Posted on 11/09/2005 5:07:14 PM PST by concretebob
I'm a computer programmer. I would be insulted if we started asking truck drivers, CPAs, or interrogation experts what are the most effective and acceptable ways to code. So explain to me why a bunch of know-nothings (that includes our illustrious Senate) who have no experience in this area are speculating or asking other know-nothings to speculate on what they think works, doesn't work, or should be acceptable. Leave it to the experts.
I already provided you with a link at reply 74. Read the whole article.
Then ask yourself this question. Is it more humane to risk the lives of thousands of innocents to spare the well being of one terrorist? To me, THAT is heinous!
Thanks for posting Mark Levin's comments. He says so clearly what the problem is.
The media and other opponents of President Bush are hanging out the idea that American policy tolerates torture of captured enemies. This becomes "the big lie" = accepted truth.
The idea that "America is an oppressor nation" is taught in public schools from Grade 1 on - I'll give kindergarten a pass here - so the leap to believing that Rumsfeld, etc order detainees to be tortured becomes a believable concept.
That McCain says that there needs to be a law granting constitutional rights to people who operate outside all laws of civilized behavior, further adds to the concept that American troops need to be controlled from their bad behavior.
Iraqikurd, I understand how intimately you feel the word "torture" and respect your feelings, but please also try to understand what concretebob is saying: American Armed Forces Do Not Torture Detainees. Period.
For McCain to bring up this bill seems to say to the world that our troops do commit torture.
But we do ask CPAs what are the most effective and acceptable ways to perform accounting tasks, and having worked for one of the Big Six accounting firms, I can tell you they have regulations out the wazoo. Same for truck drivers -- there are numerous rules of the road, weight and cargo restrictions and safety regulations.
That said, I'm not ruling out extreme stress and psychological methods, but ever since the services put women and gays into combat, there is a big mess. Is it ok to torture soldiers sexually, to rape men as a torture and then spit on Uday for having a rape room? Lines need to be drawn somewhere.
On the other hand, when the ACLU swoops in wanting to extract taxpayer monies to defend avowed enemies, no. I personally feel that the Ann Coulter solution wouldn't be half bad: deny Korans and make the prisoners memorize Bible passages or else have to do laps, do hard labor, whatever. Feed them American food, and if they don't like it, too bad -- the Christian scripture says what goes into your mouth will not damn you, but rather what comes out of it.
You're right on the money in post 82.
The takeover of our schools by the leftist victimologists and the takeover of the press by the "big lie" artists are deadly poisonous to our nation -- these are "the enemy within."
McCain is a stealth antagonist of Bush and is obviously grandstanding for his presidential run, using his own torture experiences as psychological warfare. It's beneath contempt; but he will do it anyway and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate are no help to the President. Why?
That said, no human system is perfect, and with the latest generations of young people raised to spit on our nation, on religious precepts and on morality in general, we can't rule out individual cases of torture that would happen if interrogators are given free rein. But there is no military or feudal tradition of torture such as those found in Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. The closest we came was the Salem witch trials in the 1600s, when we were still an English colony, not the American nation.
Pardon me if I say DUH!
You asked me to define what are acceptable methods of torture and I say this is a red herring. So is talk of sexual torture and rape. If you'll recall, the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted without benefit of the McCain Amendment. What the McCain Amendment will do is make it impossible to use even the simplest of interrogation techniques without fear of being prosecuted.
(Ask a CPA about accounting tasks? I'm slapping my hand on my forehead and saying, "Who'd a thunk?". And for the past 10 years I've had Joe's Torture and Interrogation Supply Company do my taxes!)</SARCASM>
The problem with this thread in its entirety is that people attack the posters, not the issue. That's the only reason I got into it in the first place. When FReepers insist on putting other FReepers down, they waste time that could have been spent refining the arguments. Over and out.
Out!
Thanks for explaining your position.
I am glad that you do not think Americans do not torture people in defense of our country. We will have to talk about treating terrorists as common criminals some other time.
Some quick thoughts---
We can not prosecute successful suicide bombers. They commit their own death penalty.
We would like to stop people from making the suicide vests, driving the bombers to their destination, etc, etc, all activities that are not "criminal" until the bomb is detonated, but is only useful if deterred. All of our attention is on deterrence, not prosecution of "crimes."
Well, which is it? Does it "reiterate", or does it "set"? You can't have it both ways.
If it simply "reiterates", then it was just a thinly veiled swipe at the Whitehouse and its handling of the war. If it "sets", then there is legitimate concern about the "setting" of new levels of rights for detainees / POWs.
