Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

  1. #11
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    The Constitution only applies to US Citizens, not Terrorist scum... but you don't care about what the Constitution actually says, or means... just what is convenient for you.
    I don't think the Constitution provides for some major executive departments that ADK would have a heart attack, after having a cow, over if we suddenly eliminated them overnight. But like you said, no liberal ever thought the Constitution had enough pages to it. So waterboarding was approved. So what? I'm against many things my managers do or decide. So what? Hell, Pelosi herself knew all about the waterboarding, what more do we need to know? They waterboarded some terrorists. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, who's going to send Condi Rice to jail? Huh? Come on! Patrick Leahy, now there's a pinnacle of virtue.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #12
    Educator Shep Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-19-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    911

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    As terrorists are not criminals but unlawful combatants, the pertinent rights of the Constitution, being properly apprehended as the rights of the accused in a criminal trial, are wholly non-applicable.

    These terrorists have violated no US law, because they are not beholden to US law. As their actions stand outside of US law, they themselves stand outside the protections afforded defendants under the Constitution.
    That's from the Constitution? I can't recall reading that section, maybe you can post a link for me. Or is this just your interpretation?
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote Benjamin Franklin

    I'm a Tiki Bar Tarte, wanna gnaw on my bone

  3. #13
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jovial One View Post
    Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?

    Sweet Jesus... I remember when Conservatives were SUPPORTING traditional American values!!!
    I do support traditional American Values.

    My Grandfather fought in WWII, we went and saw "Saving Private Ryan" together... I asked him about it. He said it was crap. The combat was "about right", but prisoners... that's not how we did it.

    I asked him "What, you didn't free them?" he chuckled darkly and said "No, we didn't capture them either, we just shot them".

    I bet some of you here would call for him to be tried as a war criminal.

    Why did I bring this up? To give a bit of contrast to all the hyperventilating about waterboarding. And Jovial One, I asked first. I know that not a ONE of you can prove me wrong, thus it's NO surprise that you are attempting to turn the tables on me.

    HOWEVER, I'll use this simple google search return to let you chew on.

    Answer

    Excellent but difficult question. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and there is a lot unsaid in the Constitution. It was not possible, nor was it the plan, for the Constitution to cover any possible issue that might arise.

    Article IV Section 2 says: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed in the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    The 14th Amendment Paragraph 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The Article IV material has to do with each state giving credit to the public acts of every other state. It makes specific reference to Citizens. The reference to non-citizens (A Person charged...) relates not to Privileges and Immunities, but to the States' rights to demand the return of anyone charged with a crime.

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship. Again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it is not open to private interpretation. But it does appear that while any person in the US should enjoy basic rights that any person anywhere should have (Declaration), certain Privileges and Immunities seem to be reserved for citizens. This seems reasonable; the United States is a Sovereign State, and has the right and power (given by the People) to establish laws and enforce the rule of law. Privileges and Immunities of citizenship are not (and should not be) simply extended to anyone who crosses our borders. No nation on earth does that.
    WikiAnswers - Does the constitution protect citizens or all people living in the US

    Enjoy.
    Last edited by Renae; 05-13-09 at 12:43 PM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #14
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Dawg View Post
    That's from the Constitution? I can't recall reading that section, maybe you can post a link for me. Or is this just your interpretation?
    There are no parts of the Bill of Rights addressing rights imputed to detained unlawful enemy combatants in time of war.

  5. #15
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I do support traditional American Values.

    My Grandfather fought in WWII, we went and saw "Saving Private Ryan" together... I asked him about it. He said it was crap. The combat was "about right", but prisoners... that's not how we did it.

    I asked him "What, you didn't free them?" he chuckled darkly and said "No, we didn't capture them either, we just shot them".

    I bet some of you here would call for him to be tried as a war criminal.

    Why did I bring this up? To give a bit of contrast to all the hyperventilating about waterboarding. And Jovial One, I asked first. I know that not a ONE of you can prove me wrong, thus it's NO surprise that you are attempting to turn the tables on me.

    HOWEVER, I'll use this simple google search return to let you chew on.


    WikiAnswers - Does the constitution protect citizens or all people living in the US

    Enjoy.
    I would recommend your reading the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene. Look it up.

  6. #16
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    These terrorists have violated no US law, because they are not beholden to US law. As their actions stand outside of US law, they themselves stand outside the protections afforded defendants under the Constitution.
    Does the United States "stand outside" of International Laws? International laws that we signed on to with the sworn promise that we would both uphold and adhere to them?

    Geneva Conventions: Part 1, Article 2

    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

  7. #17
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,566

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Does the United States "stand outside" of International Laws? International laws that we signed on to with the sworn promise that we would both uphold and adhere to them?
    What do the Geneva Conventions have to do with the Bill of Rights? Entirely distinct legal constructs, they.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #18
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I would recommend your reading the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene. Look it up.
    That case was in reference to
    The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory.[4][5][6][7] If Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence.[4][5][6][7] The court found that the petitioners had met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.
    Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not the issue at hand. Since they have not ruled on that, the 14th still applies otherwise. Unless you implying the 14th Amendment now no longer applies...

    Thus you are attempting to take a ruling over a specific issue, Habeas Corpus and applying it to the Constitution as a whole in regards to all persons of the world. Doesn't work like that, nice try though.
    Last edited by Renae; 05-13-09 at 12:53 PM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #19
    Educator
    Dayton3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-20-17 @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,153

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Waterboarding can not be against the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment given that the terrorist suspects were not being punished.

    Interrogation is not punishment.

  10. #20
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Can you show where KSM has any constitutional rights?
    Yes, i sure can in fact the US Supreme Court affirmed this very issue that you are arguing.

    In a stinging defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled today that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court and that congressional legislation has failed to provide a reasonable substitute for such a hearing.
    Otherwise known as the Constitutional right to due process.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Can you please list, in order, the violations you claim the Bush Administration committed in reference to the Constitution. Please state the violation, and the corresponding section of the Constitution therein.
    Not only the Constitution but both domestic and international laws as well.

    Right To Due Process:
    US Constitution Ammendment 5
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Torture Domestic Law:
    U.S.C. Chapter 113C § 2340
    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
    (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
    Torture International Law:
    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
    or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    Article 1

    1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I ask this because everytime someone comes in screaming about Bush violating the constitution... they ALWAYS fail to show where and how. Just a bunch of accusations without backing, or links to prisonplanet or other such non-sense. If you have some real grounds here... well let's see them.

    The Constitution covers... GASP! American Citizens. Not foreigners, and certainly not enemy combatants. That makes all the difference in the world.
    Unfortunately the Constitution fails to back up your assertion here. Non-Citizens of the United States are afforded the same constitutional rights that citizens have been afforded since the inception of the constitution. Thousands of cites can be provided or you could just research that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jovial One View Post
    Here's an idea... why don't YOU show us where they are NOT covered in the Constitution?

    Sweet Jesus... I remember when Conservatives were SUPPORTING traditional American values!!!
    TJO damn good to see you my fellow PF refugee

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •