Posted on 12/15/2005 2:28:09 AM PST by FairOpinion
Saying the data show the porousness of the nation's borders, Tancredo, R-Littleton, issued a press release titled: "51 Terrorism Suspects Crossed Border Illegally / Joint Terrorism Taskforces Report 51 Persons Arrested on Terrorism-Related Charges in Last Year."
In fact, none of the 51 people arrested from September 2004 through September 2005 were charged with terrorism offenses, according to officials from two divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as the document released by Tancredo. Many were arrested on immigration violations.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
House endorses ban on cruel interrogation techniques
See post 4 in thread above for link to the votes.
PING -- I referenced your post from another thread, see post 1 in this one.
there would be no need to torture anyone if they can't get in.
For the record -- You beat me to it.
Smiling...
Ah, for once. :)
You beat me the other 999/1000 times. :)
The 9-11 terrorists ALL entered the US LEGALLY.
Well, you know...
Tancredo is following the Buchanan methodology (perfected by Pat and Bay Buchanan). Take a conservative cause and bilk it for money and publicity rather than actually producing results. In fact, results are counterproductive because it takes away the issue that generates money and publicity.
Libs do the same thing. Just look at Jesse Jackson and other liberal shakedown artists.
In Randian terms, they are all second-handers, living off of the money earned by others.
BINGO!
Tom Tancredo first called attention to our border problem, long, long before 9-11. Years before it became a popular issue with conservatives. He took that position in the face of distain from fellow Republicans.
Yet now he's accused of holding that position to what, raise money?
FairOpinion? The history of Tancredo betrays your name.
Tancredo was also the only Republican to ask Tom Delay to step down way before he was indicted.
Tancredo, as I pointed it out, also just voted FOR the "Terrorist Protection Bill".
Couldn't post this part could you?
All this animosity towards Tancredo and his message tells me the OBL's on FR really are afraid of him.
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
I have not heard of any acts which US personnel have been accused of using which would be problematic here. The possible exception would be "waterboarding" if it was used as a "threat of imminent death".
One little problem, McCain's bill prohibits not only torture, but also "degrading" treatment.
THE ACTUAL TEXT, GIVING THE TERRORIST DETAINEES FULL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE US CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE, EVEN OUTSIDE THE US AND CREATING US LAW BASED ON THE UN.
THIS IS WHAT THE US CONGRESS IS MAKING LAW:
(a) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "
====
Here is the link to the Senate vote, you can go from there via the link on that page to the actual text, but for some reason, when I put in the direct link to the text it gives me an error.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249
The point is that Tancredo doesn't care about protecting American, he is using the illegal immigration issue for his personal advancement and publicity.
His vote on the "Terrorist Protection Bill" demonstrates this conclusively.
While on one hand he makes a big deal about terrorists coming in as illegal immigrants, in the same breath he votes to protect the terrorists.
Well, of course not, you damned idiots at the Denver Post. They were arrested before they could commit acts of terrorism.
"In fact, none of the 51 people arrested from September 2004 through September 2005 were charged with terrorism offenses, according to officials from two divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as the document released by Tancredo. Many were arrested on immigration violations. "
(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
My last post was the definition from the Convention Against Torture. What acts do you support that would be prohibited by the language I posted?
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.