What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[rightwinger]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality. Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

And killing 10 million people in New York City with a nuke isn't? You are calling for situational morality. Like I said, if you will stand by and let that happen to protect your lofty ideals, then I hope you are one of the people blown up by the bomb you let go off. As a new sun rises off of Long Island and your flesh is crisped and blown off your bones inside the million degree heat of a temporary star, you can salute yourself knowing full well you died to protect the rights of the terrorist who killed you and everyone else within ten miles and the tens of thousands afterwards who will die slow, horrible deaths from the radiation poisoning.

Again you are playing theoretical games

If we allow torture to save the lives of ten million, why not allow torture to save the life of one?

Where do you draw the line?

I draw it at torture is immoral and unconstitutional

 

[protectionist]

They are calling for situational morality

Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

It's not really "cruel" when done to a devil who is part of a scheme to kill millions of people, and there's certainly nothing "unusual" about it, having been done by European countries going back centuries, as well as Native Americans, the same.

As such it is not unconstitutional. It is illegal, but laws can be changed or altered, and the nature of the OP scenario, also bring into focus a very credible aspect of self-defense.

 

[protectionist]

If we allow torture to save the lives of ten million, why not allow torture to save the life of one?

Where do you draw the line?

I draw it at torture is immoral and unconstitutional

As I just described in the previous post, in self-defense, torture isn't immoral or unconstitutional.

So yes, it COULD be used to save the life of one person (maybe YOU).

 

[protectionist]

When told by Doc that he should learn to read, Festus replied "Well when you read, how do you know that the feller who wrote the readin, wrote the readin right ?"

Something to keep in mind, when posting links.

 

[SavannahMann]

They are calling for situational morality

Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

It's not really "cruel" when done to a devil who is part of a scheme to kill millions of people, and there's certainly nothing "unusual" about it, having been done by European countries going back centuries, as well as Native Americans, the same.

As such it is not unconstitutional. It is illegal, but laws can be changed or altered, and the nature of the OP scenario, also bring into focus a very credible aspect of self-defense.

It is cruel. It is unusual. It has been used for centuries. The Inquisition used it to force people to confess to being a witch, or an agent for the devil. That they were not witches or agents of the devil is pretty much understood by now. Unless of course you believe that Torquemada managed to eradicate witchcraft.

My wife was just watching a docudrama about Catherine the Great. They were trying to find a murderer. They reported to Catherine that they had tortured 23 people so far and that they had all confessed. The problem was they got the murder details wrong in their confession. Wrong weapon, location, or time of day. All 23 died as a result of their injuries, but the search continued.

What is interesting about your Festus quote is it keeps with the foundation of your belief. More Hollywood. Odd how you denounce any ideals or facts that do not support your ideology as liberal misinformation while using Hollywood fantasy as the foundation of that ideology.

What do the successful police interrogations have in common?

Criminal Confessions Detective on the Secret to Making a Suspect Confess - In Touch Weekly

Meh. He’s a cop. What does he know about getting confessions from people.

Though many of his interviewees have committed heinous crimes, Brian said that the key to getting a suspect to loosen up is by trying to connect with them. “Treating people with dignity and respect is huge. Know the facts of your case, know the suspect. Is he/she an emotional offender or non-emotional offender? If they are an emotional offender, the absolute key is to find out who is the constant in their life,” he explained. “You will know this if you do your research. You have to be conversational and listen. You need to develop your questions based on what they tell you, not what you want to ask or want to hear. It makes for a longer interview, but it will be their interview.”

What would he know about it? Or is he a liberal fool too? Why is it that the people who study it and work with it are all Liberal Fools and you with your vast knowledge about it gained from Hollywood are somehow right?

The experts say don’t do it. The law says don’t do it. But you are convinced it works.

By any chance do you also think the earth is flat?

 

[rightwinger]

They are calling for situational morality

Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

It's not really "cruel" when done to a devil who is part of a scheme to kill millions of people, and there's certainly nothing "unusual" about it, having been done by European countries going back centuries, as well as Native Americans, the same.

As such it is not unconstitutional. It is illegal, but laws can be changed or altered, and the nature of the OP scenario, also bring into focus a very credible aspect of self-defense.

Our Constitution says “cruel and unusual punishment”
It is a clear condemnation of torture

It is a keystone of our country

 

[rightwinger]

If we allow torture to save the lives of ten million, why not allow torture to save the life of one?

Where do you draw the line?

I draw it at torture is immoral and unconstitutional

As I just described in the previous post, in self-defense, torture isn't immoral or unconstitutional.

So yes, it COULD be used to save the life of one person (maybe YOU).

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

 

[protectionist]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Self-defense (United States) - Wikipedia

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

As for cruel and unusual, I've already refuted that dopey claim. That's another strange thing about liberals. You refute their claim (thoroughly),and they come right back and make it again. Why bother talking to them ?

Oh yeah, torture is real unusual, right ? It's only been going on rampantly all over the world for 5000 years, that all.

And how about the idea of scaring an interogatee in a cage next to a polar bear ? That's not cruel, and it's not punishment. It's not torture. You wouldn't even be touching the guy's body, and only scaring him for 5-10 minutes.

And it's not punishment, either. Punishment is doing something to somebody because they previously did something wrong. This is just trying to extract information from somebody who has information you want to obtain. It's not cruel, not unususal, and not punishment.

We all knew liberals were nutty, but being willing to allow millions of people to die an awful death, just to save one person a few minutes of psychological disturbance ? Wow. Amazing how unhinged liberals are. Really coming out in the wash in THIS thread. Liberals hanging themselves. (or committing themselves to mental institutions)

 

[SavannahMann]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Self-defense (United States) - Wikipedia

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

As for cruel and unusual, I've already refuted that dopey claim. That's another strange thing about liberals. You refute their claim (thoroughly),and they come right back and make it again. Why bother talking to them ?

Oh yeah, torture is real unusual, right ? It's only been going on rampantly all over the world for 5000 years, that all.

And how about the idea of scaring an interogatee in a cage next to a polar bear ? That's not cruel, and it's not punishment. It's not torture. You wouldn't even be touching the guy's body, and only scaring him for 5-10 minutes.

And it's not punishment, either. Punishment is doing something to somebody because they previously did something wrong. This is just trying to extract information from somebody who has information you want to obtain. It's not cruel, not unususal, and not punishment.

We all knew liberals were nutty, but being willing to allow millions of people to die an awful death, just to save one person a few minutes of psychological disturbance ? Wow. Amazing how unhinged liberals are. Really coming out in the wash in THIS thread. Liberals hanging themselves. (or committing themselves to mental institutions)

People are convicted for self defense.

Florida Woman Whose ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense Was Rejected Is Released

Man convicted of murder in self-defense case granted new trial

What I still can’t understand is how ignorant you are.

 

[rightwinger]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Self-defense (United States) - Wikipedia

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

As for cruel and unusual, I've already refuted that dopey claim. That's another strange thing about liberals. You refute their claim (thoroughly),and they come right back and make it again. Why bother talking to them ?

Oh yeah, torture is real unusual, right ? It's only been going on rampantly all over the world for 5000 years, that all.

And how about the idea of scaring an interogatee in a cage next to a polar bear ? That's not cruel, and it's not punishment. It's not torture. You wouldn't even be touching the guy's body, and only scaring him for 5-10 minutes.

And it's not punishment, either. Punishment is doing something to somebody because they previously did something wrong. This is just trying to extract information from somebody who has information you want to obtain. It's not cruel, not unususal, and not punishment.

We all knew liberals were nutty, but being willing to allow millions of people to die an awful death, just to save one person a few minutes of psychological disturbance ? Wow. Amazing how unhinged liberals are. Really coming out in the wash in THIS thread. Liberals hanging themselves. (or committing themselves to mental institutions)

If that terrorist is shooting at you and you shoot back in self defense, you will not be prosecuted

Whosever, if he surrenders and you have control of him, he is entitled to the protections of the Constitutions related to cruel and unusual punishment

 

[toobfreak]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Quite right. In situations where the law allows and it was clear self-defense, even lethal force is justified. In cases where it wasn't, it was only because it was shown not to be self-defense or not justified. But none of that is germane to the topic here.

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

Rightwinger is nothing but a troll, an antagonist, a bomb-thrower. He throws out comments he cannot defend just to get a response, and when you ask him for specifics to defend them, he just runs away or tries to change the topic, just as he is doing here, about self-defense, the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment implies conviction of a crime, torture in our context refers to a level of interrogation. Torture is also highly relative. If it really came down to one of these people dying horribly, or their family being killed, we all know those people talking high and mighty about rights, etc., would be the first to be at the attacker's throat doing anything to make him stop.

The reality is that we are very unlikely to have a terrorist attack us with a nuke or other 9/11 situation that we know about in advance and have time to identify a sole person responsible. Worse, our society is far too bound up in legalistics to ever effectively manage such a situation effectively. It would take forever and a hundred court cases and appeals just to decide who, what, where or when, while a hundred lawyers rush to defend the guy in nuking NYC.

America stands with its pants down unprepared as ever, and if a guy gets a nuke into NYC, he will blow it up before we ever know it, and long before the courts can decide how to handle it. A person's rights end where his actions step upon anothers, and our best defense against a nuke will be our intelligence agencies catching it before it gets here or can be implemented, and in the methods they use both prior and after, which are not always subject to public scrutiny. "Rights" are violated on a daily basis; hardly a week goes by where a cop is filmed taking down an assailant with whatever he can get away with to get control as he sees fit. And if you think our intelligence people protecting this country stop at the legal limit, when it comes to stopping terrorism, you better hope and pray they do whatever is necessary to stop these things, regardless of "rights," or the law. In a combat or crisis situation, you do what is necessary, or you simply do not survive.

 

[rightwinger]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Quite right. In situations where the law allows and it was clear self-defense, even lethal force is justified. In cases where it wasn't, it was only because it was shown not to be self-defense or not justified. But none of that is germane to the topic here.

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

Rightwinger is nothing but a troll, an antagonist, a bomb-thrower. He throws out comments he cannot defend just to get a response, and when you ask him for specifics to defend them, he just runs away or tries to change the topic, just as he is doing here, about self-defense, the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment implies conviction of a crime, torture in our context refers to a level of interrogation. Torture is also highly relative. If it really came down to one of these people dying horribly, or their family being killed, we all know those people talking high and mighty about rights, etc., would be the first to be at the attacker's throat doing anything to make him stop.

The reality is that we are very unlikely to have a terrorist attack us with a nuke or other 9/11 situation that we know about in advance and have time to identify a sole person responsible. Worse, our society is far too bound up in legalistics to ever effectively manage such a situation effectively. It would take forever and a hundred court cases and appeals just to decide who, what, where or when, while a hundred lawyers rush to defend the guy in nuking NYC.

America stands with its pants down unprepared as ever, and if a guy gets a nuke into NYC, he will blow it up before we ever know it, and long before the courts can decide how to handle it. A person's rights end where his actions step upon anothers, and our best defense against a nuke will be our intelligence agencies catching it before it gets here or can be implemented, and in the methods they use both prior and after, which are not always subject to public scrutiny. "Rights" are violated on a daily basis; hardly a week goes by where a cop is filmed taking down an assailant with whatever he can get away with to get control as he sees fit. And if you think our intelligence people protecting this country stop at the legal limit, when it comes to stopping terrorism, you better hope and pray they do whatever is necessary to stop these things, regardless of "rights," or the law. In a combat or crisis situation, you do what is necessary, or you simply do not survive.