If legislators think it will be a good idea to gradually grant our enemies the full list of American constitutional rights in a time of war, we may as well start picking our new Muslim names now. All an enemy will have to do to defeat the US is hire lawyers for all their fighters and clog up the courts for a few decades.
In war, you don't protect your enemy, you defeat them.
BUT
I have NOT been debating torture..or whether or not our troops engage in it.
I have been trying to explain that WE SHOULD NOT GRANT CONSTUTIONAL PROTECTIONS TO TERRORISTS...
The very same points Mark Levin stated in his piece.
I am all for giving whatever protections are required to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan..LEGAL CITIZENS, willing to acknowledge that with those protections comes responsibility for actions.
Those people EARN the right to be protected.
Just as IK has earned the right to be protected.
Some Republican lawmakers are considering ending birthright citizenship as we know it. The intriguing legal argument they tout is that the United States has been misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment for over 100 years.
As a consequence, they argue, the United States awards citizenship to those whom the amendment's framers never intended -- and indeed, whom in some cases, common sense suggests we shouldn't -- like terrorists or agents of foreign powers.
Then there is the question of illegal immigration. With a Rasmussen Poll indicating that half of Americans think children of illegals should not automatically receive citizenship, the idea could well grow legs.
The predominant interpretation of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment holds that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, except the children of diplomats.
But six weeks ago, in testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee that Hill staffers have since been touting, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow of Claremont Institute, argued that the prevailing interpretation gives more weight to place of birth than originally intended and should be changed.
"Birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate," he argues, calling birth and jurisdiction "a floor for citizenship." And indeed the plain language of the clause contains items for both birth and jurisdiction: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But since the 1898 Supreme Court ruling, United States vs. Won Kim Ark, American courts have elevated birthplace over jurisdiction and allegiance. This has persisted to the present, to the point that last year, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court granted full citizenship protections to Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Taliban fighter captured in Afghanistan who happened to have been born in Louisiana while his Saudi father had been working on a project for Exxon.
What would an end to birthright citizenship mean in policy terms? For one, it would obviate situations like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where an enemy fighter successfully claims constitutional protections by way of his birthplace. In that sense, it could reduce some terrorism vulnerabilities. But the more immediate and dramatic effect would likely be on foreign nationals who travel to the United States to give birth -- including and perhaps especially illegal aliens.
The illegal-immigration incentive that so-called "anchor babies" create weighs heavily on Republican lawmakers' minds. Subordinating birthplace to jurisdiction could reduce that incentive.
There are legitimate objections, however, that we expect the proponents to address in the coming months. For one, can it be done without a constitutional amendment? Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, thinks it can, but it's not clear that this is so. Should the United States follow what amounts to a European model of hereditary citizenship? The riots in France are instructive. And third, will this proposal break up families already in the United States?
The fundamental question is whether the benefits of U.S. citizenship should accrue to enemies of the United States, breakers of our immigration laws or those whose primary allegiance is to other powers. On all three counts, the answer seems to us to be no. In the most dangerous cases, like those of Mr. Hamdi and others who wish ill upon America, allegiance would be a better proxy than birth for people deserving of citizenship. But we await the debate, which should give us the details on which to decide.
Gotcha!! and I agree 100%
the press wants to LOVE HIM.
If he got the nomination they would turn "on a dime" laughing at their success to foil the Republican Party.
Then they would attack him anyway!
The fundamental question is whether the benefits of U.S. citizenship should accrue to enemies of the United States, breakers of our immigration laws or those whose primary allegiance is to other powers. On all three counts, the answer seems to us to be no.
Now you suggest we begin to treat enemies of the state as citizen criminals rather than alien combatants ala the Clintoon miserably failed methodology.
What does "shoot to kill on the battlefield" have to do with constitutional rights? Explain to me how an enemy soldier is, by virtue of NOT having his head blown off on the battle field, all of a sudden entitled all of the rights of a nation he is fighting to destroy?
There's a big difference between treating a prisoner humanely and giving them "rights" under our constitution. That's the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention. No nation, until now, has been foolish enough to grant constitutional rights to their enemy.
Excellent comment.
It is hard to argue with the idealism of a nineteen year old, who appears susceptible to the influence of the worldwide anti-America-defending-herself media. You have stated perfectly all the reasons for NOT granting RIGHTS under our Constitution to those who want to destroy us.
Actually I have no trouble at all. It is incumbent upon us to not let thoughtless idealism take hold and rule the day. Otherwise we'll have Hell to pay.
Of course we should make the effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.