky and take in a beheading while you're there.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:31:09 AM)
quote: I imagine the inmates of Gitmo qualify as "any person within its jurisdiction." Anywhere you see the Flag of the United States flying is U.S. Jurisdiction. That's why SHIPS AT SEA declare their home country by flying their flag. If Gitmo's got a US Flag flying, then they're covered.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:34:10 AM)
quote: what statute or code do you cite to for your assertion that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( On the UDHR ) quote: * "For people of good will around the world, that document is more than just words: It's a global testament of humanity, a standard by which any humble person on Earth can stand in judgment of any government on Earth." Ronald Reagan (March 1989, US Department of State Bulletin) You going to argue with Ronald Reagan?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:38:08 AM)
quote: So you are asserting that the 14th amendment applies to France and Sudan? You Hamiltonians persist in this erroneous belief that the Federal Constitution does more than just tell the Feds what they CAN do. Since it doesn't say that the U.S. CAN TORTURE PEOPLE, and/or generally deprive them of Due Process/Equal Protection, then the United States CANNOT DO THAT. Saying that, simply because it states that Prohibition by the Declaration of Independence counts for the individual states as well, does NOT IN ANY WAY confer the ability to do that which is prohibited. The Federal Government cannot give itself ANY authority.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:40:22 AM)
What is GOOD and RIGHT ( or to some "Moral" ) are higher standards than "Lawful". Perhaps people need to set their goals higher than "No Unlawful Activity Occurred", since Natural ( or G-d's ) Law is superior to the U.S. Code.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:42:16 AM)
quote: What exactly does giving the detainees full rights mean. "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS, among these LIFE, *LIBERTY*, and the Purfuit of Happineff"

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:57:55 AM)
"By the same token, however, I don't believe that water boarding is torture." So it's ok for it to be done to your Dad, Mom, Wife, Sons and Daughters?

Masterdogie -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:59:25 AM)
Every form of government has some idiots. Ours seems to have an abundance of them at all levels. If a group of people are not going to follow the rules and want to destroy our form of government especially on religious grounds then they should be DESTROYED. Any method used to locate the spies (religious fanatics) and incarcerate them is justified no matter whose rules you use. Soon we will all be praying to Alla and have at least 7 wives if we don't stand up for our values, but hey maybe 7 wives wouldn't be so bad [;)]

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:03:17 AM)
quote: It interrogators say that torture is ineffective Knowing that you consider the opinion of an interrogator to be more important than the Declaration of Independence and Constitution really helps me understand where you're coming from. If you construct a procedure to torture people for a GOOD reason, people will find a reason to use it for ANY reason. And let's broadly agree that "Torture" is pretty much anything you would not allow your child to do without their informed consent. If it makes you edgy to consider your child held without charge, counsel, proper conditions, 23 hours of solitary with the lights ALWAYS ON, etc, than that's what we're discussing. "Human Rights"

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:04:44 AM)
quote: We are still waiting for your response to post number 101. I find this referral to posts by numbers tiresome. If you're too lazy to repeat the question, it wasn't worth asking.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masterdogie Every form of government has some idiots. Ours seems to have an abundance of them at all levels. If a group of people are not going to follow the rules and want to destroy our form of government especially on religious grounds then they should be DESTROYED. Are you talking about the Bush Administration putting inexperienced unqualified, recent graduates of Pat Robertsons "Fourth Tier" Law School into critical positions where they make U.S. policy decisions based on their Fundamentalist Christian beliefs, rather than their duty under the Constitution and Law, such as ex-DOJ staffer Monica Goodling?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:11:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Koja Ho hum... Not to get annoyed on a topic I am decidedly not interested in at the moment. I've been without a T.V. without a year or more. Priorities. BUT... there's a major logical fallacy on claiming that rights do not apply to suspected terrorists. Saying that the convention does not apply to a TERRORIST, possibly. But that's kind of the idea behind a fair trial; you can't do anything you like to anyone you suspect of committing a crime. ... Agreed! Either they are INALIENABLE or they ARE NOT RIGHTS, they are privileges.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:15:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Nice dance, Koja, but you didn't say anything. Please address the issues. Does the 14th Amendment apply to detainees suspected of Terrorism? yes or no? That's sloppy thinking. Since the 14th Amendment applies to the FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, of course they do not "apply" to any Individual Person. Did you mean to ask, "Is the prohibition of an Act in an Amendment to the Constitution binding upon the Republic?" And since the Republic is SUBORDINATE to The States ( otherwise, how could The States CREATE the Republic??? ) then the answer would be "OF COURSE!"

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:19:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Koja No, Subjective, possibly, yes Morals are more important than legality. It is useless to debate legality if said legal basis violates the foundation upon which that law was created. Both the constitution and the Geneva convention are reliant on the ideal of equality between individuals as well as the idea of common decency even "under fire". To justify the foregoing of these ideals by use of said "laws" is a bit obscene. A bit of a pervert in most respects, and proud of most of my perversions, but a hard limit for me. You write so well.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:24:46 AM)
quote: Dammit, isn't that funny?????? Sin...the terrorists are not bound by the Geneva Convention. hahahahahah But they aren't protected by it either!!! You are way funnier than South Park. Do you understand how important the Declaration of Independence is, and how your discussion of Geneva is pointless and irrelevant considering these actions are abhorrent to the principles of "All Men are created equal" ... "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" ... "Life, Liberty, and the Purfuit of Happineff" ensconced in that Declaration? And that the UCHR is just an EXTENSION of those principles? Which is why the Commies and Saudis were pretty much the only people who didn't go along with the UCHR. Think of the UCHR as the "Cliff Notes" for the Declaration ( for those idiots who can't understand the Declaration itself... ) ( Damned Commies... )

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway sigh but how do you allow them to confront witnesses against them without compromising everything? This goes back to rights that you have as a citizen versus how things are conducted when you are a terrorist suspect. Surely, koja, you must see the danger is what you are arguing for. How do the Feds protect Confidential Informants testifying in Mob/RICO cases? This ain't brain surgery, it's ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROCESS.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway The United States protects its citizens. It conveys rights to its citizens. Again, Sinergy, those rights are your birth rights. We don't have Birth-Rights here. We have INALIENABLE RIGHTS granted by OUR CREATOR. Go look it up. It's called the "Declaration of Independence".

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:02:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, I don't want those sleezeballs given any rights under OUR Constitution. There is the fallacy of your and lockedaway's argument. How do we know whether or not they are citizens without giving them their day in court, access to an attorney, facing their accusers, etc? The US Constitution was set up to protect all US citizens from a government gone amok. The current administration seems to spend all it's time convincing people like the two of you (with quite a bit of success apparently) that we should trust them to know what they are doing. This is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution Of The United States were worried about; ignorance and fear being used against the citizens of the United States by a corrupt and self-serving government. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:14:03 AM)
insert Hermann Goering quote here in alliance with Sinergy. It seems to me that the hare-brained leftist radical hippy freaks of liberalism have a set of deeply concervative and right winged fundamentalist values when it comes to issues and concepts regarding the constitution and other founding and fledgeling documents that this country was born by. I am astonished by the large number of radical anarchist conservatives that this country is allowing to remain at large rather than placing them in eternal limbo with their other terrorist brothers at Gitmo. Ron

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875