What an ignorant screed

Cruel and unusual punishment means just that. Our government is prohibited from utilizing force that denigrates into cruelty or is unusual to the extent it exerts unnecessary pain

Our founders wanted us to be the good guys. They had seen what abuses of power did to the accused. That is why they specifically banned torture. Doesn’t matter if it was before trial or after trial. If they are in control of you, they have standards of decency

No, torture is not relative. The end does not justify the means

 

[SavannahMann]

I think I can sum up this thread this way. Protectionist has offered no proof that torture works. I among others have offered multiple examples of how it does not produce reliable results. It is considered by interrogators who work for anyone but the CIA to be the least effective method of getting information. Again, proven, and not disputed other than vague complaints that they’re all Liberals by Protectionist.

The proof the CIA offered that the Torture worked was utterly discredited when the Senate investigated it. One example was the Liberty Tower attack. The narrative was that Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up the information due to torture or enhanced interrogation as it is euphemistically called, to prevent the attack in 2002. Yet, there is a glaring problem. Khalid Sheik Mohammed wasn’t captured until 2003. Now, even the most challenged among us would recognize a little problem with the whole prevented the attack a year before he was captured by torturing him thing.

I’ve posted links, and I doubt they’ve even been read by those who stubbornly refuse to admit the flaws in their arguments. Professional interrogators for the FBI, and the Police, have told us for decades how to effectively question a subject to get the information. Yet, we ignore these people with a proven track record because of a mistaken ideal.

Opinion | What Torture Never Told Us

We ignore them because we believe that the only way to win the war is to make it a contest of wills, that whoever is willing to become the most brutal, the most in humane, wins.

Yet, oddly this technique hasn’t worked well in history either. Germany was roundly criticized for their brutality against civilians, and when the Library at Louvain it was called a crime against history.

Germans burn Belgian town of Louvain - Aug 25, 1914 - HISTORY.com

For some reason, the iron will and willingness to do anything for victory served only to stiffen the spines of the enemy. That is hardly the only example of such proofs, yet some are determined to ignore lessons from history thus insuring that the lessons are relearned as painfully as possible. In other words, they insist on repeating the mistakes.

So what proof do we have that torture works? The claims that were utterly discredited by the CIA that torture really works. Pfui. If I hurt you enough, you’ll tell me something, but it probably won’t be the truth. It takes too long to test every statement to find some corroboration.

We have rules, and those rules are more than silly words on a piece of paper. They reflect the principles that we are supposed to agree upon as Americans. If you don’t agree with those principles, there are other nations you can become citizens of. The Miranda warning in China is pretty much scream all you want, we don’t care. Venezuela locks up political opponents and brutalizes them. Why not move to Venezuela if you respect those kinds of strengths so much?

I on the other hand, find such things abhorrent and I will not partake in them, and I will never support anyone who does. The ends have never justified the means. That is the weakest of all justifications.

 

[toobfreak]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Quite right. In situations where the law allows and it was clear self-defense, even lethal force is justified. In cases where it wasn't, it was only because it was shown not to be self-defense or not justified. But none of that is germane to the topic here.

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

Rightwinger is nothing but a troll, an antagonist, a bomb-thrower. He throws out comments he cannot defend just to get a response, and when you ask him for specifics to defend them, he just runs away or tries to change the topic, just as he is doing here, about self-defense, the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment implies conviction of a crime, torture in our context refers to a level of interrogation. Torture is also highly relative. If it really came down to one of these people dying horribly, or their family being killed, we all know those people talking high and mighty about rights, etc., would be the first to be at the attacker's throat doing anything to make him stop.

The reality is that we are very unlikely to have a terrorist attack us with a nuke or other 9/11 situation that we know about in advance and have time to identify a sole person responsible. Worse, our society is far too bound up in legalistics to ever effectively manage such a situation effectively. It would take forever and a hundred court cases and appeals just to decide who, what, where or when, while a hundred lawyers rush to defend the guy in nuking NYC.

