Waterboarding

[dburkhead]

If they were willing to ignore what they thought it means, as TJ did in my example why does it matter what they thought it means?

So what the folk who wrote it thought it meant doesn't matter. What you think it means trumps?

So why doesn't what Rosie O'Donut thinks the 2nd means trump?

BTW, note that in your own example, when TJ did something that he "wasn't sure" he actually had the authority to do, he said so, right there in his writings.

So where is the writings, where is any evidence at all, that anyone who was actually involved in the creation of the Constitution thought that the ordinary treatment of POW's at that time was unconstitutional?

For that matter, the Constitution itself is the best evidence that the various "god given" rights were not Universal in nature. As evidence, I refer you to the 3/5's rule--right there in the text of the Constitution. While that one was later revoked by Amendment (ah, those old days where, when people wanted to make a change to the Constitution, they actually passed an amendment rather than just "reinterpreting" it), those Amendments are specific in applying to US persons.

 

[ruger17hmr]

If one harms the other in self defense, it is up to that indivisual to deal with the after effects. Act of single indivisual does not impact the rest! However, what we are discussing here is about an entity that is far greater than that of an indivisual.
If any forms of torture is sanctioned by US government, it will have far greater impact on the general population.

 

[dburkhead]

Effective should be accomplished in less than five years.

He may be dead. But I don't think so. If anyone we have in prison in Cuba once knew where he is they don't know now. I doubt we could force a "true" believer to tell us with any method. So what do we do with these prisoners?

And yet, strangely enough, all these other techniques (which are still being used) also haven't turned him up either.

Somebody with as big an ego as Bin Laden being silent for this long this side of the grave? Unlikely in the extreme.

As for "true believer" I suspect you are falling into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If they could be broken, they obviously weren't a "true" believer.

What did we do with any POW's ever: they stayed in prison until they were no longer a threat (usually, that meant when the war was over, but that's not the only possible criterion). At Gitmo, the prisoners receive annual reviews over their status. A number have been released (and, unfortunately, were later caught in further terrorist activities (demonstrating a likelihood to err on the side of "release" rather than "keep"). Now, it has happened that individuals have been cleared for release and have not actually been released. This is for the simple reason that nobody will take them (except, in at least one case, China, which would take the individual and then immediately execute him). Funny how all these foreign powers complaining about the US keeping these prisoners in Gitmo yet they won't take them when we're willing to release them.

 

[techres]

Funny how all these foreign powers complaining about the US keeping these prisoners in Gitmo yet they won't take them when we're willing to release them.

Check drudgereport, England is taking theirs back:

Britain ready to take in Guantánamo prisoners

I doubt they plan to execute them.

 

[dburkhead]

If one harms the other in self defense, it is up to that indivisual to deal with the after effects. Act of single indivisual does not impact the rest! However, what we are discussing here is about an entity that is far greater than that of an indivisual.
If any forms of torture is sanctioned by US government, it will have far greater impact on the general population.

"Act of single individual does not impact the rest"? Since we're talking about killing, by that logic murder is okay. Since murder is not okay, but most people here would say killing in self-defense is okay we have a case where the same action--killing another human being--is, in some circumstances, permissible and other times not.

As for the "sanctioned by the US government" by that argument you must, then, disapprove of all wars. The allies in WWII were wrong for not just surrendering to the Germans (just as the Germans were wrong for attacking in the first place). After all, two wrongs don't make a right. When a government sanctions killing, even in a defensive war, it will "have a greater impact on the general population."

Therefore, using the logic you are using, every time an aggressor acts, unless they respond favorably to polite requests to desist, their victims only "good" recourse is to surrender. A world where tyrants win by default. It's an interesting concept, but not one I really want to see played out in the real world.

And thus we see your "when the government sanctions it" argument is no better than the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument. Both really leave one with no recourse but to meekly bow ones head to the executioner.

 

[dburkhead]

Check drudgereport, England is taking theirs back:

Britain ready to take in Guantánamo prisoners

I doubt they plan to execute them.

Yes, England was actually the case I was referring to where some were released and then found engaged in terrorist activities after said release.

The "no one to take them" was specifically referring to the case where one was cleared for release by the annual review but not actually released.

 

[10ring]

If water boarding was effective some information relating to those questions should have been found by now.

And it was.

Folks here act like waterboarding is netting bigtime results. The evidence of that is ... shakey. The fact that it violates much of what this nation is supposed to be about is certain. That was my point.

"Shakey". Is that better than dead?

 

[ruger17hmr]

I do disapprove of all wars.
I believe that all killings are wrong.

If we all avoid the violence, there would be no reason for the war.
There would be no reason for any killings.

Alas, we do not live in the perfect world!

If we let ourselves carried away by the cruel reality of the world, we deserve what is coming to us!

 

[10ring]

I do disapprove of all wars.
I believe that all killings are wrong.

If we all avoid the violence, there would be no reason for the war.
There would be no reason for any killings.

Alas, we do not live in the perfect world!

If we let ourselves carried away by the cruel reality of the world, we deserve what is coming to us!

That's fine. You keep on "disapproving of all wars" and those of us with a sack will keep protecting your right to do so.

 

[ruger17hmr]

World history is soaking wet with the blood shed.
Eye for an eye justice did nothing to reduce the pain and suffering of the mass!

 

[Coach]

So what the folk who wrote it thought it meant doesn't matter. What you think it means trumps?

So why doesn't what Rosie O'Donut thinks the 2nd means trump?

BTW, note that in your own example, when TJ did something that he "wasn't sure" he actually had the authority to do, he said so, right there in his writings.

So where is the writings, where is any evidence at all, that anyone who was actually involved in the creation of the Constitution thought that the ordinary treatment of POW's at that time was unconstitutional?

For that matter, the Constitution itself is the best evidence that the various "god given" rights were not Universal in nature. As evidence, I refer you to the 3/5's rule--right there in the text of the Constitution. While that one was later revoked by Amendment (ah, those old days where, when people wanted to make a change to the Constitution, they actually passed an amendment rather than just "reinterpreting" it), those Amendments are specific in applying to US persons.

Why do the intentions of the Founding Generation count for more than those living now? If all men are created equal why to Tom, George, James or John count for more than John Q Public today?

You cannot take the Constitution literally on everything, and the Founding Fathers did not have intentions about everything we face today. Like it or not some interpretation is going to be required. What is reasonable, unreasonable, cruel, unusual, necessary and proper, mean?

What is ordinary treatment of prisoners mean? Why does it matter what they thought? The Jefferson example proves they are willing to go against what they thought. If they/he will do it once they/he will do it again?

So if the Founding Father's were willing to write all men are created equal and yet own slaves we should pay homeage to their intentions long after they are in the grave? They thought slavery was ok, want to go back to those days?

Do we need an amendment to make waterboarding ok, or to stop it?

 

[dburkhead]

Why do the intentions of the Founding Generation count for more than those living now? If all men are created equal why to Tom, George, James or John count for more than John Q Public today?

You cannot take the Constitution literally on everything, and the Founding Fathers did not have intentions about everything we face today. Like it or not some interpretation is going to be required. What is reasonable, unreasonable, cruel, unusual, necessary and proper, mean?

What is ordinary treatment of prisoners mean? Why does it matter what they thought? The Jefferson example proves they are willing to go against what they thought. If they/he will do it once they/he will do it again?

So if the Founding Father's were willing to write all men are created equal and yet own slaves we should pay homeage to their intentions long after they are in the grave? They thought slavery was ok, want to go back to those days?

Do we need an amendment to make waterboarding ok, or to stop it?

You cannot have it both ways. If "original intent" matters in things like RKBA, then it matters across the board. If it doesn't matter then the folk who make the "living document" argument and interpret away our rights are justified in doing so.

So which is it? Does the original intent of the folk who wrote the Constitution matter or do the folk saying the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard have a valid point?

The founding fathers wrote slavery into the Constitution. A later generation wrote it out of the Constitution, but limited it the "no state may...." to people of the United States. If you want to extend Constitutional Guarantees to the rest of the world, that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Then we could change our national motto from "E Plurebus Unum" to "protego pallens quod planto humilis superbus" ("To protect the weak and make humble the proud") and we all know how wonderful were the guys who had that motto before.

 

[dburkhead]

World history is soaking wet with the blood shed.
Eye for an eye justice did nothing to reduce the pain and suffering of the mass!

So your contention is that meekly submitting to the conquerors is better? The Polish were wrong for fighting the German invaders? The French were right to surrender so quickly (and should have surrendered at the first move by the Germans)? That Churchills "We will fight them on the beaches...." speech was pure warmongering and instead of ending with "we will never surrender" it should have been "we will immediately surrender"?

I refer you to the words of Edmund Burke: "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." What we have here is people arguing for doing nothing and finding reasons to feel morally superior because of it.

 

[ruger17hmr]

"What we have here is people arguing for doing nothing and finding reasons to feel morally superior because of it."

Far from it!

Notice I stated earier that if we all put an effort to avoid violence, there
would be no need for the war or bloodshed.

There would have been no need for the WWI or WWII, if the humanity lived under harmony.

As you so eloquently stated, the world we live in is fractured and corrupt.
Rampant violence is the norm. If the humanity want to rid of the tyranny and injustice in this world, we all have to strive to remove the root cause.

 

[dburkhead]

"What we have here is people arguing for doing nothing and finding reasons to feel morally superior because of it."

Far from it!

Notice I stated earier that if we all put an effort to avoid violence, there
would be no need for the war or bloodshed.

There would have been no need for the WWI or WWII, if the humanity lived under harmony.

As you so eloquently stated, the world we live in is fractured and corrupt.
Rampant violence is the norm. If the humanity want to rid of the tyranny and injustice in this world, we all have to strive to remove the root cause.

If. If. If.

And if the Tooth Fairy were real....

Your "if" has no bearing on reality. Since there exist evil people in the world, "all living in harmony" is simply not an option. As the old saying goes: it only takes one to start a war. Another is Orwell's "the quickest way to end a war is to lose it."

If the other guy is willing to fight and kill for what he wants, your only option is to either give him what he wants or to stop him. The latter option frequently requires fighting back. In many cases I do not find giving him what he wants to be an acceptable solution. In others, I might be willing to give him at least some of what he wants except that whole "give me what I want or I'll kill you" thing gets my Irish up. I'm funny that way.

 

[Panama]

"What we have here is people arguing for doing nothing and finding reasons to feel morally superior because of it."

Far from it!

Notice I stated earier that if we all put an effort to avoid violence, there
would be no need for the war or bloodshed.

There would have been no need for the WWI or WWII, if the humanity lived under harmony.

As you so eloquently stated, the world we live in is fractured and corrupt.
Rampant violence is the norm. If the humanity want to rid of the tyranny and injustice in this world, we all have to strive to remove the root cause.

What are you smokin'?
My suggestion is, move back from the campfire for the next course of "KumBaYa"

 

[ruger17hmr]

The humanity will self destruct in not too distant future if we stay on
the current violence driven path.

Change has to occur at the grassroot level.

Are we living in the better world because of all the violence we have inflicted on one another?

It is precisely because we are not living in the fairy tale world, we need to change.

 

[Coach]

You cannot have it both ways. If "original intent" matters in things like RKBA, then it matters across the board. If it doesn't matter then the folk who make the "living document" argument and interpret away our rights are justified in doing so.

So which is it? Does the original intent of the folk who wrote the Constitution matter or do the folk saying the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard have a valid point?

The founding fathers wrote slavery into the Constitution. A later generation wrote it out of the Constitution, but limited it the "no state may...." to people of the United States. If you want to extend Constitutional Guarantees to the rest of the world, that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Then we could change our national motto from "E Plurebus Unum" to "protego pallens quod planto humilis superbus" ("To protect the weak and make humble the proud") and we all know how wonderful were the guys who had that motto before.

I don't want it both ways. The right of the people to keep and bear are shall not be infringed does not need any interpretation at all. So I do not have go back and see what the original intent was. I don't care what it was. I want the shall not be infringed to be enforced.

You brought up original intent not me. You brought it up to justify water boarding. I pointed out that original intent and has problems because the framers did not all agree on things and they sometimes violated their own principles to doing something practical like buy some ground because it was a good deal and in our own best interest.

But like normal you are never wrong or willing to acknowledge a weakness in your argument or that a counter point that goes against your view is valid.

Just save us all some time and run for office and set things right.

It does not take a Constitutional Amendment to treat all men as equals and as though they have value. Like it or not water boarding goes against Constitutional values like cruel and unusual punishment. If we don't do that to criminal in the states we should not do it at all.

Stop taking prisoners in the holy war might be the best solution.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I presume you're married or have (or have had, or hope to have) a girlfriend. If the RIFs ("Radical Islamic Fundamentalists") had actually won, your wife or girlfriend, current, past, or present would be subject to execution for the "crime" of being raped (as just one example). Said wife/girlfriend's testimony would only count 20% of a man's in a court of law. Being even a little bit uncovered (as in anything less than Burka covered) would justify rape in the eyes of Islamic courts ("Uncovered meat, ripe for snatching"). And so on and so forth.

Before talking about them having already won, consider what a "win" really would mean.

I consider someone taking a knife to my belly and cutting me open in five spots to be pretty bad. But when my gall bladder went bad that became very much a lesser evil.

He who has ears to hear, let him here.

You see, for the most part I agree that torture should not be used. Where we part company is that I can see potential situations where it would be justified, where not doing it would lead to far worse consequences. Thus, I cannot say "never" on the use of torture, and even less under waterboarding (which, once again, is not torture).

No. The RIF's winning is my fellow americans suspending their humanity because of fear. Fear of another terrorist attack. Fear of their lives. All because the government told them so. This war will never end so long as they want it to continue. They will continue to take away our rights out of the fear of the masses. And as long as we have rights, the war will never end.

 

[techres]

No. The RIF's winning is my fellow americans suspending their humanity because of fear. Fear of another terrorist attack. Fear of their lives. All because the government told them so. This war will never end so long as they want it to continue. They will continue to take away our rights out of the fear of the masses. And as long as we have rights, the war will never end.

I am in a slightly different place best modified as:

The RIF's winning is my fellow americans suspending their God given rights because of fear. Fear of another terrorist attack. Fear of their lives. All because the government told them so. This war will never end so long as they want it to continue. They will continue to take away our rights out of the fear of the masses. And as long as we have rights, the war will never end.

dburkhead, you look off onto the dark horizon and see a world without waterboarding where we are broken and bent, enslaved under the Islamic Hegemony.

I look off into the dark dark horizon and see a world with waterboarding where we are broken and bent, enslaved under a fascist government of our own making.

Then comes the question of proof of direction. How do we know which way we are going? What are the sign posts along the way?

Again, my sign posts are things like the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, the cancerous growth of the TSA, the powers taken by the last executive office and which are about to be handed to Acorn's candidate and the biggest Anti-Gun VP we have seen in ages.

Do I also see RIF sign posts? Sure, but not those so much in the Middle East. I see the real battle taking place in Europe where they are coming to terms with how to grapple with RIF on a societal level. The most vital game there is going to be how integration will overpower immigration and will that act faster than radicalization can recruit small terror cells that can make a hand full of bombs here and there (as opposed to a nuke).

Between those sets of sign posts, the first is far more concerning than the second because it is metastasizing far faster. We may never lose to the RIF because we will do ourselves in faster than they can get here. And, yes this is an old battle. We will wage it and win, but only if we do not sell ourselves out first.