Posted on 12/09/2011 7:04:01 PM PST by giotto
Edited on 12/10/2011 10:32:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Santayana defined fanaticism as redoubling your effort while losing sight of your goal. America’s recent discussions about the war on terror would give him few grounds to change his view.
Several GOP presidential candidates have said they would support bringing back waterboarding, a practice the U.S. prosecuted as a war crime after WWII. Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.
Last week the Senate was consumed with debate over a defense bill. Among its provisions: an amendment by New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to nullify an executive order banning torture. Another proposal: allowing U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil to be held indefinitely without charge by the U.S. military. (An amendment to strike that language from the bill failed, despite the commendable support of Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb.) Yet another provision would require civilian authorities to hand over terrorism suspects to the military.
Supporters of the detention provision noted language stipulating that the “requirement” to detain a person in military custody “does not extend to citizens in the United States.” But as critics of the measure noted, there is a difference between what is required and what is allowed. The bill “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely,” according to Rep. Justin Amash. Sen. Lindsey Graham put it more bluntly: the bill declares “that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and those suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without charge, “American citizen or not.”
Excerpt, read more at Reason.com
Actually, it's only a violation of the Geneva Conventions when done to an enemy who has agreed to abide by them himself, which doesn't include a terrorist head honcho and unlawful enemy combatant who has information about possible future terrorist attacks.
Reason has lost all semblance of rationality.
At least 3-4 thousand men of the US Military have been subjected to Waterboarding by other members of the US Military in training.
Including myself, (thus the tag after my name).
It's not torture, it's training for those who must kill and hope not to be caught.
I was referring to your use of “or” with “neither.” It’s not just a grammatical error; it’s also a logical error. If you’re going to pick nits with someone on their logic, first make sure your own is impeccable.
This was well wrangled over in the oughties. The GTMO version of this is more psychological than physical, involving a cloth which blocks any of the water from getting into the “torturee’s” mouth or nose. IIRC in WWII the Axis did not bother with the cloth, it was literally an open air drowning.
And that document also spells out the conditions under which he may use those warpowers--namely, a DECLARED WAR. None of the so-called wars we are currently engaged in are declared wars. In fact the "War on Terror" is not even against an actual entity. If jihadists are our enemy, then why not declare war on jihadists? By defining it so loosely, anyone who is perceived as a terrorist is the enemy and therefore subject to the whimsical use of these warpowers by a vindictive, partisan president. That "terrorist" could be you or me.
Therefore you're an Enemy of the United States Constitution, and Enemy of the American people, and have put yourself in direct conflict with the stated purpose or this venerable Forum.
Congratulations. Not many people have managed to do so much in so little time.
Now, GTFOOH you anti-Constitutional piece of ****. Merry Christmas.
Where exactly in the Constitution is that spelled out? Which Article and Section specifically says that the President spells out these "unlimited" powers?
It just says unlimited.
Where exactly in the Constitution does the word "unlimited" appear? In which Article and Section is it used?
Take your time. I'll wait.
L
So the President could bang your wife, daughter, or son up the b*** in the name of National Defense? Is that what you're saying?
sorry bud. no time for the grammar, punctuation police. living my life. next time i’m back in grad school i’ll concern myself with that stuff.
Not at all.
But you stalwart constitutionalists seem to be suggesting that the constitution needs to be defended, even if it leads to your defeat and non-existence as a nation.
I suspect that wasn’t the Forefather’s intents.
You're damned right that's what I'm suggesting. I took an Oath to defend that Document with my life if need be. I'm still willing to do that.
I suspect that wasn’t the Forefather’s intents.
I suspect that you don't have a f****** clue what the Forefather's intents were because you've haven't read a single word they wrote when they did it.
So answer my question. Exactly where in the US Constitution are is the word "unlimited" used anywhere?
Do you believe that the constitution needs to be defended, where it leads to your defeat and nonexistence?
I can’t help but noticed you edited my quote out on that point.
Hmmm... Since that's the choice, I'm with you - - give me liberty and to hell with "security".
Those terrorists who are allowed to roam free and get public defenders and Miranda rights, etc. will likely unleash most of their terror in the nation's concentrated Democrat parasite nests ("cities"), so cares anyway?
FRegards,
LH
If he can find my wife, he can have her.
Now you can answer my question. If the situation is such that you can never temporarily remove constitutional protections, even in times of war, and it means certain defeat of the United States and elimination of the American people, is the government hands still tied?
You are correct, waterboarding as torture is ridiculous. Waterboarding is forbidden by a later version of the Geneva accords as torture. However, this later version of the Geneva accords was never ratified by our Senate. We are not bound to it by law. So why all the misinformation by the Left about waterboarding as a prohibited action? Can’t we get the story straight?
“Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.”
What other side? The Navy Seals are waterboarded as part of their training.
“Yet another provision would require civilian authorities to hand over terrorism suspects to the military.”
What, is this more of that “that’s not who we are” crap? Because civilian court system is not suitable for trying enemy combatants. That’s why they have been tried in military courts since the American Revolution. The KSM trial is still in limbo because Holder did what A. Barton Hinkle wants him to do and set up a civilian trial. Not only that, he added to the mess by promising a conviction. His case probably will be will be laughed out of court if it ever does come to trial.
Conservatives never lost their love for the Constitution
there are just fewer conservatives
Ronulans should learn the difference
AMEN!!
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.