bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[California Girl]

not that you will understand many of the words, but try this:

Consequentialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather than read some wiki shit, I think I'll go with what one of the victims from the 7/7 bombings said on the subject of waterboarding. He said, basically, if waterboarding could have stopped his wife dying in that horror, he sees no reason why not.

I understand why people dislike it, but the facts are that it worked. And it continues to work. You don't win against extremists by being nice. You win by using whatever mean necessary to destroy them.

since you think wikipedia is a liberal conspiracy, try these:

Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Consequentialism[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I know they have "edu" in the URL but don't let it scare you

Unless you can back up your claim about what I think about wiki, it really is pretty fucking stupid to make the comment.

And.... I get a lot of my research material from sites that have .edu in them, I'm not scared of them - I like them. Simply put, I have no problem with using whatever tactic is necessary to destroy terrorists.

You, on the other hand, would prefer we suffer further attacks - although I suspect that you would change your mind if you were personally affected by one.

 

[California Girl]

TxLongHorn may have read the Constitution, but the above comments reveal that he is clearly stuck in 1791. Let's move on.

Marty, you refuted nothing. What you did was give an inaccurate assertion as to a person's standing applicable to law. You are flatly wrong.

Why are you so fucking pompous that you think you are above the 'quote' function, Joke?

 

[rightwinger]

I swear its like you are trying to force a square peg into a hole the size of a needle. That right is for citizens, and whoever else the goverment deems it. When you enter another country the only reason you are covered under thier laws is that they let it happen that way. As such, if extended they can be taken away.

In the case of the waterboarding, the people were declared enemy combatants and therefore had no legal rights as citizens, guests, or combatants in a legitamate conflcit.

lets look at WWII as an example. When we broght German POW's over here they were not subject to civil courts or laws. they were covered under Military laws (not in the constitution, but not banned either) as well as the geneva conventions and could not sue in civillian courts.

And remember, going the route of "the people who dont agree with me dont comprehend (i.e. are idiots) is the primordial oooze of debating. Practice a little more then come back

Each time I punch a hole in your argument, and instead of countering you just reguritate what you think is the right answer.

You didn't punch a hole in anything. Using your "examples" without any references to actual history doesn't really help your argument much.

This government (and I mean the US government in general), had done lots of things that they think are legal at the time, but careful examination shows it was not. Such as not treating people with syphillis when you tell them you are, or infecting people from other countries with STDs. Even during WWII..Japanese internment was found to be wrong. And I do remember reading about Germans brought to the United States..and from what I understand they were treated pretty well. This was an effot to get them to "turn" or to get information.

I posted the Amendment. It was pretty clear and not hard to understand. What the Bush administration did was not only wrong..but completely wrong. But the wheels of justice are extremely slow in this country..but for the most part..they seem to get it right in the end.

So many words so little content. I againn refute your position, and you do not answer directly why my position is wrong. all you do is point to the document, imply what you WANT it to say, not what it actually says and then go off on a tangent.

Lets get back to the start of this thread. If what bush did was illegal, FIND A WAY TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL. if not, you lose.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it use the term citizen. The rights apply to anyone being prosecuted by the US. If a Frenchman comes over to the US and commits a crime, he is afforded the same rights as any citizen

Article the seventh .. 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 offence 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.

Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense

 

[martybegan]

You didn't punch a hole in anything. Using your "examples" without any references to actual history doesn't really help your argument much.

This government (and I mean the US government in general), had done lots of things that they think are legal at the time, but careful examination shows it was not. Such as not treating people with syphillis when you tell them you are, or infecting people from other countries with STDs. Even during WWII..Japanese internment was found to be wrong. And I do remember reading about Germans brought to the United States..and from what I understand they were treated pretty well. This was an effot to get them to "turn" or to get information.

I posted the Amendment. It was pretty clear and not hard to understand. What the Bush administration did was not only wrong..but completely wrong. But the wheels of justice are extremely slow in this country..but for the most part..they seem to get it right in the end.

So many words so little content. I againn refute your position, and you do not answer directly why my position is wrong. all you do is point to the document, imply what you WANT it to say, not what it actually says and then go off on a tangent.

Lets get back to the start of this thread. If what bush did was illegal, FIND A WAY TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL. if not, you lose.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it use the term citizen. The rights apply to anyone being prosecuted by the US. If a Frenchman comes over to the US and commits a crime, he is afforded the same rights as any citizen

Article the seventh .. 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 offence 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.

Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense

The crux of the matter is the word "Criminal." What a terrorist is doing (as long as not a citizen) is not criminal, it is an act of war. It is therefore under the juristiction of various treaties we have with other nations, Geneva et al. As the terrorists in question are in violation of Geneva themselves, they are no longer afforded its protections.

Another example of citizen vs. non citizen is deporatation. you cannot deport a citizen, but you can deport an non citizen. Deporations by your logic would require a full trial, with jury etc, and that is clearly not the case.

Any protections we extend to visitors to our country are done so volentarily, same as with other countries.

Edit: The words abortion and "right to privacy" as well as "seperation of church and state" arent there either, but the concepts according to some people are. What say you on that?

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you refuted nothing. What you did was give an inaccurate assertion as to a person's standing applicable to law. You are flatly wrong.

Sallow stated thay anyone in the country is covered by the constitution, I gave the specific case of German WWII POWs not being allowed to sue in US courts, and being covered under the Geneva conventions.

That refutes sallows statement does it not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

TxLongHorn may have read the Constitution, but the above comments reveal that he is clearly stuck in 1791. Let's move on.

Marty, you refuted nothing. What you did was give an inaccurate assertion as to a person's standing applicable to law. You are flatly wrong.

Why are you so fucking pompous that you think you are above the 'quote' function, Joke?

"Pompous" from you? Funny, CG. I don't need to quote anything when the assertion by Marty is internally destructive. What he asserts is simply not so.

 

[Sallow]

I am willing to bet that Sallow wasn't able to read the part where the government has the power to require Americans to purchase a service from a private business or be fined.

A bet you'd lose. There are several parts:

Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

I bolded some of the more relevant parts that pertain specifically to the health care bill. There are other peripheral issues that I included clauses for..

Incidently..there was a law on the books requiring men to own arms purchased from private companies to be ready to be called into service for the militia if needed.

Additionally..you are required to purchase insurance for cars and business.

 

[Sallow]

yeah...that's only a conservative problem...like every liberal has read it. I'm sure they have read it about as well as they read the healthcare bill. Which now that they have looked into it, some are very concerned. Too bad they didn't do their job BEFORE voting.

What about the "healthcare" bill, violates the Constitution?

Apparently you haven't read either one.

Apparently you are wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

So many words so little content. I againn refute your position, and you do not answer directly why my position is wrong. all you do is point to the document, imply what you WANT it to say, not what it actually says and then go off on a tangent.

Lets get back to the start of this thread. If what bush did was illegal, FIND A WAY TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL. if not, you lose.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it use the term citizen. The rights apply to anyone being prosecuted by the US. If a Frenchman comes over to the US and commits a crime, he is afforded the same rights as any citizen

Article the seventh .. 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 offence 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.

Article the eighth ... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense

The crux of the matter is the word "Criminal." What a terrorist is doing (as long as not a citizen) is not criminal, it is an act of war. It is therefore under the juristiction of various treaties we have with other nations, Geneva et al. As the terrorists in question are in violation of Geneva themselves, they are no longer afforded its protections.

Another example of citizen vs. non citizen is deporatation. you cannot deport a citizen, but you can deport an non citizen. Deporations by your logic would require a full trial, with jury etc, and that is clearly not the case.

Any protections we extend to visitors to our country are done so volentarily, same as with other countries.

Edit: The words abortion and "right to privacy" as well as "seperation of church and state" arent there either, but the concepts according to some people are. What say you on that?

Well..which is it? A crime or an act of war? The right seems to switch back and forth depending on the mood.

Botom line is torture is a crime against humanity and it applies to everyone. Civilized societies do not engage in torture, even if it is only three times and might save lives.
Our most heinous criminals are not allowed to be tortured.

The US has always held itself up as a model of liberty and humanity. To claim that the rules against torture do not apply to us is hypocritical

 

[midcan5]

I never thought I would live to see the day when the US openly gloats about engaging in torture

So true. If there is a single thing 911 demonstrated, it is how quickly some give up the freedoms they cherish only in word. Fear wipes reason clean faster than any tool known to humankind.

"My own view is that the American conservative movement's embrace or defense of torture was the moment its intellectual collapse became irrecoverable. When conservatism abandoned core values of American decency in favor of pure force, exemplified by torture techniques designed by Communists and Nazis, then it ceased to be conservative in the sense that Burke or Hayek or Oakeshott or Kirk would begin to understand. And watching the intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue in the last few years has been a watershed for me. It has been, in my judgment, one long, awful surrender of truth to power. Take a moment with me to review what one leading light of the Republican blogosphere wrote when the Abu Ghraib scandal first hit the news in the spring of 2004." Andrew Sullivan

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/the-right-and-a.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/ross-on-tortu-1.html

"So as far as the bigger picture goes, then, it seems indisputable that in the name of national security, and with the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws, this Administration pursued policies that delivered many detainees to physical and mental abuse, and not a few to death. These were wartime measures, yes, but war is not a moral blank check: If you believe that Abu Ghraib constituted a failure of jus in bello, then you have to condemn the decisions that led to Abu Ghraib, which means that you have to condemn the President and his Cabinet." R.D. http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/thinking_about_torture.php

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/11-4


"The main hypothesis concerning group-think is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of the in-group of policy makers the greater the danger that independent thinking will be replaced by group-think, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed at out-groups." from 'Sanctions for Evil;' Sanford and Comstock, 1971

 

[martybegan]

No where in the Bill of Rights does it use the term citizen. The rights apply to anyone being prosecuted by the US. If a Frenchman comes over to the US and commits a crime, he is afforded the same rights as any citizen

The crux of the matter is the word "Criminal." What a terrorist is doing (as long as not a citizen) is not criminal, it is an act of war. It is therefore under the juristiction of various treaties we have with other nations, Geneva et al. As the terrorists in question are in violation of Geneva themselves, they are no longer afforded its protections.

Another example of citizen vs. non citizen is deporatation. you cannot deport a citizen, but you can deport an non citizen. Deporations by your logic would require a full trial, with jury etc, and that is clearly not the case.

Any protections we extend to visitors to our country are done so volentarily, same as with other countries.

Edit: The words abortion and "right to privacy" as well as "seperation of church and state" arent there either, but the concepts according to some people are. What say you on that?

Well..which is it? A crime or an act of war? The right seems to switch back and forth depending on the mood.

Botom line is torture is a crime against humanity and it applies to everyone. Civilized societies do not engage in torture, even if it is only three times and might save lives.
Our most heinous criminals are not allowed to be tortured.

The US has always held itself up as a model of liberty and humanity. To claim that the rules against torture do not apply to us is hypocritical

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

 

[rightwinger]

The crux of the matter is the word "Criminal." What a terrorist is doing (as long as not a citizen) is not criminal, it is an act of war. It is therefore under the juristiction of various treaties we have with other nations, Geneva et al. As the terrorists in question are in violation of Geneva themselves, they are no longer afforded its protections.

Another example of citizen vs. non citizen is deporatation. you cannot deport a citizen, but you can deport an non citizen. Deporations by your logic would require a full trial, with jury etc, and that is clearly not the case.

Any protections we extend to visitors to our country are done so volentarily, same as with other countries.

Edit: The words abortion and "right to privacy" as well as "seperation of church and state" arent there either, but the concepts according to some people are. What say you on that?

Well..which is it? A crime or an act of war? The right seems to switch back and forth depending on the mood.

Botom line is torture is a crime against humanity and it applies to everyone. Civilized societies do not engage in torture, even if it is only three times and might save lives.
Our most heinous criminals are not allowed to be tortured.

The US has always held itself up as a model of liberty and humanity. To claim that the rules against torture do not apply to us is hypocritical

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

 

[daveman]

Well..which is it? A crime or an act of war? The right seems to switch back and forth depending on the mood.

Botom line is torture is a crime against humanity and it applies to everyone. Civilized societies do not engage in torture, even if it is only three times and might save lives.
Our most heinous criminals are not allowed to be tortured.

The US has always held itself up as a model of liberty and humanity. To claim that the rules against torture do not apply to us is hypocritical

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

How 'bout we just shoot 'em in the head on the battlefield?

Works for me. All nice and legal, too.

 

[CMike]

We are just lucky the democrats werent running the country after 911.

Pres bush did what needed to be done and saved thousands of American civilian lives despite the democrats.

 

[rightwinger]

We are just lucky the democrats werent running the country after 911.

Pres bush did what needed to be done and saved thousands of American civilian lives despite the democrats.

Yea...we would have missed out on that neat Iraq War and had 4000 more soldiers alive today

 

[mudwhistle]

I am willing to bet that Sallow wasn't able to read the part where the government has the power to require Americans to purchase a service from a private business or be fined.

A bet you'd lose. There are several parts:

Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

I bolded some of the more relevant parts that pertain specifically to the health care bill. There are other peripheral issues that I included clauses for..

Incidently..there was a law on the books requiring men to own arms purchased from private companies to be ready to be called into service for the militia if needed.

Additionally..you are required to purchase insurance for cars and business.

General Welfare is not collecting a check every week or being forced to purchase expensive health insurance or face fines or imprisonment.

 

[rightwinger]

I am willing to bet that Sallow wasn't able to read the part where the government has the power to require Americans to purchase a service from a private business or be fined.

A bet you'd lose. There are several parts:

Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

I bolded some of the more relevant parts that pertain specifically to the health care bill. There are other peripheral issues that I included clauses for..

Incidently..there was a law on the books requiring men to own arms purchased from private companies to be ready to be called into service for the militia if needed.

Additionally..you are required to purchase insurance for cars and business.

General Welfare is not collecting a check every week or being forced to purchase expensive health insurance or face fines or imprisonment.

Explain it to the judge

 

[Sallow]

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

How 'bout we just shoot 'em in the head on the battlefield?

Works for me. All nice and legal, too.

Which would be fine and dandy if they were found on a battlefield.

 

[Sallow]

I am willing to bet that Sallow wasn't able to read the part where the government has the power to require Americans to purchase a service from a private business or be fined.

A bet you'd lose. There are several parts:

Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

I bolded some of the more relevant parts that pertain specifically to the health care bill. There are other peripheral issues that I included clauses for..

Incidently..there was a law on the books requiring men to own arms purchased from private companies to be ready to be called into service for the militia if needed.

Additionally..you are required to purchase insurance for cars and business.

General Welfare is not collecting a check every week or being forced to purchase expensive health insurance or face fines or imprisonment.

Using what definition?

 

[daveman]

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

How 'bout we just shoot 'em in the head on the battlefield?

Works for me. All nice and legal, too.

Which would be fine and dandy if they were found on a battlefield.

Wouldn't be fine and dandy with everyone. There are people...Americans...who don't want us fighting terrorists at all.