Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 184

Thread: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

  1. #141
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sacramento California
    Last Seen
    08-06-11 @ 02:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    706

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    "Torture is immoral" is not a fact but an assertion.
    Has anyone here demonstrated precisely how it is immoral?
    Things can get tedious in a hurry in a political discussion if we are to question the utterly obvious at every turn. It can be fun philosophically, and we may all in fact be ice beetles living on the moons of Jupiter dreaming all of this, but in political discussions it helps to allow for certain basic assumptions. Such as: we are in fact human beings living on earth, and torture is immoral.
    If you really need reasons from an ethical standpoint we could assert that it deprives human beings of their freedom, their autonomy and subjects them to the greatest suffering imaginable. If you’re more of a utilitarian we could (I will) assert that torture produces huge amounts of suffering and produces nothing good as a result.
    Considering its direct effects on those involved, the tortured is subjected to severe pain, and, should they survive, lifelong psychological trauma equal to or exceeding the physical pain, forever and ever. For the torturer, they lose their humanity, and, if they should ever regain it, they too will be psychologically traumatized by the evil they committed and their capacity for it.
    It further seems obviously repugnant to the principle of equality that one human being should deprive another person of their freedom for the purpose of imposing their sadistic impulses on them. It is not fairness to know that pain horror and humiliation is terrible to experience, and to enjoy forcing others to experience it. Torture is therefore akin to rape. It is the infliction of pain, horror and humiliation arising from sadistic impulses and it produces nothing good. You may argue that it is morally permissible if you like, but it will be a stretch, and if we actually believed this we would live senseless lives.
    "We may have destroyed this country, but we got rich doing it!" --The GOP
    There is a special place in hell for those who care only about themselves.

  2. #142
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by faminedynasty View Post
    Things can get tedious in a hurry in a political discussion if we are to question the utterly obvious at every turn.
    Before you assert what is obvious, you should consider Ethereal's poll regarding torture, and the ramifications of the responses.

    The premise that all torture is always immoral is neither so certain nor so obvious as some wish it to be.

  3. #143
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by faminedynasty View Post
    Things can get tedious in a hurry in a political discussion if we are to question the utterly obvious at every turn.
    Ah... the a priori bomb.
    Its not 'utterly obvious" that every instance of torture is always immoral.

  4. #144
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The problem there Indy, is that the Constitution is exceptionally vague about what 'general welfare' means. While the anti-side likes to clamor that it is unconstitutional, they have no actual legitimate grounds to do so.
    Except that little thing about the power to create these programs isnt found anywhere in the Constitution.

  5. #145
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The capacity to read alludes many here.
    As the desert said to the grain of sand.

    Indeed, the Constitution does not explicitly lay out the right to create programs to create a welfare state
    Then, you agree with me. Thanks.

    However, what Indy cited clearly does allow Congress to levy taxes to pay for general welfare.
    Yes... and what did I say about that?

    The question is what is general welfare?
    Except that you have failed to define what general welfare is.
    As I stated:
    That's found in the remaining powers goven to congress by article 1 section 8, as are the powers given to congress regarding 'the common defense'.

    The powers to create legislation pursuant to provbiding for the 'general welfare':
    -To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
    -To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
    -To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    -To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
    -To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
    -To establish post offices and post roads;
    -To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
    -To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    The powers pursuant to 'the common denese':
    -To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
    -To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
    -To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    -To provide and maintain a navy;
    -To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    -To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    -To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    -To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--

    But you are clearly displaying double standards.
    Hardly.

    The Constitution strictly prohibits funding in excess of two years for a standing army. We have done this so many times that no one can keep track.
    Please cite a single instance of this.
    And, even then. all you're doing is arguing that these fundings are unconstitutional as well. Good for you! How does that affect the issue at hand?

    And you ignored this:
    "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,"
    Yes... and for this claue to have any meaning, the laws must be pursuant to a power granted by the Constitition -- a power that doesnt exist, rendering moot any citation of the elastic clause.

    Under your argument, the only powers necessary in Article I Section 8 are the first and the last -- and yet. there are 16 others.
    Why do you suppose that is, if they are not there to define the powers of Congress pursuant to 'providing for the common defense and general welfare'

    As the power to provide for general welfare is explicitly stated...
    No... the power to TAX is explicitly stated.

    Maybe he'll start taking you serious when you stop using such obvious dishonest fabrications?
    Aside foirm the fact that you cannot show anything that I have 'fabricated'...
    I guess he shant take you, or himself, seriously.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-25-09 at 11:16 AM.

  6. #146
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    It seems to me that there are 2 main views that are submitted in this thread.

    1) Torture is immoral, but I'll still do it to save my family.

    Here, in this stance, the person realizes that the act of torture is immoral, regardless of whether it is justifiable or not.

    or,

    2) Torture can be immoral, but torture isn't always immoral.

    Here, while the person agrees that torture can be immoral, they believe that there are certain conditions where torture can be justifiable.


    Both situations tend to lean towards torture. The 2nd more so that the 1st.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    As the power to provide for general welfare is explicitly stated, Congress by the Constitution has the power to make laws necessary to carry out such powers.

