“You post was the typical emotional whining of a self-important self righteous shallow thinker who obviously thinks he’s holy and that if he pontificates his holiness everyone will recognize his brilliance, drop at his feet, weep, beg for forgiveness, and recognize that the peaceful world that he lives inside his mush-filled skull is is the holy land where all good men should reside.
You didn’t deserve a different response.
The rest of us recognize that we live in a hard and difficult world where our enemies are duplicitous, have no “better angels” to appeal to, and are not at all interested in responding with Christian kindness. No offense, but we have no problem recognizing our enemies and doing whatever is necessary to neutralize or eliminate them.
Now go away. Your fantasy world whining self-righteousness bores me. If I wanted to treat myself to that insipid slop I’d dial in Obama. He wallows in it and dishes it even more and better than you do.”
Tell you what, let’s put religion completely aside here. But I am going to need you to lift your knuckles off the ground, pick up a history and/or government book or two and learn something. Calm your macho, manly, “Let’s kick some ass doods” attitude and think like a civil person for a second.
I assume you agree that we have one hell of a document called a Consitution and it should be adhered to at all cost. Additionally, I assume as a patriot you are for the rule of law and respect the authority of the court system that was constructed and exercises its power by the authority established by the founders.
In light of this, let us review:
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This has been reaffirmed many times by the Supreme Court with the following just a sample of findings.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972):
The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
“A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958):
“The Eitght Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
My input: Meaning we can morally evolve as a society. At one point in the history of this continent, burning a suspected witch was seen as morally justified, as was slavery, but we have advanced from that from a moral standpoint.
It can be argued easily that waterboarding is unconstitutional.
To the hipocrasy of waterboarding by the United States.
1901 - Major Edwin F. Glenn receives court martial and convicted for waterboarding in the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Sentenced to 10 years hard labor.
Teddy Roosevelt orders the court martial of General Jacob H. Smith for waterboarding in the same war and dismisses the general.
World War II:
Eight Japenese Kempeitai are convicted for waterboarding soldiers and are executed by the United States.
Vietnam:
Soldier court-martialed and dishonarably discharged after conviction for waterboarding a Japenese prisoner after the American public sees it in a newspaper.
So if you believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, military tradition of the decency of the United States and moral progression of human beings, then you cannot jusify, as a nation, the use of torture.
When you are in battle, you shoot to kill and you bomb to destroy and their may or may not be collateral damage. That is expected, that is war. But when you have an unarmed and confined prisoner, regardless of his inherently evil acts, civility kicks in and you get back into civil mode.
But go back to your Rambo and Commando movies and continue to live in your brainless “kick-ass” world. Ours needs less of your line of thinking...step aside as we progress into a greater humanity.
This is nonsense, they were executed for murder. I don't have time now to deconstruct the rest of your crap but maybe tomoorow night.