• 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!

Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

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.

It would help your argument if the military was completely seperate from each other. As shown in Iraq, sailors have become part of the standing army.

But here's a good example.

Abrams M-1A2 SEP

Multi-year contract funding for tanks. Can't do that. But we do. And no one complains how we violate COTUS.
 
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.
No.

Change "any member of any class, kind of group that is in need of aid" to "every member of any class, kind of group that is in need of aid. " It must be applicable to all or it is not "general."

Further, the aggregate entity to which Congress is empowered to provide for the "general welfare" is the people as a whole--not a subset of the people putatively under economic duress. Granting aid to members of any such subset is not "general welfare" but "specific welfare."

No subsidy or transfer of wealth is Constitutional, for all such payments and transactions apply to specific individuals and are thus categorically NOT general welfare. Bailouts, government subsidies to farmers, welfare of any kind, are beyond the power of Congress to gift to anyone.

Now, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest starting a new thread on the topic, for I think we have ventured far enough from the original topic of this thread.
 
It would help your argument if the military was completely seperate from each other. As shown in Iraq, sailors have become part of the standing army.

But here's a good example.

Abrams M-1A2 SEP

Multi-year contract funding for tanks. Can't do that. But we do. And no one complains how we violate COTUS.

From your link:

The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command awarded GDLS several contracts worth over US$800 million for M1A2SEP reset work, starting 2007 through 2009.

Check my math, but 2007 through 2009 would be within the Constitutionally-required time frame.
 
Providing welfare checks to the poor violates COTUS, but only conservatives complain.
 
No.

Change "any member of any class, kind of group that is in need of aid" to "every member of any class, kind of group that is in need of aid. " It must be applicable to all or it is not "general."

There is no difference. Any and every member in any class group or kind that is in need of welfare is the same thing. One cannot give welfare to someone who does not need it by definition. Then it's a mere gift.

Further, the aggregate entity to which Congress is empowered to provide for the "general welfare" is the people as a whole--not a subset of the people putatively under economic duress. Granting aid to members of any such subset is not "general welfare" but "specific welfare."

Again, as stated earlier, you are focusing on specific programs rather than aggregate general welfare. Having lots of programs that give to specific groups but having all groups' members that need help receive it fulfills the same outcome as one program that is indiscriminate. The COTUS really doesn't help here as it provides no guidance other than interpretations of "General" and "Welfare."

No subsidy or transfer of wealth is Constitutional, for all such payments and transactions apply to specific individuals and are thus categorically NOT general welfare. Bailouts, government subsidies to farmers, welfare of any kind, are beyond the power of Congress to gift to anyone.

See above. There's nothing say that individual specific programs that as a whole with each other provide aggregate general welfare do not meet the obligation. You are instead ignoring the term general in the broad sense and how lots of programs in aggregate meet such a goal instead to focus on how individual programs cannot be general.
 
From your link:



Check my math, but 2007 through 2009 would be within the Constitutionally-required time frame.

Further on:

. The program was initiated with a $46 million long-lead material award in July 2006 for the first 72 tanks. In November 2007 the Army awarded additional $89 for additional upgrades. The second award covered work on 240 tanks to be completed by 2009.

And 2007 to 2009 is three years. 2007, 2008 and 2009.
 
Further on:



And 2007 to 2009 is three years. 2007, 2008 and 2009.

2007 to 2009 is 2 years.

2007---->2008 Year 1
2008---->2009 Year 2

You don't count the first year when counting actual time passed.
 
2007 to 2009 is 2 years.

2007---->2008 Year 1
2008---->2009 Year 2

You don't count the first year when counting actual time passed.

thisthreaddelivers1rk5.jpg
 
BTW, there's no such thing as bad history, or good history.

FDR did a smart thing. He showed Americans that we stick to our principles.

I couldn't agree more he showed that the secret prisons should remain secret and the inmates should be executed before wars end and before the American public even knew that they existed. Ex Parte Quirin.
 
I couldn't agree more he showed that the secret prisons should remain secret and the inmates should be executed before wars end and before the American public even knew that they existed. Ex Parte Quirin.
I would like to think America is a little bit above that.
 
So? It does severe, and that means very severe, mental distress. It is so distressing it did get these people to "break".


A) "Severe" is entirely subjective.

B) Of course you're right we wouldn't want to put known terrorists under mental distress, it may hurt their feelings and we can't have that now can we?
 
2007 to 2009 is 2 years.

2007---->2008 Year 1
2008---->2009 Year 2

You don't count the first year when counting actual time passed.

You sure? If the program starts operations in 2007, continues in 2008 and finishes up in 2009, that's three years. But that assumes a calender year which may not be true. Not that it matters anyways, as the program as cited was from 2006 to 2009 which is three fiscal years.
 
You sure? If the program starts operations in 2007, continues in 2008 and finishes up in 2009, that's three years. But that assumes a calender year which may not be true.

Yes it is two years.

Not that it matters anyways, as the program as cited was from 2006 to 2009 which is three fiscal years.

You are talking about several different contracts and some were "awarded" in 2006. The article says nothing about anything being started till 2007 and finished in 2009.

So it does matter.
 
Your sentiments are nice but I wouldn't trade them for a drop of American blood.


How much American blood was shed in revenge for the torture conducted in Iraq...or doesn't that count?
 
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.
Details details...
 
Check my math, but 2007 through 2009 would be within the Constitutionally-required time frame.
You'll have to excuse OC.
He's too busy self-sodomizing his credibility as a sentient being to bother with checking details...
 
How much American blood was shed in revenge for the torture conducted in Iraq...or doesn't that count?

Do you have any proof that the blood would not have been shed otherwise?

I doubt it.

In fact no proof exist at all that what happened in Iraq made even the slightest difference.
 
Supporters of torture think it is worth it to torture terrorists to get info that prevents an attack and thus spares lives (they seem mostly concerned about their own).

Yes, IF we tortured and IF that person knew and IF we got info and IF it prevented an attack, great! But the odds of that are something like 0.0001%. To take a long shot like that and destroy the reputation of the US as a result is nuts. If you're that worried about dying, don't ever get in an automobile.

How trite, but then there is nothing here resembling facts. I am sure the people who died on 9-11 would beg to differ with your absurd notions that Government should never do EVERYTHING they can to ensure Americans are protected.

But alas, it's easy to declare the higher moral plane when you have nothing in the game and think that 9-11 was an anomaly and not the desperate attacks of a belief that killing us will gain someone access to heaven.

The red herring here is the false assertion that these events have tarnished our reputation; there would never be a debate if whiney Liberal Leftists hadn't attempted to use this as a partisan political football.

The fascinating thing here is watching Liberals who argue against morality at every turn when it comes to Gay Marriage, abortion rights and the Religious beliefs of the Christian right, but now argue for the morality of torturing desperate thugs intent on killing as many of our citizens as they can.

You just cannot fabricate the level of denial, hypocrisy or ignorance such arguments require.
 
Do you have any proof that the blood would not have been shed otherwise?

I doubt it.

In fact no proof exist at all that what happened in Iraq made even the slightest difference.

Here's two of them...but of course you need more PROOF
Published on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 by Agence France Presse
Two US Soldiers Found Tortured to Death in Iraq


The bodies of two US soldiers who went missing south of Baghdad were found, as the military said it killed 15 insurgents but Iraqi police and a rights activist claimed they were ordinary poultry farm workers.

The bodies of the two soldiers, Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Thomas L. Tucker, 25, were found in a brutally "tortured" condition, General Abdul Aziz Mohammed of the Iraqi defense ministry said.

"The two US soldiers were found in the Yusifiyah area near the power station and unfortunately their bodies show that they had been tortured and then killed viciously," the general told a news conference.

The soldiers went missing Friday night after they came under attack at a traffic control point near Yusifiyah, along the Euphrates river. One soldier was also killed in the attack.
Two US Soldiers Found Tortured to Death in Iraq

THIS is what happens when morons watch 24 and trust idiots like Dick Cheney. REAL heroes die.
 
Back
Top Bottom