    So the question comes back to again, which neither you nor Indy have defined, What is General Welfare?
    General:
    1: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
    2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group <the general equation of a straight line>
    3: not confined by specialization or careful limitation
    4: belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals : generic
    5 a: applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved : prevalent b: concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects
    6: relating to, determined by, or concerned with main elements rather than limited details <bearing a general resemblance to the original>
    7: holding superior rank or taking precedence over others similarly titled <the general manager>
    Welfare:
    1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
    2 a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.
    In every sense, "general" is applicable to the aggregate, and not to the particular. When we speak of "general" things, except in reference to title (definition #7), we speak of a group, and not of individual elements.

    Therefore, if we apply "general" to "welfare" using welfare definition #1, "general welfare" becomes "the state of the people doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity."

    Using welfare definition #2a, we encounter some difficulties, for that construction becomes "aid to the people in the form of money or necessities for those in need," which is internally contradictory. "those in need" is a particular reference, and is not "general" per the definitions above. However, even with welfare definition #2a, we may still consider "general welfare" to be assistances applicable to the group and not the individual.

    Therein lies the constitutional flaw in laws establishing government welfare programs. The best justification for government welfare in the Constitution is the Preamble ("provide for the General Welfare"), but government welfare programs as enacted are not "general welfare" but "specific welfare". The government welfare programs are payments to discrete individuals, not expenditures on behalf of the whole of the people. There is no welfare assistance in the entire pantheon of government aid that is not intrinsically targeted for and used by individuals exclusively.

    Yes, the United States government is charged to provide for the "General Welfare"; the welfare state, being as it is "specific welfare," is outside the scope of that charge. The United States government lacks the competence, under the Constitution, to dispense such largesse.

  8. #148
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Then, you agree with me. Thanks.
    Agreed. However, Indy never suggested that, thus rendering you guilty of what I accused you of in the previous posts.

    The Constitution also does not explicitly lay out a great many things that we take for granted and cherish as Americans.

    Yes... and what did I say about that?
    Already addressed and shown in way that makes you a hypocrite.

    And that list proves what again? Oh yes. Vagueness.

    Hardly.
    Oh this is amusing.

    Please cite a single instance of this.
    And, even then. all you're doing is arguing that these fundings are unconstitutional as well. Good for you! How does that affect the issue at hand?
    Not very careful with the details eh?

    "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"

    Carrier funding for one. Generally those spending bills are in excess of 10 years.

    All it shows is you are a hypocrite and applying double standards. Which you claimed you were not. Therefore rendering you either a liar or hard of reading.

    Yes... and for this claue to have any meaning, the laws must be pursuant to a power granted by the Constitition -- a power that doesnt exist, rendering moot any citation of the elastic clause.
    According to whom? It does state provide general welfare. You again have failed to define this other than the lie about a welfare state which was found nowhere in Indy's post. Again, you are relying on a fabricated argument instead of actually addressing what he wrote. It's a reason many people think you're the most dishonest person here.

    Under your argument, the only powers necessary in Article I Section 8 are the first and the last -- and yet. there are 16 others.
    Why do you suppose that is, if they are not there to define the powers of Congress pursuant to 'providing for the common defense and general welfare'
    If you think that list defines the powers 'well' I'd like to speak to your former English teachers. That list is unbelievably vague.

    No... the power to TAX is explicitly stated.
    As is the power to provide general welfare. Which again, you have utterly failed to define in a reasonable, non-lying way.

    Aside foirm the fact that you cannot show anything that I have 'fabricated'
    Your entirely argument is predicated on Indy saying that the COTUS does not prohibit a welfare state. Nowhere in Indy's posts is that found. You directly, instead of discussing welfare programs in general, assumed otherwise and attacked him. I noticed you completely ignored my example of EITC which is welfare and hardly similar to a welfare state.

    I see still trying to retain the title of DP's Liar King?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #149
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not very careful with the details eh?

    "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"

    Carrier funding for one. Generally those spending bills are in excess of 10 years.
    Not very careful with the details eh?

    Carrier funding applies to the US Navy, which is not covered by the 2-year restriction, and which Congress is explicitly authorized to maintain as a standing force.

  10. #150
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    In every sense, "general" is applicable to the aggregate, and not to the particular.
    Not quite.

    "involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group" and pair that with "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed" and it simply reads that any member of any class, kind of group that is in need of aid. And this does seem to describe today's programs as everyone from the super poor to the formerly super rich getting bailouts meets the of all classes in need. That of course doesn't make it right, but it meets the definition.

    Using welfare definition #2a, we encounter some difficulties, for that construction becomes "aid to the people in the form of money or necessities for those in need," which is internally contradictory. "those in need" is a particular reference, and is not "general" per the definitions above. However, even with welfare definition #2a, we may still consider "general welfare" to be assistances applicable to the group and not the individual.
    But if we apply the definition of "of all classes, kind and groups" then it means we provide welfare to anyone, who needs it across the whole. Again, as earlier stated, the super rich, middle class, poor and all in between who need help qualify under general welfare as general means of all classes, kinds and groups.

    The government welfare programs are payments to discrete individuals, not expenditures on behalf of the whole of the people. There is no welfare assistance in the entire pantheon of government aid that is not intrinsically targeted for and used by individuals exclusively.
    The problem with that argument is it that you are looking at specific programs rather than the whole. If there were programs that provided welfare to all groups, kinds and classes then Congress would be fulfilling the power and obligation under the COTUS. Merely because an individual program only provides welfare to one group does not mean that Congress cannot provide many programs that provide welfare to all classes, kinds and groups.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •