I think I’ll go puke now

ZappaCrappa | March 4th, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Suggestion…stop watching so many episodes of “24″…Jack Bauer is a fictional role played by an actor….it will not work out that way for you…seriously…it won’t.

As I mentioned on another thread, I hate the recurring storyline in movies and TV where the supposed “good guy” KNOWS he can get the information he needs to stop the horrible criminal if he just breaks the law/violates someone’s rights. Invariably, he does break the law/violate someone’s rights and stops the evil criminal just seconds before the criminal/terrorist kills someone or blows something up.

Just once, I’d like to see it happen that the ‘good guy’ tortures the wrong person and doesn’t get the information and the whole thing goes for shit because he was ignoring the evidence in front of his face.

I think anyone getting self-righteous about our guys getting tortured is an idiot. Of course our guys are going to be tortured. What war have we fought where that wasn’t the case?

Don’t laugh at me, laugh at the idiots spouting that nonsense. War is hell and no amount of posturing will change that. (I have been to war by the way)

Suggestion…stop watching so many episodes of “24″…Jack Bauer is a fictional role played by an actor….it will not work out that way for you…seriously…it won’t.

Red Light Cameras – I actually called and talked to my state’s transportation guru about this. He conveniently failed to tell me (no matter how many times I asked him) how shortening the length of the yellow light was making the intersections safer and basically called me a clueless trouble maker. He eventually hung up on me…it was after I asked for about the 5th time to stop trying to bullshit and distract me and just simply explain to me how shortening the light made it safer….or was I endangering his kickback. Asshole. My government can lick my sweaty nut sack.

Bottom line, 100 years later and that is crime. But had he tried to marry another man at that time and he would have lynched by an angry mob.

FRD and his wife were cousins, although I’m not so sure how distant. Imagine if that was true for Obama or McCain. Zero chance at the presidency.

And what’s worst, you can’t say “just wait until a politician or a DA has their kid brought up on these charges.” We all know that they will have different set of rules and be let go. Just like rich white people go to rehab for drugs and poor black people go to prison.

If some bastard kidnapped my child in my presence(maybe my only choice was let him take my child or die and he gets my child anyway) and I caught him later and wanted to know where my child is, anything and everything would be fine by me and I would do it myself and to hell with the consequences.

I still think that the govt shouldn’t be doing it because they WILL start using it anytime they want, not just in some extreme highly unlikely case like I just described.

Incorrect. See Missouri v. Holland. Certain actions of the federal government that would be unconstitutional otherwise can be taken pursuant to treaties properly made according to the Constitution. However, certain fundamental rights (like the right to be tried by a jury) cannot be denied through a treaty. See Reid v. Covert.

The Constitution does not override any and every treaty obligation, indeed many treaty obligations may override provisions in the Constitution provided that they have to do with international affairs and aren’t forbidden by the Constitution. That is precisely what happened in Missouri where provisions previously found unconstitutional in a federal law were found constitutional in a treaty. In both Missouri and Reid the Supreme Court held that the federal government may make any treaty provided the treaty does not do anything forbidden by the Constitution. So far that has meant treaties may not infringe upon the Bill of Rights and constitutionally protected fundamental liberties (such as a jury trial, the holding in Reid). However some things that would otherwise not be constitutional are when they are in a treaty particularly when it is related to issues of federalism or trade.

Even if you reject the jurisprudence it doesn’t matter because once again the federal government cannot ever lawfully do things forbidden by the Constitution such as torture, indefinite detention, and eliminate due process for certain individuals based on arbitrary classifications like “enemy combatant” be it in a treaty or otherwise. The fact that an official is elected and granted certain powers does not mean that they may use those powers to break the law.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/flipping-off-cops-is-legal-not-advised/

Love the headline, too.

Increasingly minors are not supposed to interact with the real world.
Case in point, Alice in Burton’s new film has been “brought up
to legal age.” Strange, considering the whole plot was her
innocence vs the harshness and weirdness of the world.
PC sentiment run amok?

The Constitution applies to the federal government generally, not just in its treatment of US citizens. Treaties we have entered are “the law of the land” under Article 6 and override federal or state practice. That includes the Geneva Conventions.

That’s isn’t quite correct. The US constitution overrides any and every treaty obligation and it specifically gives the president and the congress the authority in deciding war powers issues.

This is an issue that libertarians seem to hate and I’m not sure why. By giving the power/authority to actual elected officials it keeps the voters as the deciding factor in how/when we wage war. IMO, war is a political tool and taking the voters out of the loop by letting the courts decide is a mistake.

Tokin42 | March 4th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

#21 | Les | March 4th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

We can go around and around regarding the definition of torture but the fact remains at the time the 3 were waterboarded it was not illegal.

So I was right about the difference: It’s about having pettifogging lawyers to cover the torturer’s ass.

1) Torture is against US law. Any US citizen committing an act of torture is breaking US law. The President may not grant a dispensation.
2) Torture is against international law. Whether the US signed the particular law or not is irrelevant. I think that was settled pretty clearly at Nuremberg.
3) Torture is fundamentally a violation of every principle a libertarian stands for. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

It’s hard to understand because it requires that we trust the government to only arrest “enemy combatants” when it doesn’t even know the definition of “enemy combatant.” So, really, it’s hard even for the government to understand. And if the government can call anyone it wants an “enemy combatant” (and it can), why should we embrace this arbitrary and subjective term?

We can go around and around regarding the definition of torture but the fact remains at the time the 3 were waterboarded it was not illegal.

If there are many legal rulings in which waterboarding was considered torture (and none, that I know of in which it was considered not to be torture) how is it a “fact” that it wasn’t illegal?

And why, if you don’t trust the CIA, do you take their word for it when they claim to have only waterboarded three suspects?

The Constitution applies to the federal government generally, not just in its treatment of US citizens. Treaties we have entered are “the law of the land” under Article 6 and override federal or state practice. That includes the Geneva Conventions.

Attempts to distinguish between American citizens and “enemy combatants” or foreigners lack legal support (that is anywhere outside of the twisted and sad attempts at law practiced by the Bush administration’s lackeys). The Constitution describes what the federal government may do. There are no territorial bounds nor are there distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. The Bill of Rights are mostly negative rights in that they describe what the government may not do. It does not vest certain individuals with rights as opposed to others. Where citizenship is required the Constitution states it (see qualifications for the presidency).

Any nonsense about the fact that those at Guantanamo and elsewhere don’t wear uniforms is a weak argument. They still largely meet the definitions in the Geneva conventions. Even then what we have done in this “War on Terror” has gone against United States policy in every other conflict we have engaged in over the last 60 years.

The only problem with that article is how laudatory it is of the Obama administration at the end, who has failed so far to do nearly enough to reverse course on the Bush administrations most egregious abuses. Yes, it’s good we aren’t waterboarding any more, but the accused still haven’t been given trials and the administration still endorses indefinite detention. We’re still a long way from normal or acceptable behavior pursuant to rule of law and I’m skeptical that the Obama administration has the spine to get us there.

I missed your second statement. Not only do I not trust the CIA I think they’re buffoons. I also think they’ve been given way too much credit for causing chaos during the cold war when I don’t believe they’re capable of crossing the street without a map.

#21 | Les | March 4th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

An american citizen held in a u.s. jail is entitled to all the rights and privileges granted to them by the constitution, An enemy combatant is not. I’m unsure why that is hard to understand.

It is up to the president and the congress to decide, with voters blessings, how enemy combatants are to be treated and dealt with. Everyone from the top on down knew what was going on, knew beforehand who was going to be waterboarded, and briefed after the fact. We can go around and around regarding the definition of torture but the fact remains at the time the 3 were waterboarded it was not illegal.

Given that fact and the equally well documented fact that the CIA spent many decades after WW2 helping to overthrow democratically elected governments, assisted mass-murdering dictators, and supported terrorists, why do you trust these guys?