• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guardian piece on Senate CIA torture report

How can anyone believe the guardian?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
How can anyone believe the guardian?
Click to expand...

In this case, and others, how can one NOT believe the guardian? Or at least give it serious consideration. Especially compared to places like NYT and others who did not even go into the detail with their stories of the Senate Torture Report, last year.

This is an interview with the man who actually gathered all the data, for years.

But NYT does not consider that a worthy story, the Old Lady is promoting another war somewhere in the world, and does not have the time to talk about high crimes by men in government, no.

But the Guardian does perform some authentic journalism, even in the day of the computer. So, I liked the story, and hoped others would too. :mrgreen:
 
RetiredUSN said:
So...................we waterboarded animals that wanted to kill us.

40% of released Gitmo prisoners returned to the fight, because the asshat of a president thought he knew better than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. I know what a career in the military can do, so I do understand how easily you believe any given official story.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Cry me a river. I know what a career in the military can do, so I do understand how easily you believe any given official story.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection................... I still want proof of your claim to our original argument before you KEEP ON with your deflection.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Nice deflection................... I still want proof of your claim to our original argument before you KEEP ON with your deflection.
Click to expand...

I want proof of your claim too Chief. Does that make us even?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I want proof of your claim too Chief. Does that make us even?
Click to expand...

Terrorists aren't protected under international law, nor United States law.
 
apdst said:
Terrorists aren't protected under international law, nor United States law.
Click to expand...


As detainees, they are being held for prosecution. But they won't be prosecuted because the evidence is so weak or can't be introduced because of being obtained by torture, they would be found guilty and set free. This was known from, practically, the beginning:

Enough to make you gag | The Economist

Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post:

"Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for."

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post:

"Ok...where does Article 3 of The Constitution say interpret?"


It’s called “judicial review”. The following is an excerpt from the full text in the reference below:

“While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Yup. Interpretation is afforded SCOTUS by interpretation. They are granted judicial power under Article III. When a question comes up, as to what is listed in Article III, the question is given to the Court to answer. You know many times one must interpret to know what a passage in the Constitution means as applicable to the case under judicial review. It's unavoidable, and someone has to do it. How do you think those cases should be handled?
 
Last edited:
bluesmoke said:
As detainees, they are being held for prosecution. But they won't be prosecuted because the evidence is so weak or can't be introduced because of being obtained by torture, they would be found guilty and set free. This was known from, practically, the beginning:

Enough to make you gag | The Economist

Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post:

"Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for."

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post:

"Ok...where does Article 3 of The Constitution say interpret?"


It’s called “judicial review”. The following is an excerpt from the full text in the reference below:

“While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
Click to expand...

They should just be executed.
 
apdst said:
They should just be executed.
Click to expand...


That would be illegal. Rather un-American. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though. Would you be willing to pull the switch on all of them? Or wear out your arm throwing stones? Maybe we could let the ones still standing in line go free once you just can't effectively throw stones anymore.
 
bluesmoke said:
That would be illegal. Rather un-American. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though. Would you be willing to pull the switch on all of them? Or wear out your arm throwing stones? Maybe we could let the ones still standing in line go free once you just can't effectively throw stones anymore.
Click to expand...

Why would it be illegal and un-American? We executed German and Japanese troops during WW2 without the benefit of a trial. The Nuremberg trials were set up to achieve a desired outcome. I mean, who thought anyone at Nuremberg was going to found, "not guilty"?
 
RetiredUSN said:
So...................we waterboarded animals that wanted to kill us. 40% of released Gitmo prisoners returned to the fight, because the president thought he knew better than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Which President? BushII apparently released the majority of those suspected of attacking Americans.

June 8 WaPo piece has the BushII returns to terrorism at roughly 21% and Obama releases at under 5%.

Most are Afghans, scooped up in the earliest part of the Afghan invasion- many on trumped up charges stemming from tribal feuds. I can't help but wonder how many who call these men animals would quietly return to passive civilian life after a few years in Gitmo.

Probably most, pressure makes diamonds or a squirt of oil if the lump of coal is flawed... :peace
 
apdst said:
Why would it be illegal and un-American? We executed German and Japanese troops during WW2 without the benefit of a trial. The Nuremberg trials were set up to achieve a desired outcome. I mean, who thought anyone at Nuremberg was going to found, "not guilty"?
Click to expand...

'We' did a lot of things in WWII we today shouldn't be too proud of or declare is American.

'We' tried 24 war criminals... a far cry from the cattle call in Afghanistan where little if any evidence worthy of a court was presented before the victims were herded onto planes for Gitmo.

3 were acquitted at Nurnberg so there is another hole in your attempt to mask this hot mess with a massive world war... :peace
 
apdst said:
Why would it be illegal and un-American? We executed German and Japanese troops during WW2 without the benefit of a trial. The Nuremberg trials were set up to achieve a desired outcome. I mean, who thought anyone at Nuremberg was going to found, "not guilty"?
Click to expand...


It would be illegal because we do not have the evidence to convict them of any crime punishable by death. It would be un-American to ignore that we are a land of laws and deny constitutional due process. American values include, but is not limited to, the disinterestedsearch for truth, the rule of law, equality before the law and human rights. I don't see any of that in your post.

As opposed to the Nuremberg trials, Gitmo detainees are not POW's. Nor is there the evidence that was had on the Nazis.
 
bluesmoke said:
It would be illegal because we do not have the evidence to convict them of any crime punishable by death. It would be un-American to ignore that we are a land of laws and deny constitutional due process. American values include, but is not limited to, the disinterestedsearch for truth, the rule of law, equality before the law and human rights. I don't see any of that in your post.

As opposed to the Nuremberg trials, Gitmo detainees are not POW's. Nor is there the evidence that was had on the Nazis.
Click to expand...

They terrorists don't rate protection under any law.

The nazis that were tried at Nuremberg weren't POW'so, either. They were tried under ex post facto law. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to execute them all.
 
apdst said:
They're already in GITMO, they're terrorists.
Click to expand...

Nope- How many were rounded up just for money offered by the US and were found to be a real scrweup?
How many black sites did the US operate?
Do you believe in the rule of law?
 
notquiteright said:
'We' did a lot of things in WWII we today shouldn't be too proud of or declare is American.

'We' tried 24 war criminals... a far cry from the cattle call in Afghanistan where little if any evidence worthy of a court was presented before the victims were herded onto planes for Gitmo.

3 were acquitted at Nurnberg so there is another hole in your attempt to mask this hot mess with a massive world war... :peace
Click to expand...

They nazis got exactly what they deserved. We sure as hell didn't let them walk on a technicality.
 
apdst said:
Terrorists aren't protected under international law, nor United States law.
Click to expand...

So, anyone the government designates as a "terrorist" doesn't have any right to due process! That's super convenient.
 
Deuce said:
So, anyone the government designates as a "terrorist" doesn't have any right to due process! That's super convenient.
Click to expand...

At the end of WW2, the Shutzstaffel was designated a criminal organization so that SS troops could be denied protection under The Geneva Convention.
 
apdst said:
At the end of WW2, the Shutzstaffel was designated a criminal organization so that SS troops could be denied protection under The Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Were they not SS???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom