Trump On Constitution: It Doesn't Necessarily Give Us The Right To Commit Suicide

[Thoreau72]

Please cite the specific parts of the Constitution you are referring to.

The second paragraph in Article VI

 

[notquiteright]

sorry NO, the founders granted the congress no powers in the lives of the people, Madison federalist 45 hamilton federalist 84

Again, who RATIFIED the Federalist Papers??? That work is the OPINION of a small group of founders. but funny you should cite Hamilton- a man who as part of the Federalist Party advocated for a STRONG central government- for INTERPRETING the Constitution... :roll:

But the Federalist Papers are at best an OP-ED work- NEVER adopted as a legal guide, never put to any vote of the People, Congress, or any states convention...

But thanks for playing... eace

 

[Master PO]

Again, who RATIFIED the Federalist Papers??? That work is the OPINION of a small group of founders. but funny you should cite Hamilton- a man who as part of the Federalist Party advocated for a STRONG central government- for INTERPRETING the Constitution... :roll:

But the Federalist Papers are at best an OP-ED work- NEVER adopted as a legal guide, never put to any vote of the People, Congress, or any states convention...

But thanks for playing... eace

please post a delagated power of the consititution..good luck

 

[matchlight]

The second paragraph in Article VI

Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no way of knowing what the poster I asked to explain himself meant. He couldn't answer at all, and your attempt at an answer is just plain silly. The Supremacy Clause has nothing whatever to do with what happened at Abu Ghraib. What it means is that if a state law or a provision in a state constitution directly conflicts with anything in the U.S. Constitution, or with a federal law or treaty, all judges in that state's courts are bound by the U.S. Constitution, the federal law, or the treaty.

The fact individuals in the military apparently violated parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is federal law, did not raise any constitutional issue. Unlawful alien combatants held overseas do not enjoy any of the protections of the U.S. Constitution, with the possible exception of the Suspension Clause. See the Supreme Court's God-awful decision in Boumediene v. Bush for the Court's disingenuous extension of the right of habeas to war criminals being detained abroad by the U.S. military. Anyone who wants to see how that should have been handled should read Johnson v. Eisentrager, the superb 1950 decision on this issue that the Court overruled in Boumediene without having the guts to admit that's what it was doing.

The poster in #11 had it exactly right when he said that:

"Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with the constitution since the constitution is silent on the treatment of foreign prisoners of war on foreign soil.

The only thing that stopped us from doing whatever the hell we wanted with the scumbags in that prison was ourselves."


He might have added that when the captives are not legitimate prisoners of war within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, but rather unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. war criminals--they do not enjoy the protections prisoners of war are entitled to. They may be pretty severely dealt with, as the Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 case involving Nazi saboteurs who landed here by U-boat and were captured.

Within a couple months after landing, six of the eight had been tried before a military tribunal, convicted of several war crimes, had their habeas petition rejected by the Supreme Court, and, one fine day, an hour apart to let the chair cool off, electrocuted in New York City. And one of the six, Herbert Haupt, was a U.S. citizen! He claimed that not being indicted by a grand jury and not receiving a jury trial violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, respectively--and the Court said those rights did not apply to him, despite his citizenship. Oh, the insensitivity! That mean, yucky Court! That mean old President Roosevelt, who tried to keep the sons of bitches from even filing a habeas petition!

 

[sookster]

It's been apparent that our government doesn't really care about the constitution.

 

[Patrickt]

It's been apparent that our government doesn't really care about the constitution.

The Constitution was written to protect us from the government. The government should not be expected to "care" about the Constitution and we have been horribly negligent on forcing them to comply. The people who ignore the Constitution the most have the most secure seats in Congress. The Senate approves Federal judges who clearly have no interest in supporting the Constitution. We elected a president who we knew had no respect for the Constitution.

I don't know if it's too late or not but having Donald Trump and Sen. Clinton as the candidates for president for the two major parties would seem to indicate it is too late.

Back to the original post, Donald Trump has no idea what the Constitution says or what it's supposed to do. He's seen Barack Obama ignore the Constitution so why should he worry if he's going to be the next king.

 

[Master PO]

Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no way of knowing what the poster I asked to explain himself meant. He couldn't answer at all, and your attempt at an answer is just plain silly. The Supremacy Clause has nothing whatever to do with what happened at Abu Ghraib. What it means is that if a state law or a provision in a state constitution directly conflicts with anything in the U.S. Constitution, or with a federal law or treaty, all judges in that state's courts are bound by the U.S. Constitution, the federal law, or the treaty.

The fact individuals in the military apparently violated parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is federal law, did not raise any constitutional issue. Unlawful alien combatants held overseas do not enjoy any of the protections of the U.S. Constitution, with the possible exception of the Suspension Clause. See the Supreme Court's God-awful decision in Boumediene v. Bush for the Court's disingenuous extension of the right of habeas to war criminals being detained abroad by the U.S. military. Anyone who wants to see how that should have been handled should read Johnson v. Eisentrager, the superb 1950 decision on this issue that the Court overruled in Boumediene without having the guts to admit that's what it was doing.

The poster in #11 had it exactly right when he said that:

"Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with the constitution since the constitution is silent on the treatment of foreign prisoners of war on foreign soil.

The only thing that stopped us from doing whatever the hell we wanted with the scumbags in that prison was ourselves."


He might have added that when the captives are not legitimate prisoners of war within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, but rather unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. war criminals--they do not enjoy the protections prisoners of war are entitled to. They may be pretty severely dealt with, as the Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 case involving Nazi saboteurs who landed here by U-boat and were captured.

Within a couple months after landing, six of the eight had been tried before a military tribunal, convicted of several war crimes, had their habeas petition rejected by the Supreme Court, and, one fine day, an hour apart to let the chair cool off, electrocuted in New York City. And one of the six, Herbert Haupt, was a U.S. citizen! He claimed that not being indicted by a grand jury and not receiving a jury trial violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, respectively--and the Court said those rights did not apply to him, despite his citizenship. Oh, the insensitivity! That mean, yucky Court! That mean old President Roosevelt, who tried to keep the sons of bitches from even filing a habeas petition!

correct in that it means, what is on the federal level is supreme to the state level.

the founders knew when they created the constitution there would be an over lap in powers when the new constitution took affect.

however its been over 200 years, the supremacy clause really is no longer needed.

 

[Master PO]

The Constitution was written to protect us from the government. The government should not be expected to "care" about the Constitution and we have been horribly negligent on forcing them to comply. The people who ignore the Constitution the most have the most secure seats in Congress. The Senate approves Federal judges who clearly have no interest in supporting the Constitution. We elected a president who we knew had no respect for the Constitution.

I don't know if it's too late or not but having Donald Trump and Sen. Clinton as the candidates for president for the two major parties would seem to indicate it is too late.

Back to the original post, Donald Trump has no idea what the Constitution says or what it's supposed to do. He's seen Barack Obama ignore the Constitution so why should he worry if he's going to be the next king.

which is why we need to repeal the 17th, and put the states legislatures back in charge of the senate

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's been apparent that our government doesn't really care about the constitution.

and won't until and unless we, the people, insist that they do.

 

[American]

As usual, Trump being the daily insult to our Constitutional Republic.

You read that on Hillary's email server?

 

[matchlight]

The short article in Reason shows Trump was responding to a claim his running mate had made that Trump's proposal to exclude all Muslim aliens--which he no longer makes--would be unconstitutional. Mr. Pence doesn't seem to have specified which part of the Constitution he thought would be violated, or why.

Apparently leftist propaganda sources started by telling people who look to them for what they consider knowledge that excluding Muslim aliens would violate Article VI, sec. 3. But that section begins by binding all legislators and all executive officials and judges, both state and federal, "by oath or affirmation," to support the Constitution of the U.S. That is the Oaths Clause. The clause immediately following this--the part leftist propagandists apparently were relying on--simply makes clear that despite this requirement, no religious test may be required as a qualification for holding any federal position. None of the section has the slightest thing to do with aliens outside the U.S., who obviously could not hold these offices.

Seeing that this lame attempt to support their Islamist pals went nowhere, the brain trust at the Daily Kos, MSNBC, Mother Jones, and other such fabrication sites tried an even more laughable argument--that excluding Muslims would somehow violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Of course that has nothing whatever to do with aliens outside U.S. territory either, but rather with establishing an official religion in the U.S.

Aliens outside U.S. territory do not enjoy any of the protections of the Constitution of the U.S., which simply does not apply to them. The American people, acting through their elected members of Congress, are perfectly free to exclude any alien from U.S. territory at any time, for any reason they like, including that they do not like their religion, and they do not need to justify their decision to one single soul. For anyone who has read and understands the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the Establishment Clause, the notion that a law excluding Muslim aliens would somehow be a law "respecting an establishment of religion" does not even pass the laugh test. But leftist propagandists count on their audience to be dim and gullible. And they know that their falsehoods, if repeated often enough without being challenged, often come to be widely accepted as fact.

 

[Bodi]

Nah. Remember Iran-Contra. Remember Abu Ghirab. As long as it's their guy who's in charge, they really don't care what he does as long as they've got the power.

Remember hilary... i would list the scandals but there are too many. Hilary will just have to do.

 

[sookster]

and won't until and unless we, the people, insist that they do.

The problem is policies like Citizens United has totally broken our system. The rich and powerful are represented, not the people. I can't find the youtube video and it pisses me off, because this gentleman diagrammed the US population and what percentage voted for Republican and Democrat. There was over 110 million citizens that don't vote at all. So even if we wanted to vote our ways and change current policies, it's pretty impossible with smart phones and XBOX and Playstations, what have you entertainment wise. And even IF we got the people to vote, there is corruption in even elections.

It's done. The government isn't about the people. It's about making more money, like any capitalist institution. The ideals of our forefathers have been perverted.

You elect people into those halls, and they become corrupted even with the purest intent. And the ones that aren't corrupted, are viewed as radical and bad. I'm talking about Sanders and Warren.

People think I'm crazy, but the only solution I see to this to force people out of power, and then re-write the laws to rid money from politics. Put it in our new bill of rights, cause I seriously think buying legislation ruins our system, and what it is trying to accomplish.

And even if you wanted to revolt, people don't care. They couldn't care less. Like I said before.

I honestly don't think voting really matters. There's isn't enough people, and voting is digitized, so it can easily be altered. Plus you have whole organizations picking our candidates for us, like voting really helped. I agree in times before lobbying and citizens united, what you said is completely true. But with how things work now, we are already ****ed.

 

[Thoreau72]

Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no way of knowing what the poster I asked to explain himself meant. He couldn't answer at all, and your attempt at an answer is just plain silly. The Supremacy Clause has nothing whatever to do with what happened at Abu Ghraib. What it means is that if a state law or a provision in a state constitution directly conflicts with anything in the U.S. Constitution, or with a federal law or treaty, all judges in that state's courts are bound by the U.S. Constitution, the federal law, or the treaty.

The fact individuals in the military apparently violated parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is federal law, did not raise any constitutional issue. Unlawful alien combatants held overseas do not enjoy any of the protections of the U.S. Constitution, with the possible exception of the Suspension Clause. See the Supreme Court's God-awful decision in Boumediene v. Bush for the Court's disingenuous extension of the right of habeas to war criminals being detained abroad by the U.S. military. Anyone who wants to see how that should have been handled should read Johnson v. Eisentrager, the superb 1950 decision on this issue that the Court overruled in Boumediene without having the guts to admit that's what it was doing.

The poster in #11 had it exactly right when he said that:

"Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with the constitution since the constitution is silent on the treatment of foreign prisoners of war on foreign soil.

The only thing that stopped us from doing whatever the hell we wanted with the scumbags in that prison was ourselves."


He might have added that when the captives are not legitimate prisoners of war within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, but rather unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. war criminals--they do not enjoy the protections prisoners of war are entitled to. They may be pretty severely dealt with, as the Supreme Court made clear in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 case involving Nazi saboteurs who landed here by U-boat and were captured.

Within a couple months after landing, six of the eight had been tried before a military tribunal, convicted of several war crimes, had their habeas petition rejected by the Supreme Court, and, one fine day, an hour apart to let the chair cool off, electrocuted in New York City. And one of the six, Herbert Haupt, was a U.S. citizen! He claimed that not being indicted by a grand jury and not receiving a jury trial violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, respectively--and the Court said those rights did not apply to him, despite his citizenship. Oh, the insensitivity! That mean, yucky Court! That mean old President Roosevelt, who tried to keep the sons of bitches from even filing a habeas petition!

You have apparently confused posters. I was not talking about the Supremacy Clause--I was answering the question posed by a poster wondering how and why the treaties we enter into have the force of law. If you take the time to read Article VI you will see that question is answered.

No, the Constitution does not address torture specifically using that word, but if you bother to read the 8th Amendment you will see that "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is contained therein. Does that satisfy you, or do you need specific words?

 

[RetiredUSN]

The constitution means little to the POS is office now, so why are the liberals worrying about Trump?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The problem is policies like Citizens United has totally broken our system. The rich and powerful are represented, not the people. I can't find the youtube video and it pisses me off, because this gentleman diagrammed the US population and what percentage voted for Republican and Democrat. There was over 110 million citizens that don't vote at all. So even if we wanted to vote our ways and change current policies, it's pretty impossible with smart phones and XBOX and Playstations, what have you entertainment wise. And even IF we got the people to vote, there is corruption in even elections.

It's done. The government isn't about the people. It's about making more money, like any capitalist institution. The ideals of our forefathers have been perverted.

You elect people into those halls, and they become corrupted even with the purest intent. And the ones that aren't corrupted, are viewed as radical and bad. I'm talking about Sanders and Warren.

People think I'm crazy, but the only solution I see to this to force people out of power, and then re-write the laws to rid money from politics. Put it in our new bill of rights, cause I seriously think buying legislation ruins our system, and what it is trying to accomplish.

And even if you wanted to revolt, people don't care. They couldn't care less. Like I said before.

I honestly don't think voting really matters. There's isn't enough people, and voting is digitized, so it can easily be altered. Plus you have whole organizations picking our candidates for us, like voting really helped. I agree in times before lobbying and citizens united, what you said is completely true. But with how things work now, we are already ****ed.

Government of, by, and for the people won't work if the people won't participate.

On the other hand, do we want people who simply base their votes on partisanship or on TV ads bought by special interest money to vote? Maybe it's best they just play their X boxes.

 

[jaeger19]

There is no right to suicide that I'm aware of. However, it is universally agreed upon and documented even in our own American history that there is a right to life endowed to us by our creator (Declaration of Independence). I'd imagine like any other right, it is up to the person to choose whether to exercise it or not.

There is.. its a right of self determination.

To be clear... the constitution states that a right does not have to be enumerated to be considered a right.

And we believe in the right to self determination. That's why you have the right to refuse medical care for you and your loved one.. even when doing so will kill them.

Its why we have the right to abortion.

 

[matchlight]

You have apparently confused posters. I was not talking about the Supremacy Clause--I was answering the question posed by a poster wondering how and why the treaties we enter into have the force of law. If you take the time to read Article VI you will see that question is answered.

No, the Constitution does not address torture specifically using that word, but if you bother to read the 8th Amendment you will see that "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is contained therein. Does that satisfy you, or do you need specific words?

I haven't confused anything. Some other poster was yammering that what happened at Abu Ghraib (God only knows how) involved the Constitution because federal laws and treaties were violated. When I asked him to be specific, he couldn't answer, and you chose to try to answer for him. He was not wondering why treaties have the force of law, as anyone who took the time to read his post would see. He was only seizing on Abu Ghraib to take a cheap shot at the U.S.

What evidence do you have that any act committed at Abu Ghraib was torture under applicable U.S. laws? I think you are just tossing that word around as a casual slander of this country, just as has often been done regarding the interrogation of important Al Qaeda jihadists. Even if any of those acts rose to the level of torture, the Eighth Amendment would not apply to them. Show us any case in which the Supreme Court has ever even so much as implied that alien combatants held outside U.S. territory enjoy any of the protections of the Bill of Rights. You can't, because it never has.

 

[notquiteright]

please post a delagated power of the consititution..good luck

So you have abandoned the use of an unratified OP-ED work and now demand 'proof'??? You seem to be willfully ignorant. A long easily googled list of powers the Feds possess when it comes to a citizen's liberty- they simply say it can't be taken without proper recourse, soldiers can't be billeted without proper recourse and due process must be followed to seize or examine a citizen's personal property/writings.

Nice try to dodge your claims, and instead demand some 'proof' you seem most intent on ignoring and believe the personal opinion of a few delegates to the Constitutional Convention overrides the document... :roll:

(and of course citing Hamilton- the later poster boy for a strong and powerful central government and national bank... (was THAT delegated in the original Constitution???

Now it isn't fair or particularly honest to claim only the original Document is the only document allowed as several amendments have been added to the document.. the one most apt here is the 14th amendment which both expands liberty and regulates others on their ability to limit/maintain limits on citizens... eace

 

[Thoreau72]

I haven't confused anything. Some other poster was yammering that what happened at Abu Ghraib (God only knows how) involved the Constitution because federal laws and treaties were violated. When I asked him to be specific, he couldn't answer, and you chose to try to answer for him. He was not wondering why treaties have the force of law, as anyone who took the time to read his post would see. He was only seizing on Abu Ghraib to take a cheap shot at the U.S.

What evidence do you have that any act committed at Abu Ghraib was torture under applicable U.S. laws? I think you are just tossing that word around as a casual slander of this country, just as has often been done regarding the interrogation of important Al Qaeda jihadists. Even if any of those acts rose to the level of torture, the Eighth Amendment would not apply to them. Show us any case in which the Supreme Court has ever even so much as implied that alien combatants held outside U.S. territory enjoy any of the protections of the Bill of Rights. You can't, because it never has.

For the record, I replied to your post 93 which was to Tanngrisnir. Then Winston offered the Supremacy Clause, not I.

So now I'm confused: are you claiming that treaties we enter IAW Article VI do NOT have the force of law? Or are you just full of self-important bluster?

As to torture at Abu Ghraib, apparently you are one of those who idolize Jack Bauer on 24, in which case our discussion will end soon. Several low enlisted were court-martialed for their acts of torture there. So if you're claiming we did NOT torture there, you're in deep denial.

Enlisted men but no officers were prosecuted for it, which is typical of the military in which **** rolls downhill, if you know what I mean.

The US Code Title 18 Section 2441 criminalizes torture.

So yes, please blame me--I'm confused as hell as to what you're trying to say....

 

[matchlight]

There is.. its a right of self determination.

Really? Where in the Constitution has the Supreme Court located this supposed right, and in what case?

To be clear... the constitution states that a right does not have to be enumerated to be considered a right.

It's funny that anyone would begin a reference to the Ninth Amendment with the words "to be clear." It is as notoriously unclear a part of the Constitution as there is, and even now there is no consensus among constitutional scholars about what it means. Judge Bork thought trying to determine its meaning was such an effort in futility that he suggested it be treated as an ink blot on the Constitution--i.e. text that is illegible and therefore cannot be interpreted.

And we believe in the right to self determination. That's why you have the right to refuse medical care for you and your loved one.. even when doing so will kill them.

Its why we have the right to abortion.

That statement is false. Neither the Ninth Amendment nor the constitutional basis for the right to refuse medical treatment has anything to with constitutional basis of the right to abortion. When the Supreme Court concocted a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade four decades ago, it specifically located this new right in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Patrickt]

Donald Trump lecturing on the Constitution is as funny as Sen. Joe Biden lecturing on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Sen. Reid lecturing on honesty in politics, or Micheal Moore lecturing on individual restraint.

I don't want everyone voting. The drunks that are given cigarettes and two-buck chuck to go vote as they're told to vote are an embarrassment for the Democrats. Dead people voting are another embarrassment as are foreign nationals voting. People in nursing homes visited by Democrat thugs and coerced into signing absentee ballots are an embarrassment.

The people who base their vote on television ads and politicians speeches probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

 

[matchlight]

For the record, I replied to your post 93 which was to Tanngrisnir. Then Winston offered the Supremacy Clause, not I.

For the record, another poster had claimed what happened at Abu Ghraib somehow involved the Constitution. When I asked him to specify which part he thought it involved, he could not answer. You then tried to answer for him in #101 by saying it was "the second paragraph of Article VI." The second paragraph of Article VI is also its second section. And Section Two of Article VI is the Supremacy Clause. Yet now you claim you did not offer the Supremacy Clause. You seem confused.

As to torture at Abu Ghraib, apparently you are one of those who idolize Jack Bauer on 24,

I know that was a TV show, but I never watched any of it. It would be pretty hard for me to idolize a fictional character I know nothing about.

Several low enlisted were court-martialed for their acts of torture there.

Please specify which person or persons were convicted of the crime of torture for their actions at Abu Ghraib. I doubt you can.

The US Code Title 18 Section 2441 criminalizes torture.

You are confused again. It is USC sections 2340, 2340A, and 2340B that address the crime of torture. Collectivists who resent this country and sympathize with Islamists have made the claim that various U.S. officials engaged in or authorized torture of captured jihadists a staple of their anti-American propaganda. Their usual target is the officials who interrogated three important Al Qaeda war criminals in 2002 and 2003, but on occasion they also like to prattle about Abu Ghraib.

These people almost never know the first thing about the law involved. Thousands of pages of legal documents on this subject have been published online, and I have read many hundreds of them. Acts have to be extremely serious to rise to the level of torture under U.S. law. The expert lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, after studying the enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. had proposed for use, including a specifically described waterboarding technique, concluded in formal legal memorandums that none of these techniques constituted torture. I have read those memos carefully, and I agree with their conclusions.

 

[Master PO]

So you have abandoned the use of an unratified OP-ED work and now demand 'proof'??? You seem to be willfully ignorant. A long easily googled list of powers the Feds possess when it comes to a citizen's liberty- they simply say it can't be taken without proper recourse, soldiers can't be billeted without proper recourse and due process must be followed to seize or examine a citizen's personal property/writings.

Nice try to dodge your claims, and instead demand some 'proof' you seem most intent on ignoring and believe the personal opinion of a few delegates to the Constitutional Convention overrides the document... :roll:

(and of course citing Hamilton- the later poster boy for a strong and powerful central government and national bank... (was THAT delegated in the original Constitution???

Now it isn't fair or particularly honest to claim only the original Document is the only document allowed as several amendments have been added to the document.. the one most apt here is the 14th amendment which both expands liberty and regulates others on their ability to limit/maintain limits on citizens... eace

i asked you for delegated power...i got nothing

 

[Thoreau72]

For the record, another poster had claimed what happened at Abu Ghraib somehow involved the Constitution. When I asked him to specify which part he thought it involved, he could not answer. You then tried to answer for him in #101 by saying it was "the second paragraph of Article VI." The second paragraph of Article VI is also its second section. And Section Two of Article VI is the Supremacy Clause. Yet now you claim you did not offer the Supremacy Clause. You seem confused.



I know that was a TV show, but I never watched any of it. It would be pretty hard for me to idolize a fictional character I know nothing about.



Please specify which person or persons were convicted of the crime of torture for their actions at Abu Ghraib. I doubt you can.



You are confused again. It is USC sections 2340, 2340A, and 2340B that address the crime of torture. Collectivists who resent this country and sympathize with Islamists have made the claim that various U.S. officials engaged in or authorized torture of captured jihadists a staple of their anti-American propaganda. Their usual target is the officials who interrogated three important Al Qaeda war criminals in 2002 and 2003, but on occasion they also like to prattle about Abu Ghraib.

These people almost never know the first thing about the law involved. Thousands of pages of legal documents on this subject have been published online, and I have read many hundreds of them. Acts have to be extremely serious to rise to the level of torture under U.S. law. The expert lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, after studying the enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. had proposed for use, including a specifically described waterboarding technique, concluded in formal legal memorandums that none of these techniques constituted torture. I have read those memos carefully, and I agree with their conclusions.

I'm in a hurry this morning, but I would like to continue the conversation.

At least Sergeant Chip Frederick was convicted for actions at AG. Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect and head of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in the 70's was called to interview and testify on behalf of Frederick. I'm pretty sure there were others, but don't have the time to research right now.

Comparing to Articles I through IV, there is no section 2 to Article VI. Yes, somebody is certainly confused, or at least not paying attention.