America stands with its pants down unprepared as ever, and if a guy gets a nuke into NYC, he will blow it up before we ever know it, and long before the courts can decide how to handle it. A person's rights end where his actions step upon anothers, and our best defense against a nuke will be our intelligence agencies catching it before it gets here or can be implemented, and in the methods they use both prior and after, which are not always subject to public scrutiny. "Rights" are violated on a daily basis; hardly a week goes by where a cop is filmed taking down an assailant with whatever he can get away with to get control as he sees fit. And if you think our intelligence people protecting this country stop at the legal limit, when it comes to stopping terrorism, you better hope and pray they do whatever is necessary to stop these things, regardless of "rights," or the law. In a combat or crisis situation, you do what is necessary, or you simply do not survive.

What an ignorant screed

What typical predictably dismissive left-wing blather.

Cruel and unusual punishment means just that. Our government is prohibited from utilizing force that denigrates into cruelty or is unusual to the extent it exerts unnecessary pain

Thank you. Then if I need to water-board some muslim scum to get him to cough up the location and deactivation of a nuke set to detonate in a New York subway to save the city, then it was NECESSARY, and therefore by your own words and standards, not torture. What would be cruel would be to sit by and let a nuclear bomb go off in Manhattan and you are an idiot giving terrorists a wide open door to both attack and defeat us to argue otherwise. I'm sure such a person is reading your post right now and laughing at what a fool and easy target you and other Americans like you are.

Our founders wanted us to be the good guys. They had seen what abuses of power did to the accused. That is why they specifically banned torture.

You mean our Founders knew about nukes? And where specifically are you referring to in the DOI or the Constitution that they banned torture? And who gets to decide what torture is? I had a friend so tough that when he ripped his forearm open on sharp metal and went to get it stitched up, he refused local anesthetic. Another person goes out of their mind if they don't get four square meals a day or has to listen to punk rock.

Without a doubt, our LEAs have both a duty and obligation to safeguard our nation. It is the Federal government's first and highest responsibility. And if I have some scum that is about to kill millions in a holocaust that would do a trillion dollars damage to this country, I will do whatever it takes to safeguard our citizens, and there are ways of making people talk without the barbaric methods of the Dark Ages. You can be sure every important country in this world which takes its defense and national security seriously has a team of people or department somewhere that this is all they study, how to get the enemy to crack, and crack they will, whether you fucking like it or not.

 

[rightwinger]

Our Constitution makes no allowance for self defense

It forbids cruel and unusual punishment

Nonsense. No state in America convicts even killers who kill in self-defense. You kill in self-defense, you walk free.

Quite right. In situations where the law allows and it was clear self-defense, even lethal force is justified. In cases where it wasn't, it was only because it was shown not to be self-defense or not justified. But none of that is germane to the topic here.

Liberals are so ignorant, it's sometimes hard to tell if they're lying, or really are that ignorant/stupid.

Rightwinger is nothing but a troll, an antagonist, a bomb-thrower. He throws out comments he cannot defend just to get a response, and when you ask him for specifics to defend them, he just runs away or tries to change the topic, just as he is doing here, about self-defense, the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment implies conviction of a crime, torture in our context refers to a level of interrogation. Torture is also highly relative. If it really came down to one of these people dying horribly, or their family being killed, we all know those people talking high and mighty about rights, etc., would be the first to be at the attacker's throat doing anything to make him stop.

The reality is that we are very unlikely to have a terrorist attack us with a nuke or other 9/11 situation that we know about in advance and have time to identify a sole person responsible. Worse, our society is far too bound up in legalistics to ever effectively manage such a situation effectively. It would take forever and a hundred court cases and appeals just to decide who, what, where or when, while a hundred lawyers rush to defend the guy in nuking NYC.

America stands with its pants down unprepared as ever, and if a guy gets a nuke into NYC, he will blow it up before we ever know it, and long before the courts can decide how to handle it. A person's rights end where his actions step upon anothers, and our best defense against a nuke will be our intelligence agencies catching it before it gets here or can be implemented, and in the methods they use both prior and after, which are not always subject to public scrutiny. "Rights" are violated on a daily basis; hardly a week goes by where a cop is filmed taking down an assailant with whatever he can get away with to get control as he sees fit. And if you think our intelligence people protecting this country stop at the legal limit, when it comes to stopping terrorism, you better hope and pray they do whatever is necessary to stop these things, regardless of "rights," or the law. In a combat or crisis situation, you do what is necessary, or you simply do not survive.

What an ignorant screed

What typical predictably dismissive left-wing blather.

Cruel and unusual punishment means just that. Our government is prohibited from utilizing force that denigrates into cruelty or is unusual to the extent it exerts unnecessary pain

Thank you. Then if I need to water-board some muslim scum to get him to cough up the location and deactivation of a nuke set to detonate in a New York subway to save the city, then it was NECESSARY, and therefore by your own words and standards, not torture. What would be cruel would be to sit by and let a nuclear bomb go off in Manhattan and you are an idiot giving terrorists a wide open door to both attack and defeat us to argue otherwise. I'm sure such a person is reading your post right now and laughing at what a fool and easy target you and other Americans like you are.

Our founders wanted us to be the good guys. They had seen what abuses of power did to the accused. That is why they specifically banned torture.

You mean our Founders knew about nukes? And where specifically are you referring to in the DOI or the Constitution that they banned torture? And who gets to decide what torture is? I had a friend so tough that when he ripped his forearm open on sharp metal and went to get it stitched up, he refused local anesthetic. Another person goes out of their mind if they don't get four square meals a day or has to listen to punk rock.

Without a doubt, our LEAs have both a duty and obligation to safeguard our nation. It is the Federal government's first and highest responsibility. And if I have some scum that is about to kill millions in a holocaust that would do a trillion dollars damage to this country, I will do whatever it takes to safeguard our citizens, and there are ways of making people talk without the barbaric methods of the Dark Ages. You can be sure every important country in this world which takes its defense and national security seriously has a team of people or department somewhere that this is all they study, how to get the enemy to crack, and crack they will, whether you fucking like it or not.

Our founders understood the nature of torture and made provisions in the Constitution to forbid it

There were no provisions........unless you can save lives or unless they really deserve it

Cruel and unusual punishment was banned

 

[toobfreak]

Our founders understood the nature of torture and made provisions ... There were no provisions...

So there were no provisions until the founders made provisions? Ahha. Want to show me where?

Cruel and unusual punishment was banned

Where? And since when is interrogating an enemy combatant threatening your nation with great harm cruel and unusual punishment just because it isn't pleasant???

 

[rightwinger]

Our founders understood the nature of torture and made provisions ... There were no provisions...

So there were no provisions until the founders made provisions? Ahha. Want to show me where?

Cruel and unusual punishment was banned

Where? And since when is interrogating an enemy combatant threatening your nation with great harm cruel and unusual punishment just because it isn't pleasant???

Print my full quote without creative editing and I will respond

 

[Pop23]

No - Because torture doesn't work. The one being tortured will say whatever it takes to make it stop.

You ain't Jack Bauer - and neither is the CIA.

8 million people would die, and we can assume by the question itself that:

A. normal interrogation techniques have not worked, or
B. There is not enough time for normal techniques to work,

Fuck the rules, put the dude on the rack and let the stretching begin!

YES, torture the dude, even if it's just for the fun of it! What the hell you got to lose?

 

[Valerie]

trumptards believe the magna carta, geneva conventions, and the U.S. Constitution are just "political correctness" run amok.

after all, their ignorant hero told them so... SQUAWK !!

 

[rightwinger]

trumptards believe the magna carta, geneva conventions, and the U.S. Constitution are just "political correctness" run amok.

after all, their ignorant hero told them so... SQUAWK !!

The party that wraps themselves in the flag and swears by the Bible and the Constitution..........supports TORTURE