• 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!

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

ric27 said:
The Germans, through their top notch interrogator Hanns Scharff, showed us in WWII that the friendly method is the absolute best interrogation technique ... thats why treating them humanely will eventually get useful or in some cases, a life long source of information.

A subject thats in a state of extreme fear or is experiencing great physical pain will do or say whatever is necessary to relieve the stress to a nominal point. Physical violence is one the hallmarks of an inept interrogator. It is very easy to conduct a break within a break with these types of Interrogators.

Chain of Command knows this...its nothing new (assuming that you have enough time to work with someone, "nice" will work more effectively, more of the time than not nice)

But theres always a giltch....there are those hardcore individuals who through training or committment will never respond to nice. They are a dedicated opponent. For those, you need to make a moral decision. Do you use extreme physical torture to possibly extract useful information? Or do you write them off and quietly execute them and move on?
Click to expand...

As we both seem to agree that torture is largely ineffective, why would there even be a choice? However, one of the reasons for rule of law is that we have a guide. We make a choice and put it down in law.
 
ric27 said:
Show where in the U.S. Constitution these guys have any right to a trial, an attorney or any other protections; and produce any international law, treaty or convention to which we are signatories that gives them rights we are violating.

If you can show me I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize.
Click to expand...

Well as ill quote deltabtry stated ill quote him
The United States has not afforded these rights to none citizens (although it could if it so desired)in the past for examples:
spies, Mexican Banditos(Pancho Villa), 1905 Pirates(and Prior), Saboteurs, Muslim revolutionaries 1890 Mindanao and many other through out campaigns here at home and abroad. Actually some where U.S. citizens, for one the civil war brought about a lot of summary executions both civilian and military. This list goes on..
Click to expand...
 
Lack of prosecution does not equal no law having been broken.
 
Boo Radley said:
The law does nto state who can be tortured. It says we cannot torture. It's not about the prisoner, but about the jailer. We cannot tortue no matter who the prisoner is. That's rule of law.

rule of law and the constitution does not limit itself to one side of the equation. While a prisoner may not be citizens, the jjailers are. Their behavior is subject to US law and the consititution. To suggest that any group of people, no matter how evil their actions, are outside any rules for OUR conduct is the worse kind of rationalizing. How we behave is set down by rule of law and our Consititution.

Now, certainly, at the end of they day, we will likely end up disagreeing. I don't doubt that.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not say we cannot torture non-citizens. The Geneva Convention does. That said, those we have captured, when guilty, are often violaters of the Geneva Convention in their own right. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
 
Boo Radley said:
As we both seem to agree that torture is largely ineffective, why would there even be a choice? However, one of the reasons for rule of law is that we have a guide. We make a choice and put it down in law.
Click to expand...

Respectfully - Have you seen combat?
 
tessaesque said:
The constitution does not say we cannot torture non-citizens. The Geneva Convention does. That said, those we have captured, when guilty, are often violaters of the Geneva Convention in their own right. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Click to expand...

So are you advocating that we the United States Of America, "the Shining light on a hill, the defender of freedom, protector of peace" (so we claim all these) torture people....
 
tessaesque said:
The constitution does not say we cannot torture non-citizens. The Geneva Convention does. That said, those we have captured, when guilty, are often violaters of the Geneva Convention in their own right. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Click to expand...

Where in the constitution does it say we can torture anyone? US law says we can't torture. It does not say we cannot torture citzens. It does not say we can torture non citizens. In fact, in the past we did prosecute US soliders for waterboarding. It is the act that is illegal, and not who we do it to.
 
ric27 said:
Respectfully - Have you seen combat?
Click to expand...

No. And I don't feel about that. But that doesn't change much, and there are plenty who have seen coombat who agree with me. In fact, ask your self how the secrets on Bush's efforts got out and made public. The military resisted this from the begining.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So are you advocating that we the United States Of America, "the Shining light on a hill, the defender of freedom, protector of peace" (so we claim all these) torture people....
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not ban us from doing so.
 
tessaesque said:
No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not ban us from doing so.
Click to expand...

if we signed a treaty prohibiting it (we did) and that treaty was approved Constitutionally (it was) then we are bound to the terms of the approved treaty

here is the Constitutional language you seem to be needing:
Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Click to expand...
[bold emphasis added for the reading-impaired]
 
tessaesque said:
No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not ban us from doing so.
Click to expand...


Would torture fall under cruel and unusual punishment? Oh i forgot that does not apply to them?

Whatever happened to the "US does not torture"?
 
Boo Radley said:
Lack of prosecution does not equal no law having been broken.
Click to expand...

you mean holder and barack the slasher CONDONE it?

LOL!

torture?

wow, this party in power has really peddled the pooch

i mean, there's gitmo and civil trials (in downtown new york) and the patriot act and detention and rendition...

and now TORTURE!

so much for changing america's image abroad, apparently

hey, it was a nice campaign slogan, at least

party on, progressives

be proud
 
justabubba said:
if we signed a treaty prohibiting it (we did) and that treaty was approved Constitutionally (it was) then we are bound to the terms of the approved treaty

here is the Constitutional language you seem to be needing: [bold emphasis added for the reading-impaired]
Click to expand...

The constitution enforces treaties. Treaties may contain any number of things. The constitution, however, does not change to include text regarding the treaty's contents.

If, for example, a treaty were drafted which states that all US military must wear pink hats on the battle field as part of a new set of rules of engagement then, once signed, constitutionally we are obligated to uphold the treaty. Wearing pink hats on the battle field does not become part of the constitution at that time.
 
The Prof said:
you mean holder and barack the slasher CONDONE it?

LOL!

torture?

wow, this party in power has really peddled the pooch

i mean, there's gitmo and civil trials (in downtown new york) and the patriot act and detention and rendition...

and now TORTURE!

so much for changing america's image abroad, apparently

hey, it was a nice campaign slogan, at least

party on, progressives

be proud
Click to expand...

condone it? where have they condone it? Lack of prosecution means none of that.
 
tessaesque said:
The constitution enforces treaties. Treaties may contain any number of things. The constitution, however, does not change to include text regarding the treaty's contents.

If, for example, a treaty were drafted which states that all US military must wear pink hats on the battle field as part of a new set of rules of engagement then, once signed, constitutionally we are obligated to uphold the treaty. Wearing pink hats on the battle field does not become part of the constitution at that time.
Click to expand...

no, the Constitution does not enforce anything
yes, treaties may contain anything
but the treaties which bind us will only contain the language authorized by the US government
which means the geneva conventions "shall be the supreme law of the land"
the Constitution says so
if you refuse to believe it, read it below

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

i have become tired of responding to your nonsensical posts
don't expect further reply
 
Yes, redition is disappointing. I do feverently disagree with him there. But he has not condoned torture.
 
he also said he'd close gitmo

and try ksm downtown

he said...

LOL!
 
Then show he's telling folks to torture.
 
telling folks to torture---LOL!

meanwhile, today:

President Barack Obama’s nominations of Leon Panetta as defense secretary and Gen. David Petraeus as director of central intelligence demonstrate that the president has abandoned his pledge to change U.S. foreign policy. In fact, these nominations show that Washington has changed Obama far more than he has changed Washington.

Obama long insisted that he wants to reorient America’s focus — moving it away from nation-building projects in the Islamic world and toward Asia. He also insists he wants to trim military spending. But if Petraeus heads CIA and Panetta becomes defense secretary, it’s unlikely either will happen.
Click to expand...

How Washington changed Obama - POLITICO.com

can it be denied?
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
no, the Constitution does not enforce anything
yes, treaties may contain anything
but the treaties which bind us will only contain the language authorized by the US government
which means the geneva conventions "shall be the supreme law of the land"
the Constitution says so
if you refuse to believe it, read it below



i have become tired of responding to your nonsensical posts
don't expect further reply
Click to expand...

What a condescending, out-right rude reply. We disagree on semantics and you decide to behave like that? Not impressed.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Would torture fall under cruel and unusual punishment? Oh i forgot that does not apply to them?

Whatever happened to the "US does not torture"?
Click to expand...

Once again you're ignoring the obvious point that non-American terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield do not have US constitutional rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom