The Rule of Law

[bullypulpit]

Before I leave for the holidays, I want to discuss something which is absolutely and fundamentally essential to the existence of a democratic, free and open society...The rule of law.

<blockquote>For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler. A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means. Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives. - <a href=>US Department of State</a></blockquote>

This notion of the rule of law seems to have been cast by the wayside by many in the days and years following 9/11, most egregiously by the current occupant of the Oval Office and his cabinet.

For the Framers of the Constitution, the rule of law was of paramount importance. If our actions towards one another are governed by rules rather than individuals, the nation would be less likely to fall under the sway of a despot. These rules are all inclusive, everyone from the lowest to the highest in American society are subject to it. That ideal, however, has been corrupted by those who are sworn to protect it.

The rule of law was never meant to be "efficient", which is one of the Bush administration's chief complaints regarding it. It restricts the government's use of force by requiring the state to have evidence of individualize suspicion before it can act to invade the privacy of its citizens or take people into custody. Yet the actions of the Bush administration since 9/11 have shown us that they consider the rule of law to be a malleable thing...dependent, not upon clearly defined rules, but upon what they say it is. They've taken Nixon's dictum "If the President does it, it's not illegal." far beyond that benighted sots wildest dreams.

Once outside the rule of law, any information gathered there cannot be brought back in to pursue the prosecution of suspects. Federal law clearly and firmly prohibits the use of any testimony obtained by coercion to be used at a criminal trial. Which is why the Bush administration established GITMO...Pushed for the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 from a rubber-stamp, GOP dominated Congress. They wanted to operate outside the law.

The secret, extralegal NSA wiretapping program authorized by Bush was yet another circumvention of the rule of law. This program stepped completely outside the bounds of the FISA act that the FISA court judges refused to consider any evidence obtained under it in the granting of its warrants.

Tragically the rule of law is regarded as outdated and outmoded in pursuit of those who would threaten US, and world, peace and security. The simple fact, however, is this...Short of the summary execution of every suspected threat, there is no realistic alternative to the rule of law.

By substituting vague, non-specific and over-broad definitions of what constitutes a threat to national security for those provided by law, the Bush administration has wasted resources that would have been better used at checking the real threats to our security. By their actions, they have left America, and the world, less safe and undermined the credibility of this nation, which was once held up as an example of justice. They have undermined the legitimacy of the fight against terrorism on a global basis. They have given despots the world over cover for the oppression of their citizens, all in the name of "the war on terror".

The rule of law does not require that the government be weak, only limited. The rule of law may be less than efficient, but it stands as the guarantor of of real peace and security and our rights and liberties. Once our elected leaders decide that they can operate outside the four corners of the law, the very foundation of the Republic, and the freedoms that were established under it, are under dire threat.

[red states rule]

Bfore I leave for the holidays, I want to discuss something which is absolutely and fundamentally essential to the existence of a democratic, free and open society...The rule of law.

<blockquote>For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler. A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means. Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives. - <a href=>US Department of State</a></blockquote>

This notion of the rule of law seems to have been cast by the wayside by many in the days and years following 9/11, most egregiously by the current occupant of the Oval Office and his cabinet.

For the Framers of the Constitution, the rule of law was of paramount importance. If our actions towards one another are governed by rules rather than individuals, the nation would be less likely to fall under the sway of a despot. These rules are all inclusive, everyone from the lowest to the highest in American society are subject to it. That ideal, however, has been corrupted by those who are sworn to protect it.

The rule of law was never meant to be "efficient", which is one of the Bush administration's chief complaints regarding it. It restricts the use of force by requiring the state to have evidence of individualize suspicion before it can act to invade the privacy or take people into custody. Yet the actions of the Bush administration since 9/11 have shown us that they consider the rule of law to be a malleable thing...dependent, not upon clearly defined rules, but upon what they say it is. They've taken Nixon's dictum "If the President does it, it's not illegal." far beyond that benighted sots wildest dreams.

Once outside the rule of law, any information gathered there cannot be brought back in to pursue the prosecution of suspects. Federal law clearly and firmly prohibits the use of any testimony obtained by coercion to be used at a criminal trial. Which is why the Bush administration established GITMO...Pushed for the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 from a rubber-stamp, GOP dominated Congress. They wanted to operate outside the law.

The secret, extralegal NSA wiretapping program authorized by Bush was yet another circumvention of the rule of law. This program stepped completely outside the bounds of the FISA act that the FISA court judges refused to consider any evidence obtained under it in the granting of its warrants.

Tragically the rule of law is regarded as outdated and outmoded in pursuit of those who would threaten US, and world, peace and security. The simple fact, however, is this...Short of the summary execution of every suspected threat, there is no viable alternative to the rule of law.

By substituting vague, non-specific and over-broad definitions of what constitutes a threat to national security for those provided by law, the Bush administration has wasted resources that would have been better used at checking the real threats to our security. By their actions, they have left America, and the world, less safe.


Still pushing for the terrorists bill of rights BP? By all means, lets make sure the poor misunderstood terrrorists can plan their attacks in total privacy

[bullypulpit]

Still pushing for the terrorists bill of rights BP? By all means, lets make sure the poor misunderstood terrrorists can plan their attacks in total privacy

Wow. You really ARE that stupid.

[red states rule]

Wow. You really ARE that stupid.

That is what you are saying. The liberal media has leaked many clasified documents covering how the US government tracks, and monitors terrorists. You have openely opposed most, if not all, of them

Again, you are more worried about making sure the "rights" of terrorists are protected then capturing and killing them

[retiredman]

That is what you are saying. The liberal media has leaked many clasified documents covering how the US government tracks, and monitors terrorists. You have openely opposed most, if not all, of them

Again, you are more worried about making sure the "rights" of terrorists are protected then capturing and killing them


how does the liberal media "leak" a classified document? The liberal media does not have access to classified documents.

[April15]

Bullupulpit,
I have copied your post for future use. If this is not OK with you let me know and I will not use it. It is an excellent piece on the application of law.

[manu1959]

what a well written post.....excellent.....

if only american citizens were being rounded up and tortured at gitmo then it would be fact not fiction....

[trobinett]

how does the liberal media "leak" a classified document? The liberal media does not have access to classified documents.

There not suppose to access..................:poke:

[trobinett]

Here is but ONE example:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010806/20010807

[Mr. P]

Bullupulpit,
I have copied your post for future use. If this is not OK with you let me know and I will not use it. It is an excellent piece on the application of law.

Now print it and use it to wipe yer ass....that's all it's good for.

[red states rule]

how does the liberal media "leak" a classified document? The liberal media does not have access to classified documents.

Mary McCarthy (a Dem and Kerry supporter) worked at the CIA, and did leak clasified documenbts to the NY Times on the "secret prisons"

That is one way the liberal media does it. Of course you already knew that MM

[April15]

Now print it and use it to wipe yer ass....that's all it's good for.In your mind maybe. I prefer to use republican door hangers for toilet paper. They use high grade paper so it won't tear when you have a real good BM. I especially like the ones with Bush picture as I get him to eat stool, like he tries to do to average Americans every day.

[red states rule]

In your mind maybe. I prefer to use republican door hangers for toilet paper. They use high grade paper so it won't tear when you have a real good BM. I especially like the ones with Bush picture as I get him to eat stool, like he tries to do to average Americans every day.

Who are you libs going to hate when Pres Bush leaves office? You guys are being so depressed with nobody to hate then

[avatar4321]

bully, i've seen you post for years. You have a horendous track record with supporting the rule of law. I am not entirely sure you understand what it is.

However, there are problems with the government not enforcing the rule of law. We have millions of people entering our nation illegally. We have liberals continually objecting to us enforcing election laws so they can't commit voter fraud. We have major US cities becoming murder capitals of the world with little enforcement.

The rule of law is meaningless if the people choose to disobey it.

[avatar4321]

Who are you libs going to hate when Pres Bush leaves office? You guys are being so depressed with nobody to hate then

the new republican administration.

I am not sure ill be happy about it myself.

[red states rule]

Folks like BP pick and choose whch laws they want enforced. It all depends on which poltical party is in power

[April15]

bully, i've seen you post for years. You have a horendous track record with supporting the rule of law. I am not entirely sure you understand what it is.

However, there are problems with the government not enforcing the rule of law. We have millions of people entering our nation illegally. We have liberals continually objecting to us enforcing election laws so they can't commit voter fraud. We have major US cities becoming murder capitals of the world with little enforcement.

The rule of law is meaningless if the people choose to disobey it.I don't know about where you are but in the SF bay area the freeways are a very good bell weather of law abiding. Zoom, zoom.

[red states rule]

I don't know about where you are but in the SF bay area the freeways are a very good bell weather of law abiding. Zoom, zoom.

Given how SF ignores the laws of illegals and gay marriage - they also pick and choose which laws they will obey

[actsnoblemartin]

rules are important...

rule of law, rules of engagement, rules of decency, rules in general

but if we dont survive as a nation, none of those rules will matter, none of it will matter.

when i get my throat slit for being a jew, and your choice is convert or face the same fate as me.

Survival first, everything else second

[April15]

Given how SF ignores the laws of illegals and gay marriage - they also pick and choose which laws they will obeyYou missed the point again.

[actsnoblemartin]

then what is the point my friend?


You missed the point again.

[red states rule]

You missed the point again.

No, I nailed it

Libs do indeed pick and choose which laws they enforce. If libs do not like a law they ignore it

[April15]

No, I nailed it

Libs do indeed pick and choose which laws they enforce. If libs do not like a law they ignore itYou couldn't nail a 60 penny spike with your head!

[red states rule]

You couldn't nail a 60 penny spike with your head!

My, you really do now how to present facts to back up your posts :lol:

Care to try that approach for a change?

[actsnoblemartin]

our laws arent being enforced now..

[bullypulpit]

bully, i've seen you post for years. You have a horendous track record with supporting the rule of law. I am not entirely sure you understand what it is.

Examples please, and do be specific. That you willingly support the Bush administration in its blatant disregard of the rule of law displays a profound lack of understanding on your part.


However, there are problems with the government not enforcing the rule of law. We have millions of people entering our nation illegally. We have liberals continually objecting to us enforcing election laws so they can't commit voter fraud. We have major US cities becoming murder capitals of the world with little enforcement.

You missed the point. It's not about the government ENFORCING the rule of law. It's about the government ADHERING to the rule of law. Something the Bush administration pays lip service to, at best. Oh, and please cite examples of vote fraud. I suggest you start <a href=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html>HERE</a>.


The rule of law is meaningless if the people choose to disobey it.

Especially if those charged with enforcing the rule of law choose to ignore it themselves.

[bullypulpit]

My, you really do now how to present facts to back up your posts :lol:

Care to try that approach for a change?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! YOU...?! Scolding someone for failing to present facts to back up their posts?! Now THAT'S funny! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

Examples please, and do be specific. That you willingly support the Bush administration in its blatant disregard of the rule of law displays a profound lack of understanding on your part.



You missed the point. It's not about the government ENFORCING the rule of law. It's about the government ADHERING to the rule of law. Something the Bush administration pays lip service to, at best. Oh, and please cite examples of vote fraud. I suggest you start <a href=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html>HERE</a>.



Especially if those charged with enforcing the rule of law choose to ignore it themselves.


Libs love to create new laws to protect terrorists - but ignore the laws on the books when it comes to gay marriage and illegals

[bullypulpit]

Libs love to create new laws to protect terrorists - but ignore the laws on the books when it comes to gay marriage and illegals

And your assertions have exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

[red states rule]

And your assertions have exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

oiur fellow kook April 15 posted how libs obey the law - I was pointing out they obey only the laws they agree with

As far as your thread, I am still waiting for you and MM to explain why you guys are upset over something that has been used only 3 times, has not bee used in years, and the three times it was used - we got info that stopped pending attacks

[Dilloduck]

And your assertions have exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

What? You can't find a single SOB to prosecute Bush for his crimes ??

[red states rule]

What? You can't find a single SOB to prosecute Bush for his crimes ??

If he can't, he will creats a crime and post how he or she should be prosecuted

[bullypulpit]

Given the number and generally poor quality of the non seqiturs I'm seeing, it would seem that the Bush administration's slavish supporters are less than eager to discuss the Administration's utter disregard for the rule of law.

[Dilloduck]

Given the number and generally poor quality of the non seqiturs I'm seeing, it would seem that the Bush administration's slavish supporters are less than eager to discuss the Administration's utter disregard for the rule of law.

Did you plan to just chat about his crimes or actually do something about them ?

[April15]

My, you really do now how to present facts to back up your posts :lol:

Care to try that approach for a change?My good man if common sense has left you, no amount of facts or examples would sway your mind. So back to you couldn't hit a 60 penny nail with your head!

[red states rule]

Given the number and generally poor quality of the non seqiturs I'm seeing, it would seem that the Bush administration's slavish supporters are less than eager to discuss the Administration's utter disregard for the rule of law.

Still can't explain how Dems like you stepped in it over warterboarding? Keep looking for a crime BP, and you you can't find one - do like libs always do, just think one up

[bullypulpit]

Still can't explain how Dems like you stepped in it over warterboarding? Keep looking for a crime BP, and you you can't find one - do like libs always do, just think one up

What's to explain? The Democratic leadership in Congress has all the backbone of a planaria. That doesn't excuse the Bush administration's disregard for the rule of law...A disregard which you share in full measure.

If the members of the House, of both parties, refuse to do their duty with regards to filing a Resolution of Inquiry, then they are as culpable as the President and his administration.

[red states rule]

What's to explain? The Democratic leadership in Congress has all the backbone of a planaria. That doesn't excuse the Bush administration's disregard for the rule of law...A disregard which you share in full measure.

If the members of the House, of both parties, refuse to do their duty with regards to filing a Resolution of Inquiry, then they are as culpable as the President and his administration.

What disregard of the law? Waterboarding has not been used in years BP - or would admitting that make your rants eevn more silly?

Your Dems were all for it - but now they think being against it will score them some political points

[bullypulpit]

What disregard of the law? Waterboarding has not been used in years BP - or would admitting that make your rants eevn more silly?

Your Dems were all for it - but now they think being against it will score them some political points

As usual, you've missed the point entirely. Water boarding is only a part of the issue under discussion, and a small part at that. Let me refresh your memory from the thread opener.

<blockquote>Federal law clearly and firmly prohibits the use of any testimony obtained by coercion to be used at a criminal trial. Which is why the Bush administration established GITMO...Pushed for the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 from a rubber-stamp, GOP dominated Congress. They wanted to operate outside the law.

The secret, extralegal NSA wiretapping program authorized by Bush was yet another circumvention of the rule of law. This program stepped completely outside the bounds of the FISA act that the FISA court judges refused to consider any evidence obtained under it in the granting of its warrants.

Tragically the rule of law is regarded as outdated and outmoded in pursuit of those who would threaten US, and world, peace and security. The simple fact, however, is this...Short of the summary execution of every suspected threat, there is no realistic alternative to the rule of law.</blockquote>

I didn't even get into the extraordinary renditions of innocent persons...The no-bid contracts...the black-site prisons...All outside the bounds of the rule of law. The Bush administration's willingness to ignore the rule of law when it is incovenient to them is is a fact, and it's one you and your fellow travelers continue to ignore.

[red states rule]

As usual, you've missed the point entirely. Water boarding is only a part of the issue under discussion, and a small part at that. Let me refresh your memory from the thread opener.

<blockquote>Federal law clearly and firmly prohibits the use of any testimony obtained by coercion to be used at a criminal trial. Which is why the Bush administration established GITMO...Pushed for the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 from a rubber-stamp, GOP dominated Congress. They wanted to operate outside the law.

The secret, extralegal NSA wiretapping program authorized by Bush was yet another circumvention of the rule of law. This program stepped completely outside the bounds of the FISA act that the FISA court judges refused to consider any evidence obtained under it in the granting of its warrants.

Tragically the rule of law is regarded as outdated and outmoded in pursuit of those who would threaten US, and world, peace and security. The simple fact, however, is this...Short of the summary execution of every suspected threat, there is no realistic alternative to the rule of law.</blockquote>

I didn't even get into the extraordinary renditions of innocent persons...The no-bid contracts...the black-site prisons...All outside the bounds of the rule of law. The Bush administration's willingness to ignore the rule of law when it is incovenient to them is is a fact, and it's one you and your fellow travelers continue to ignore.

Oh yea, we have to make sure the terrorists are able to plan their attacks in total privacy

This reminds me on how libs would fight the war on terror BP

'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI
10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ

October 15, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.

In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.

U.S. officials had no way of knowing if Jimenez and his fellow soldiers were still alive during the nearly 10-hour delay.

The body of one was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.

for the complete article

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/nationalnews/wire_law_failed__lost_gi.htm



Thanks to the libs wanting to protect the rights of terrorists, Spc. Jimenez was not found

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/eaglelocalnews_story_136125347.html

[bullypulpit]

Guess what, numbnuts...?

FISA allows wiretaps to be in place WITHOUT a warrant for 72 hours. In the years since the law was enacted, the FISA court has only denied a handful of requests.

THe articles you link to take a situation out of context and attempt to spin it to push the administration agenda.

[April15]

Guess what, numbnuts...?

FISA allows wiretaps to be in place WITHOUT a warrant for 72 hours. In the years since the law was enacted, the FISA court has only denied a handful of requests.

The articles you link to take a situation out of context and attempt to spin it to push the administration agenda.Would you expect anything less from him?

[red states rule]

Guess what, numbnuts...?

FISA allows wiretaps to be in place WITHOUT a warrant for 72 hours. In the years since the law was enacted, the FISA court has only denied a handful of requests.

THe articles you link to take a situation out of context and attempt to spin it to push the administration agenda.

Libs like you become testy when their PC rules on war blow back in their faces. Terrorists rights trump the rescue of captured US troops

The article did not take the situation out of context - it esposed the insanity of libs like you who make the job of the troops and the US government much harder

[Classact]

The Protect America Act will end in days but not before the President addresses the State of the Union joint session of congress. The Democratic Party has failed to protect America and they will be held to account in coming days. The people will chose what type of leader they want and what type of congress representation they want prior to the next election...

The Democratic Party will be DEAD MEAT for election if this bill does not go into law before it expires.

[Classact]

I should have posted this link and position in my last post to revive this thread so here goes... http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/

Does the Democratic Party demand the Ameican people be less safe?

This requirement resulted in a critical intelligence gap that was making our Nation less safe. Requiring the Government to go to court before the collection of foreign intelligence could begin resulted, as the Director of National Intelligence put it, in our intelligence professionals "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."


The Basics Of FISA: Why Legislation Is Necessary To Bring The Law Up To Date

Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978 to regulate the Government's efforts to conduct certain foreign intelligence surveillance activities directed at persons in the United States. Congress recognized that the Government must be able to effectively collect foreign intelligence about those who wish to harm our country. To allow this collection to proceed while protecting the rights of Americans in the United States, Congress established a process for judicial approval that generally applied when the government targeted persons located inside the United States for foreign intelligence surveillance - but that generally did not apply to activities directed at persons overseas.

Revolutionary advances in telecommunications technology since 1978 upset the careful balance established by Congress to distinguish between surveillance governed by FISA and surveillance directed at targets outside the U.S. The mechanism Congress used to identify which activities fell within FISA's scope - and to strike the balance between surveillance directed at persons overseas and persons in the United States - was a careful and complex definition of the term "electronic surveillance." This definition was framed in terms of the specific communications technologies used in 1978.

As a result, prior to the Protect America Act, the Government often needed to obtain a court order before vital intelligence collection could begin against a terrorist or other foreign intelligence target located in a foreign country. These targets often were communicating with other foreign persons overseas, but FISA's court order requirement still applied. It made no sense to require the Government to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries - nor was such a requirement generally intended when Congress passed FISA nearly 30 years ago.

This requirement resulted in a critical intelligence gap that was making our Nation less safe. Requiring the Government to go to court before the collection of foreign intelligence could begin resulted, as the Director of National Intelligence put it, in our intelligence professionals "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."

By changing FISA's definition of electronic surveillance to clarify that the statute does not apply to surveillance directed at overseas targets, the Protect America Act has enabled the Intelligence Community to close this critical intelligence gap. The Protect America Act makes clear - consistent with the intent of the Congress that enacted FISA in 1978 - that our Intelligence Community should not have to get bogged down in a court approval process to gather foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. It does not change the strong protections FISA provides to people in the United States. FISA's definition of electronic surveillance remains unchanged for surveillance directed at people in the United States and continues to require court approval as it did before.

The vital authorities to surveil overseas targets under the PAA will expire in less than two months, and Congress must act to keep our Nation safe by making these provisions permanent.

[bullypulpit]

I should have posted this link and position in my last post to revive this thread so here goes... http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/

Does the Democratic Party demand the Ameican people be less safe?

There's nothing wrong with bringing FISA up to date regarding current technology. But it must be done within the current framework of the FISA court and the oversight it provides, including the need for a warrant after 72 hours. None of this six month, blanket warrant, fishing expedition bullshit Chimpy McPresident and Darth Cheney want.

[actsnoblemartin]

i wish you were as obsessed about winning the war on terrorism as you are with rules


There's nothing wrong with bringing FISA up to date regarding current technology. But it must be done within the current framework of the FISA court and the oversight it provides, including the need for a warrant after 72 hours. None of this six month, blanket warrant, fishing expedition bullshit Chimpy McPresident and Darth Cheney want.

[retiredman]

i wish you were as obsessed about winning the war on terrorism as you are with rules


if we piss all over the constitution, what will we really have "won" in the long run?

[bullypulpit]

if we piss all over the constitution, what will we really have "won" in the long run?

Precisely. If our government disregards the rule of law in pursuit of the end, regardless of how noble it may be, it will hand Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers a victory they could never have achieved on their own...The Constitution, and thus America, overthrown out of fear.

[red states rule]

if we piss all over the constitution, what will we really have "won" in the long run?

Keep pushing for terrorist rights MM - you keep showing why libs can't be trusted with national security and national defense

[red states rule]

Precisely. If our government disregards the rule of law in pursuit of the end, regardless of how noble it may be, it will hand Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers a victory they could never have achieved on their own...The Constitution, and thus America, overthrown out of fear.

BP- you ran anway form your own thread "One Year Later" and you continue to ignore the progress made in Iraq. I guess to many facts proving you were wrong got to ya

Meanwhile, you keep sprewing the liberal PC crap making the US the bad guy. You will never join the rest of us trying to win the war on terror

You, like MM, are to busy fighting your war on Pres Bush and reality

[retiredman]

Keep pushing for terrorist rights MM - you keep showing why libs can't be trusted with national security and national defense

when have I EVER pushed for terrorist rights? You are the one who willing would ignore Article VI of our constitution. Not me. You are nothing less than a domestic enemy of our constitution. Someone every military man took an oath to protect the constitution against!

[red states rule]

when have I EVER pushed for terrorist rights? You are the one who willing would ignore Article VI of our constitution. Not me. You are nothing less than a domestic enemy of our constitution. Someone every military man took an oath to protect the constitution against!

Anti US libs like you and BP are proving they would rather oppose anything Pres Bush is for, and are showing how much they love their poltiical party over their country

[retiredman]

Anti US libs like you and BP are proving they would rather oppose anything Pres Bush is for, and are showing how much they love their poltiical party over their country


Lie.

I am all for his economic stimulus plan. I oppose Bush vehemently on only one issue.

and I notice that you do not deny your stated willingness to piss on Article VI

[red states rule]

Lie.

I am all for his economic stimulus plan. I oppose Bush vehemently on only one issue.

and I notice that you do not deny your stated willingness to piss on Article VI

I am all for more tax cuts for those of us who pay taxes. Dems want to expand it into another welfare handout program

I want to break the terrorists and save lives- you want to coddle them and use the dead bodies to score political points

[retiredman]

I am all for more tax cuts for those of us who pay taxes. Dems want to expand it into another welfare handout program

I want to break the terrorists and save lives- you want to coddle them and use the dead bodies to score political points

YOu said I was against everything that Bush did. I just showed you that you are a liar.

And I notice that you do not deny your willingness to piss all over Article VI of our constitution.

[red states rule]

YOu said I was against everything that Bush did. I just showed you that you are a liar.

And I notice that you do not deny your willingness to piss all over Article VI of our constitution.

Not a liar - you will oppose his plan but back the Dems welfare handouts

Keep putting party ahead of country MM and do all you can to protect the terrorists

[retiredman]

Not a liar - you will oppose his plan but back the Dems welfare handouts

Keep putting party ahead of country MM and do all you can to protect the terrorists


I already SAID that I supported Bush's economic stimulus plan.

and I notice that you continue to not deny your willingness to piss all over Article VI of our constitution. That makes you a domestic enemy.

[red states rule]

I already SAID that I supported Bush's economic stimulus plan.

and I notice that you continue to not deny your willingness to piss all over Article VI of our constitution. That makes you a domestic enemy.

You support "tax cuts for the rich"? Yea right, and the East Coat will enjoy 80 degree temps today

I admit I want to break the terrorists and you don't

[retiredman]

You support "tax cuts for the rich"? Yea right, and the East Coat will enjoy 80 degree temps today

I admit I want to break the terrorists and you don't

so you do not deny your willingness to piss on our constitution?

that's all I wanted you to say.

[red states rule]

so you do not deny your willingness to piss on our constitution?

that's all I wanted you to say.

I want to win this war - you want to lose it.

I want to stop attacks - you want them so you can stand over the dead bodies and blame Pres Bush

Party before country with you

[retiredman]

I want to win this war - you want to lose it.

I want to stop attacks - you want them so you can stand over the dead bodies and blame Pres Bush

Party before country with you

I want to win the war. You claim to as well.

I want to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic.

By your own words, you have proven yourself to be a domestic enemy of our constitution.

[red states rule]

I want to win the war. You claim to as well.

I want to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic.

By your own words, you have proven yourself to be a domestic enemy of our constitution.

True, you want to win the war - but for which side?

[retiredman]

True, you want to win the war - but for which side?

America's side... and the war is not just against foreign enemies, it is against domestic enemies of the constitution as well.

[red states rule]

America's side... and the war is not just against foreign enemies, it is against domestic enemies of the constitution as well.

They why do you insist on coddleing the terrorists, and not interested in breaking them?

Afraid the US may make more progress toward winning "Bush's War"?

[retiredman]

They why do you insist on coddleing the terrorists, and not interested in breaking them?

Afraid the US may make more progress toward winning "Bush's War"?

Show me ONE post where I have EVER "INSISTED ON CODDLING TERRORISTS!

I'll wait.

I defend the constitution...you piss on it.

[pegwinn]

I read the first two pages and it went to shit from there. But, there were a couple of posts worthy of assistance.


how does the liberal media "leak" a classified document? The liberal media does not have access to classified documents.

I understand you are trying to be funny. People in positions of access give the info to the media to further thier own agenda. IMO both parties should be prosecuted fully and fairly before being dropped into a deep, dark, dank, disgustingly stinky, drainage ditch. How's that for Defending D Law? :)


The rule of law is meaningless if the people choose to disobey it.

Very true. Equally true is that it is meaningless if the authorities refuse to enforce it. Most complain either that the law is unjust and thus is worthy of refusal to either obey or enforce. My take is that unless you can demonstrate that the law is moral anathema to far more than just your personal sensibilities then you are obliged to knuckle under and get it done.

[red states rule]

Show me ONE post where I have EVER "INSISTED ON CODDLING TERRORISTS!

I'll wait.

I defend the constitution...you piss on it.

By your continued instance to ignore the facts about waterboarding which is what libs mean when they say "torture"

The facts remain, it has not been used in years, it was used three times, the terrorists cracked in less then one minute,m and lives were saved everytime it was used

Libs are fighting a long lost battle where their elected leaders knew all about waterbording - but the left ignores thses facts

They would rather attack Pres Bush and our intel agents rather then fight the real enemies - there is no political gain for them by fighting the terrorists

[retiredman]

By your continued instance to ignore the facts about waterboarding which is what libs mean when they say "torture"

The facts remain, it has not been used in years, it was used three times, the terrorists cracked in less then one minute,m and lives were saved everytime it was used

Libs are fighting a long lost battle where their elected leaders knew all about waterbording - but the left ignores thses facts

They would rather attack Pres Bush and our intel agents rather then fight the real enemies - there is no political gain for them by fighting the terrorists


my only problem with waterboarding is that, IMHO, it violates article VI of the constitution. ANd you do not seem to care about that...because you are willing to piss on our constitution. I am not.

[Kathianne]

my only problem with waterboarding is that, IMHO, it violates article VI of the constitution. ANd you do not seem to care about that...because you are willing to piss on our constitution. I am not.

And I don't think it does, as I've written and backed up many times. That we agree to disagree is part of the system. As far as I know, neither of us has threatened the other in any way.

Believe it or not, I don't think anyone of any political stripes is all knowing. We make the best judgments we can, based on our own ideas of truth.

[manu1959]

my only problem with waterboarding is that, IMHO, it violates article VI of the constitution. ANd you do not seem to care about that...because you are willing to piss on our constitution. I am not.

abortion violates our constitution that doesn't seem to slow anyone down....

[red states rule]

And I don't think it does, as I've written and backed up many times. That we agree to disagree is part of the system. As far as I know, neither of us has threatened the other in any way.

Believe it or not, I don't think anyone of any political stripes is all knowing. We make the best judgments we can, based on our own ideas of truth.

To MM, anyone who disagrees with him is a threat - his solution is to have them shot (like he said should happen to me)

[Kathianne]

To MM, anyone who disagrees with him is a threat - his solution is to have them shot (like he said should happen to me)

Seldom has he threatened to have me shot. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Seldom has he threatened to have me shot. :laugh2:

Give him time - you are also hitting him with facts and he will lash out soon enough

[retiredman]

Give him time - you are also hitting him with facts and he will lash out soon enough


I have NEVER threatened you. I have suggested that the military has sworn to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and someone - like you - who has readily admitted not caring about the constitution is clearly a domestic enemy. What do YOU think the American military should do when confronted with our nation's enemies?

[red states rule]

I have NEVER threatened you. I have suggested that the military has sworn to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and someone - like you - who has readily admitted not caring about the constitution is clearly a domestic enemy. What do YOU think the American military should do when confronted with our nation's enemies?

Only you saying someone should be shot is NOT threatening someone.

Typical of liberal compassion and their version of open debate

[retiredman]

Only you saying someone should be shot is NOT threatening someone.

Typical of liberal compassion and their version of open debate

If I said, "I am gonna come to that trailer park you live in and shoot you", THAT would be a threat.

Saying that someone SHOULD be shot is merely expressing an opinion. I never threatened to shoot you. I never threatened to do anything to you, other than whip your words with my words....and thus far, you've run away from that confrontation - I expect because you know that is true.

[red states rule]

If I said, "I am gonna come to that trailer park you live in and shoot you", THAT would be a threat.

Saying that someone SHOULD be shot is merely expressing an opinion. I never threatened to shoot you. I never threatened to do anything to you, other than whip your words with my words....and thus far, you've run away from that confrontation - I expect because you know that is true.

Like a true blue lib, you try and wiggle off the hook from your threats. You do live down to all my expectations on a daily basis

[manu1959]

I have NEVER threatened you. I have suggested that the military has sworn to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and someone - like you - who has readily admitted not caring about the constitution is clearly a domestic enemy. What do YOU think the American military should do when confronted with our nation's enemies?

so kerry should be shot for negotiating with our enemies in paris....jane fonda for going to hanoi....thought not that was free speech huh....

[red states rule]

so kerry should be shot for negotiating with our enemies in paris....jane fonda for going to hanoi....thought not that was free speech huh....

Of course not

They were trying to do the liberal thing and make sure the US lost those wars. They were true blue liberal patriots

[retiredman]

so kerry should be shot for negotiating with our enemies in paris....jane fonda for going to hanoi....thought not that was free speech huh....

how was kerry attacking our constitution? how was fonda?

[retiredman]

Like a true blue lib, you try and wiggle off the hook from your threats. You do live down to all my expectations on a daily basis

I never threatened you. that is a fact. I dont need to wiggle away from facts.

[manu1959]

how was kerry attacking our constitution? how was fonda?

then i guess they were helping the US in a time of war ..... thanks for clearing that up....

[red states rule]

then i guess they were helping the US in a time of war ..... thanks for clearing that up....

Helping us lose - which is what the left wanted in the first place

Much like they have been trying to in Iraq since the day the war started

[retiredman]

then i guess they were helping the US in a time of war ..... thanks for clearing that up....

I asked you how they were attacking our constitution.

got an answer for that, or not?

[manu1959]

I asked you how they were attacking our constitution.

got an answer for that, or not?

treason .....

[retiredman]

treason .....

I understand that it is your OPINION that they committed treason. I disagree.

and in any case, that is a crime listed IN the constitution, not an attack ON the constitution itself.

rsr does not even dispute the fact that he is perfectly willing to urinate on Article VI of the constitution ...THAT is an attack on the constitution itself.

[red states rule]

I understand that it is your OPINION that they committed treason. I disagree.

and in any case, that is a crime listed IN the constitution, not an attack ON the constitution itself.

rsr does not even dispute the fact that he is perfectly willing to urinate on Article VI of the constitution ...THAT is an attack on the constitution itself.

Of course you would disagree

They were trying to lose the war for the US - something perfectly understandable to other liberals

Since I want to make sure terrorist attacks are prevented, libs look at me as an enemy of the state and must be silenced

[retiredman]

Of course you would disagree

They were trying to lose the war for the US - something perfectly understandable to other liberals

Since I want to make sure terrorist attacks are prevented, libs look at me as an enemy of the state and must be silenced


I only see you as a domestic enemy of our constitution because of your stated willingness to ignore it.

[red states rule]

I only see you as a domestic enemy of our constitution because of your stated willingness to ignore it.

Yes MM, I want to win this war - and you want to make sure the US loses "Bush's war"

We all know where your loyalty lies - with the Democrat party

[manu1959]

I understand that it is your OPINION that they committed treason. I disagree.

and in any case, that is a crime listed IN the constitution, not an attack ON the constitution itself.

rsr does not even dispute the fact that he is perfectly willing to urinate on Article VI of the constitution ...THAT is an attack on the constitution itself.

so it is your opinion that their actions were upholding the constitution?

[actsnoblemartin]

laws dont win wars, when will our liberal friends understand that?

Common sense, and the right strategy do

In 2004, the u.s. basically said, lawyeristically... we can do whatever we want with the non torture treaty, LOOK IT UP

[red states rule]

laws dont win wars, when will our liberal friends understand that?

Common sense, and the right strategy do

In 2004, the u.s. basically said, lawyeristically... we can do whatever we want with the non torture treaty, LOOK IT UP

We want to fight wars with bullets and bombs

Libs want to fight it with lawyers and compassion to the terrorists

[actsnoblemartin]

and trying our soldiers for any minor infraction :laugh2:


We want to fight wars with bullets and bombs

Libs want to fight it with lawyers and compassion to the terrorists

[red states rule]

and trying our soldiers for any minor infraction :laugh2:

and for things they did not do.

and the liberal media tries to paint them as cold blooded killers

Don;t you just love the "support" the left shows our troops?

[actsnoblemartin]

the media supports the troops, like i support al queda

:slap:


and for things they did not do.

and the liberal media tries to paint them as cold blooded killers

Don;t you just love the "support" the left shows our troops?

[red states rule]

the media supports the troops, like i support al queda

:slap:

you have a firm grasp on the obvious Martin

[actsnoblemartin]

you have a firm grasp on the obvious Martin


me slapping media :slap:

liberal media and al queda :cheers2:

[red states rule]

me slapping media :slap:

liberal media and al queda :cheers2:

Take care Martin, MM will call you an enemy of the state :lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

my people are used to the gestapo :laugh2:


Take care Martin, MM will call you an enemy of the state :lol:

[red states rule]

my people are used to the gestapo :laugh2:

Do not give MM any ideas - he will start the DNC State Security Police Force

[actsnoblemartin]

He will come after you first :laugh2:


Do not give MM any ideas - he will start the DNC State Security Police Force

[red states rule]

He will come after you first :laugh2:

That would not surprise me in the least. i am used to being on the receiving end of liberal love, compassion, and tolerance

[actsnoblemartin]

guns, knives, and death wishes oh my


That would not surprise me in the least. i am used to being on the receiving end of liberal love, compassion, and tolerance

[red states rule]

guns, knives, and death wishes oh my

That is how libs would want to deal with people who disagree with them and keep hitting them with those pesky damn facts that blow their opinions out of the water

[actsnoblemartin]

the first thing a liberal uses to determine right and wrong is emotion, not facts or common sense

:laugh2:


That is how libs would want to deal with people who disagree with them and keep hitting them with those pesky damn facts that blow their opinions out of the water

[red states rule]

the first thing a liberal uses to determine right and wrong is emotion, not facts or common sense

:laugh2:

To libs results never matter

Only their good intentions matter - and other peoples money to fund those intentions

[actsnoblemartin]

the road to perdition is paved with good intentionss.


To libs results never matter

Only their good intentions matter - and other peoples money to fund those intentions

[red states rule]

the road to perdition is paved with good intentionss.

and the road to hell is paved with libs like MM

[retiredman]

so it is your opinion that their actions were upholding the constitution?

In my opinion, their actions did not seek to undermine the constitution.

rsr continues to believe that the constitution need not be considered sacrosanct in any way.

[Kathianne]

In my opinion, their actions did not seek to undermine the constitution.

...

As I do not think waterboarding is torture, thus Article VI is inapplicable.

[retiredman]

As I do not think waterboarding is torture, thus Article VI is inapplicable.

you are certainly entitled to that opinion....I do not agree.

but at issue is the fact that RSR doesn't even care. He would gladly use waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, hypothermia - anything, really, to get information from detainees... and he has stated that he doesn't even give a shit if it DOES violate some UN treaty.

[Kathianne]

you are certainly entitled to that opinion....I do not agree.

but at issue is the fact that RSR doesn't even care. He would gladly use waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, hypothermia - anything, really, to get information from detainees... and he has stated that he doesn't even give a shit if it DOES violate some UN treaty.

I'd hope that was hyperbole and trying to get your goat.

[retiredman]

I'd hope that was hyperbole and trying to get your goat.

it wasn't. he thinks that we should be able to do whatever we need to do in order to extract information from terror suspects. so does his buddy acts"normal"martin.

ask them.

[actsnoblemartin]

They have used water boarding three times, that is different from water boarding every terror suspect.

I would like to know with all due respect manfrommaine, how would you make them talk?




it wasn't. he thinks that we should be able to do whatever we need to do in order to extract information from terror suspects. so does his buddy acts"normal"martin.

ask them.

[retiredman]

They have used water boarding three times, that is different from water boarding every terror suspect.

I would like to know with all due respect manfrommaine, how would you make them talk?

So as long as we only piss on the constitution a little bit and we "promise" we won't piss on it again, that's OK?

And how I would make them talk? I am not a trained interrogator, I would not begin to try to answer that question. I DO know tat I would not torture them. That is for certain.

[Pale Rider]

Who needs torture? I think we should just cut their heads off, then their genitals, tie their feet to the bumper of a hummer, set them on fire and drag them through the streets shooting at them, kicking them and beating them with whatever implement is at hand, and then hang them from a bridge over pass. Then maybe people like bp would defend OUR actions.

[Kathianne]

So as long as we only piss on the constitution a little bit and we "promise" we won't piss on it again, that's OK?

And how I would make them talk? I am not a trained interrogator, I would not begin to try to answer that question. I DO know tat I would not torture them. That is for certain.

Yet, if it's not torture, which I don't believe it it, this argument is for nought.

[bullypulpit]

As I do not think waterboarding is torture, thus Article VI is inapplicable.

Why then, were Axis officers convicted of war crimes for using the technique on Allied POW's ? Why was a US soldier court martialled for using the technique during the Viet Nam war? Why has the technique been deemed as illegal by the US military since the Spanish-American War? Why did the Inquisitors refer to the technique as <i>tortura del agua</i>?

It is settled case law. Waterboarding IS torture, no matter how the Bush administration tries to parse it.

[Pale Rider]

Why then, were Axis officers convicted of war crimes for using the technique on Allied POW's ? Why was a US soldier court martialled for using the technique during the Viet Nam war? Why has the technique been deemed as illegal by the US military since the Spanish-American War? Why did the Inquisitors refer to the technique as <i>tortura del agua</i>?

It is settled case law. Waterboarding IS torture, no matter how the Bush administration tries to parse it.

If that's the worst we do or have done to a prisoner, compared to what other countries have done to our guys, this argument is so lopsided against America it isn't funny.

Why don't you explain to us why it is you hold such a deep seated hatred for America?

[manu1959]

you are certainly entitled to that opinion....I do not agree.

but at issue is the fact that RSR doesn't even care. He would gladly use waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, hypothermia - anything, really, to get information from detainees... and he has stated that he doesn't even give a shit if it DOES violate some UN treaty.

as would i .....

[retiredman]

as would i .....

I swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I guess that includes you, eh?

[manu1959]

I swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I guess that includes you, eh?

its ok....i will waterboard them for you...

[retiredman]

its ok....i will waterboard them for you...

I really don't find blatant disrespect for our constitution funny in the least.

and I must admit I am a bit disappointed that you apprarently do.

[Classact]

if we piss all over the constitution, what will we really have "won" in the long run?There is no violation to the constitution... terrorists do not have a right under any portion of the constitution or it amendments.

If the Protect America Act were unconstitutional why would a majority of the 109th congress passed it? Remember it is law now that will expire on Feb. 1.

I think the President has the right with or without the Protect America Act to protect America once the congress authorizes hostilities. All the whining the left of center does will not float with people with common sense.

Does anyone know what justification for a warrant is? Define Probable Cause... I ask anyone reading this if OBL himself called me from Pakistan would a FISA court authorize the administration to listen to the conversation?
The answer is no, they wouldn't no more than they would allow the administration to listen into a conversation with an American person... Read the fourth amendment. It doesn't say US Citizen it says American person... an American person is any person who happens to be in America, legally or illegally. What excuse would the court use to issue a warrant if OBL wanted to talk with one of the folks that took down the Twin Towers? The judge would just laugh and say, maybe the guy is his cousin and he wants to wish him happy birthday... just like if OBL wanted to call me? The administration must first satisfy the court prior to listening to OBL and a terror agent in or out of the US under the Democrats proposal of probable cause that the person on the other end of a call from a terrorist is also a terrorist beyond a reasonable doubt.

Democrats or any human alive are insane to put such restrictions on the Intel collection during a time of war... INSANE and if something goes terribly wrong and WMD's kill large numbers of Americans because of INSANE Democrats they will become endangered species.

[retiredman]

There is no violation to the constitution... terrorists do not have a right under any portion of the constitution or it amendments.



where have I EVER suggested that terrorists had rights under any portion of the constitution or its amendments?

do you or do you not understand the meaning of article VI?

[manu1959]

I really don't find blatant disrespect for our constitution funny in the least.

and I must admit I am a bit disappointed that you apprarently do.


if i am not an american citizen and i do not waterboard them on us soil and i save you and your country.....am i pissing on your constitution.....are you so arrogant to think your laws govern the world?.....no wonder everyone hates americans....

[retiredman]

if i am not an american citizen and i do not waterboard them on us soil and i save you and your country.....am i pissing on your constitution.....are you so arrogant to think your laws govern the world?.....no wonder everyone hates americans....

our laws govern us

[manu1959]

our laws govern us


what if a treaty is signed that weakens the us and makes her vulnerable to colapse.....is it not my duty as a citizen to rise up against the government and protect the us from such things.....

[retiredman]

what if a treaty is signed that weakens the us and makes her vulnerable to colapse.....is it not my duty as a citizen to rise up against the government and protect the us from such things.....

it is your job to vote people into office that pledge to abrogate that treaty. Until you do, the constitution proclaims that treaty to be the LAW OF THE LAND. YOU do not get to decide which laws you get to obey and which laws you get to ignore. We are governed by the rule of law...without it: anarchy

[Dilloduck]

it is your job to vote people into office that pledge to abrogate that treaty. Until you do, the constitution proclaims that treaty to be the LAW OF THE LAND. YOU do not get to decide which laws you get to obey and which laws you get to ignore. We are governed by the rule of law...without it: anarchy

Apparently we are governed by those who are best at converting money into power and vice versa. People without money cant win elections.

[retiredman]

Apparently we are governed by those who are best at converting money into power and vice versa. People without money cant win elections.

public financing of elections would solve that...but, regardless, what does that have to do with Article VI?

[Classact]

where have I EVER suggested that terrorists had rights under any portion of the constitution or its amendments?

do you or do you not understand the meaning of article VI?My point is the Protect America Act that is in effect at this moment is law. It is necessary law to protect America from foreign and domestic terror. At the same time the President has Executive Authority directly under the constitution as Commander in Chief to take actions to protect America including methods contained in the Protect America Act as is in force right now. The congress cannot legislate law that removes the Commander in Chief's authority to protect America.

Once the congress authorizes force the chief executive, the President is functioning as supreme authority of all actions of war. There is precedence in as much during WWII the President issued an Executive Order that all cable communications and mail between Europe and Asia be monitored by the government.

Resultant to the above wiretapping and mail opening and censuring Intel was gained that US citizens (former German citizens) in upper NY state were in fact aiding the German enemy, they were tried by military court and some were executed.

[Dilloduck]

public financing of elections would solve that...but, regardless, what does that have to do with Article VI?

Everything--one can purchase Constitutional power.

[retiredman]

My point is the Protect America Act that is in effect at this moment is law. It is necessary law to protect America from foreign and domestic terror. At the same time the President has Executive Authority directly under the constitution as Commander in Chief to take actions to protect America including methods contained in the Protect America Act as is in force right now. The congress cannot legislate law that removes the Commander in Chief's authority to protect America.

Once the congress authorizes force the chief executive, the President is functioning as supreme authority of all actions of war. There is precedence in as much during WWII the President issued an Executive Order that all cable communications and mail between Europe and Asia be monitored by the government.

Resultant to the above wiretapping and mail opening and censuring Intel was gained that US citizens (former German citizens) in upper NY state were in fact aiding the German enemy, they were tried by military court and some were executed.

so why do you avoid article VI like the plague? treaties signed and ratified by our country are the law of the land, unambiguously.

[Classact]

so why do you avoid article VI like the plague? treaties signed and ratified by our country are the law of the land, unambiguously.What treaty do you speak of?

[jimnyc]

so why do you avoid article VI like the plague? treaties signed and ratified by our country are the law of the land, unambiguously.

And what about "not self executing"? And what legislation has been passed by the US declaring waterboarding as torture? Without it, the declarations made by the US to the Geneva Convention on torture doesn't hold water. Again, I honestly don't know, but has legislation been passed specifically declaring it as torture as declared by the US in the convention?

[Mr. P]

Why then, were Axis officers convicted of war crimes for using the technique on Allied POW's ? Why was a US soldier court martialled for using the technique during the Viet Nam war? Why has the technique been deemed as illegal by the US military since the Spanish-American War? Why did the Inquisitors refer to the technique as <i>tortura del agua</i>?

It is settled case law. Waterboarding IS torture, no matter how the Bush administration tries to parse it.

Man you need to provide a bunch a links.

Why did some VC get hung out the door of a UH-1 in Vietnam at 3000 feet?
Some, oooops, fell...the rest talked. Chit Happens.

[retiredman]

And what about "not self executing"? And what legislation has been passed by the US declaring waterboarding as torture? Without it, the declarations made by the US to the Geneva Convention on torture doesn't hold water. Again, I honestly don't know, but has legislation been passed specifically declaring it as torture as declared by the US in the convention?

we are not talking about the geneva convention.

we are talking about the fact that the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment is, in fact, the law of the land as per Article VI of the US Constitution.

[Classact]

And what about "not self executing"? And what legislation has been passed by the US declaring waterboarding as torture? Without it, the declarations made by the US to the Geneva Convention on torture doesn't hold water. Again, I honestly don't know, but has legislation been passed specifically declaring it as torture as declared by the US in the convention?America does not use torture.

America follows all international treaties it is signature to. To be "signature to" the treaty must be ratified by the US congress and signed by the President.

The US is a signature to the Geneva Convention but is not a signature to the 1970's protocols. In these protocols "freedom fighters", terrorists and looks like sounds like terrorist were made lawful combatants. land mines were made illegal. All the detainees in Cuba are UNLAWFUL Combatants, that mean they violated the Law's of War and the Geneva Convention that we are a signature to. The original GC and Law's of War requires all combatants wear a uniform or insignia. We still have mine fields between N. and S. Korea or not?

Since the US didn't ratify the GC 1970's protocols we could, in fact, if we desired hold a military hearing on the battlefield and just put them in front of a firing squad. Many German soldiers were executed in WWII by company grade commanders when caught fighting out of uniform.

America does not torture. Techniques are classified and if one of the techniques utilizes something similar to water-boarding it is dis-similar enough that it does not meet the bar of torture. Perhaps the procedure is docile in comparison to what is related to the word water-boarding.

[Kathianne]

And what about "not self executing"? And what legislation has been passed by the US declaring waterboarding as torture? Without it, the declarations made by the US to the Geneva Convention on torture doesn't hold water. Again, I honestly don't know, but has legislation been passed specifically declaring it as torture as declared by the US in the convention?

No. While controversial, the bottom line is that time and again, when the opportunity has arisen to declare it such, Congress has always backed away. MM interpretation of cruel and unusual is just that, his interpretation.

[jimnyc]

we are not talking about the geneva convention.

we are talking about the fact that the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment is, in fact, the law of the land as per Article VI of the US Constitution.

My bad, I meant to say the UN convention that you speak of, where the US added declarations that it was not self executing and that the US must first pass legislation.


The United States ratified the Convention, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing, and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to take effect.

So has this legislation against waterboarding taken effect?

[Classact]

Torture is just plain illegal, but the US doesn't conduct torture. If you go to this link and check the "US Law" portion of the link there is no getting around the fact torture and what is commonly defined as water-boarding is illegal. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

I don't think water-boarding is the big sticking point on the legislation but rather the FISA court and warrants. The Democrats and the PA Republican Senator actually think "US Persons" should be protected by the court and that the government should show probable cause prior to listening to conversations between bad guys overseas and any "person" in the US. They site the IV amendment that says "persons".

The Democrats hate President Bush so much they require him to have a court warrant even on overseas conversations and apply probable cause conditions because one of the persons "might be a US Person", for that they will allow Americans to die at the hands of the enemy.

Rule of Law is all bullshit in this argument. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule and the interrogation methods are classified and the procedures have not been released so there is no possible way to know if America or the Bush Administration is violating US or international Law. Wishing the US tortures is like wishing the elected official with marked money in his freezer be thrown in jail for life. Or that former Clinton administration officials that hid "classified" papers illegally in their clothes and then illegally destroyed them should be shot by firing squad.

[red states rule]

This link shows the libs are whining over nothing when it comes to waterboarding

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[jimnyc]

Torture is just plain illegal, but the US doesn't conduct torture. If you go to this link and check the "US Law" portion of the link there is no getting around the fact torture and what is commonly defined as water-boarding is illegal. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

But has any specific legislation been drawn up to include waterboarding? I just read that entire link and didn't see waterboarding listed, so it still seems to be up for interpretation as to whether or not waterboarding is specifically illegal or not.


Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment.

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the treatment, but I still think it hasn't been decided definitively as to whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. Manfromaine states that the treaties are "supreme law of the land" as per the US Constitution, but this treaty requires legislation from our government, which I honestly haven't seen yet. So until there's legislation, I don't see how waterboarding can be considered unconstitutional. Again, I'm just speaking legalese here, not opinions.

[red states rule]

But has any specific legislation been drawn up to include waterboarding? I just read that entire link and didn't see waterboarding listed, so it still seems to be up for interpretation as to whether or not waterboarding is specifically illegal or not.



I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the treatment, but I still think it hasn't been decided definitively as to whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. Manfromaine states that the treaties are "supreme law of the land" as per the US Constitution, but this treaty requires legislation from our government, which I honestly haven't seen yet. So until there's legislation, I don't see how waterboarding can be considered unconstitutional. Again, I'm just speaking legalese here, not opinions.

Jim, in all 3 cases of waterboarding the terrorists cracked in less then 1 minute

They suffered no permanent effects. No scars.

and more important they were still alive

Waterboarding is not torture and is not unconstitutional. On that we agree

[Classact]

But has any specific legislation been drawn up to include waterboarding? I just read that entire link and didn't see waterboarding listed, so it still seems to be up for interpretation as to whether or not waterboarding is specifically illegal or not.



I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the treatment, but I still think it hasn't been decided definitively as to whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. Manfromaine states that the treaties are "supreme law of the land" as per the US Constitution, but this treaty requires legislation from our government, which I honestly haven't seen yet. So until there's legislation, I don't see how waterboarding can be considered unconstitutional. Again, I'm just speaking legalese here, not opinions.In the absence of specific legislation lawyers will be the deciding factor on any law. Legislation restricting the Army interrogation methods was established limiting or expressly removing waterboarding from use, but to my knowledge there is no legislation defining what US government directed interrogation will be limited to. Without legislation all interrogation is limited totally to the definition of treaties and existing US laws referring to the restrictions.

[red states rule]

We treat terrorists better then we treat our own citizens who are in prison

Lawmaker: Terrorists treated better than Ramos, Compean
Congressman calls for investigation into reported harsh conditions

Posted: October 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is calling on the Bush administration to conduct a thorough review of harsh treatment convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean reportedly are receiving in solitary confinement.
Rohrabacher argues that for 10 months Ramos and Compean have been in conditions more severe than experienced by terrorists held by the U.S. at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The congressman also disclosed he has written a letter to Manhattan federal trial judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, demanding that upon confirmation Mukasey conduct an unbiased review of the agents' prosecution.

"Given the close personal relationship between the prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush, past requests for inquiries into prosecutorial misconduct in this case have been ignored," Rohrabacher claimed in a statement.

"Conflicting statements made by Mr. Sutton during Senate testimony in July and to the press have yet to be clarified," Rohrabacher continued, "and newly obtained information regarding the treatment of the officers in solitary confinement for the last 10 months reveals conditions that are harsh and unnecessarily punitive in nature

for the complete article

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58188

[bullypulpit]

Man you need to provide a bunch a links.

Why did some VC get hung out the door of a UH-1 in Vietnam at 3000 feet?
Some, oooops, fell...the rest talked. Chit Happens.

Just google "waterboarding". You'll find all the links you want.

[bullypulpit]

We treat terrorists better then we treat our own citizens who are in prison

Lawmaker: Terrorists treated better than Ramos, Compean
Congressman calls for investigation into reported harsh conditions

Posted: October 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is calling on the Bush administration to conduct a thorough review of harsh treatment convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean reportedly are receiving in solitary confinement.
Rohrabacher argues that for 10 months Ramos and Compean have been in conditions more severe than experienced by terrorists held by the U.S. at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The congressman also disclosed he has written a letter to Manhattan federal trial judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, demanding that upon confirmation Mukasey conduct an unbiased review of the agents' prosecution.

"Given the close personal relationship between the prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush, past requests for inquiries into prosecutorial misconduct in this case have been ignored," Rohrabacher claimed in a statement.

"Conflicting statements made by Mr. Sutton during Senate testimony in July and to the press have yet to be clarified," Rohrabacher continued, "and newly obtained information regarding the treatment of the officers in solitary confinement for the last 10 months reveals conditions that are harsh and unnecessarily punitive in nature

for the complete article

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58188

You really gotta do better than that, but then we really don't expect it from you.

[Dilloduck]

You really gotta do better than that, but then we really don't expect it from you.

So can you--waterboarding is just another example of the extremes you have gone to on you mission to discredit the administration.At least find one that has some significance.

[Classact]

You really gotta do better than that, but then we really don't expect it from you.Why do you find it necessary to be condescending and insulting when your fingers hit the keyboard answering a conservative?

The people RSR referred to are political prisoners and are treated much worse than the terrorists detained in Cuba. They are political prisoners because President Bush, like the desires of the Democratic Party wants to make the US a haven for as many Mexicans as want to come here. He wants it for business and the Democrats want Mexicans as a voting base to assure they stay in power forever. Neither are looking out for the American people.

On the other hand President Bush is looking out for Americans when he detains and questions Unlawful Combatant Terrorists while Democrats would prefer to give them a lawyer and habeas corpus so they could get out of jail on a technicality and kill Americans.

[pegwinn]

and more important they were still alive

Waterboarding is not torture and is not unconstitutional. On that we agree

I don't care that they are still alive. Terrorists are not due the honorable treatment given to legitimate combatants under the laws of land warfare.

As said elsewhere:
"If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's balls to a car's battery cables will save one Texas GI's life, then I have just three things to say,............ "Red is positive",... "Black is negative",........ and "Make sure his balls are wet!"<!-- / message -->
I do care that you believe waterboarding is constitutional though. That opens it up for use by the local sheriff against folks with a legitimate expectation of protections under that same constitution.

[Kathianne]

I don't care that they are still alive. Terrorists are not due the honorable treatment given to legitimate combatants under the laws of land warfare.

As said elsewhere:
I do care that you believe waterboarding is constitutional though. That opens it up for use by the local sheriff against folks with a legitimate expectation of protections under that same constitution.

Considering they had to notify Washington before doing so, I believe it took days to get the details done, shouldn't be too difficult to prevent use by local law enforcement.

I am more concerned about some of the way the no knock warrants are being handled than waterboarding. Which is just a euphamism for extraordinary means. If Congress wants to define it as torture, they should do so.

[bullypulpit]

Why do you find it necessary to be condescending and insulting when your fingers hit the keyboard answering a conservative?

The people RSR referred to are political prisoners and are treated much worse than the terrorists detained in Cuba. They are political prisoners because President Bush, like the desires of the Democratic Party wants to make the US a haven for as many Mexicans as want to come here. He wants it for business and the Democrats want Mexicans as a voting base to assure they stay in power forever. Neither are looking out for the American people.

On the other hand President Bush is looking out for Americans when he detains and questions Unlawful Combatant Terrorists while Democrats would prefer to give them a lawyer and habeas corpus so they could get out of jail on a technicality and kill Americans.

Certain "conservatives" here, like RSR, deserve no better.

Bush isn't looking out for anything but his own ass as he and Darth Cheney attempt to create a unitary executive which is nothing more than a despot, contrary to the Constitution and the Founders.

[bullypulpit]

Considering they had to notify Washington before doing so, I believe it took days to get the details done, shouldn't be too difficult to prevent use by local law enforcement.

I am more concerned about some of the way the no knock warrants are being handled than waterboarding. Which is just a euphamism for extraordinary means. If Congress wants to define it as torture, they should do so.

Waterboarding has been defined as torture since it was first described in documents from the Inquisition some 500 years ago. For the Bush administration, which has attempted to redefine torture has attempted to redefine torture to the point of meaninglessness, this is simply another in a long series of acts which replace the rule of law in the name of "national security" with the rule of men. Men, I might add, of supremely questionable judgment and motives.

[pegwinn]

Considering they had to notify Washington before doing so, I believe it took days to get the details done, shouldn't be too difficult to prevent use by local law enforcement.

I am more concerned about some of the way the no knock warrants are being handled than waterboarding. Which is just a euphamism for extraordinary means. If Congress wants to define it as torture, they should do so.

I can see some very overeager young academy grads mocking up a waterboard figuring it was ok.

Open season on terrorists, Not Americans.

[Kathianne]

I can see some very overeager young academy grads mocking up a waterboard figuring it was ok.

Open season on terrorists, Not Americans.

How? It's all been well documented, I mean we're reading it.

[pegwinn]

How? It's all been well documented, I mean we're reading it.

Ok let me break it down because I am not getting my point across very well.

I have no issue with waterboarding terrorists or terrorist suspects. They are not criminals in the traditional sense and the interrogations take place away from the homeland.

I do have a problem with the idea of waterboarding crooks within the borders.

I am afraid that if Congress doesn't redefine it as torture and outlaw it completly some law enforcement types may decide to use it wihout authorisation.

I'm glad they documented it. I hope they show it to the next batch of towell headed jihadis they need some info out of.

[manu1959]

Ok let me break it down because I am not getting my point across very well.

I have no issue with waterboarding terrorists or terrorist suspects. They are not criminals in the traditional sense and the interrogations take place away from the homeland.

I do have a problem with the idea of waterboarding crooks within the borders.

I am afraid that if Congress doesn't redefine it as torture and outlaw it completly some law enforcement types may decide to use it wihout authorisation.

I'm glad they documented it. I hope they show it to the next batch of towell headed jihadis they need some info out of.

or we could have them argue with truthmatters.....

[red states rule]

I don't care that they are still alive. Terrorists are not due the honorable treatment given to legitimate combatants under the laws of land warfare.

As said elsewhere:
I do care that you believe waterboarding is constitutional though. That opens it up for use by the local sheriff against folks with a legitimate expectation of protections under that same constitution.

I do not care the terrorosts are alive either. When it comes to saving innocent lives, I do not care what methods are used to stop their attacks

I am not saying waterboarding should used on a regular basis - but even if a US citizen is working with terrorists, and has info that will stop attacks - I say do what is needed to break him/her

[Classact]

Certain "conservatives" here, like RSR, deserve no better.

Bush isn't looking out for anything but his own ass as he and Darth Cheney attempt to create a unitary executive which is nothing more than a despot, contrary to the Constitution and the Founders.Who set the bar for Executive Power? The founders set the power and here is an example... http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/mail-censorship-in-world-war-two-1.html

[retiredman]

I say do what is needed to break him/her

regardless of what the constitution says or what the law of the land says?

[red states rule]

regardless of what the constitution says or what the law of the land says?

I would like tio see you on TV MM explaining to the American people how the government was unable to stop a terrorist attack because we could not use all methods available to get the ino

[retiredman]

I would like tio see you on TV MM explaining to the American people how the government was unable to stop a terrorist attack because we could not use all methods available to get the ino


so you would use any means to attempt to extract information from suspects. Is that correct?

[red states rule]

so you would use any means to attempt to extract information from suspects. Is that correct?

So is that how you would spin protecting the comfort of terrorists as the rubble and bodies are being removed from the scene of the attack?

[retiredman]

So is that how you would spin protecting the comfort of terrorists as the rubble and bodies are being removed from the scene of the attack?

I am just asking you a question to clarify my understanding of your position.

YOu did say, above, "I do not care what methods are used to stop their attacks" "I say do what is needed to break him/her"

I am merely asking if that means, as it seems, that there are no limits to the interrogation methods you would use.

Can you answer that simple question?

[red states rule]

I am just asking you a question to clarify my understanding of your position.

YOu did say, above, "I do not care what methods are used to stop their attacks" "I say do what is needed to break him/her"

I am merely asking if that means, as it seems, that there are no limits to the interrogation methods you would use.

Can you answer that simple question?

I have made my position very clear

Would you like to try for a change? Are you going to sit by and listen to some liberal tell the American people we could not stop an attack because we would not use all methods available to get the information?

[retiredman]

I have made my position very clear

Would you like to try for a change? Are you going to sit by and listen to some liberal tell the American people we could not stop an attack because we would not use all methods available to get the information?

so your position is that any form of interrogation: hypothermia, extreme sleep deprivation, electric shock, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, EVERYTHING is fair game when interrogating islamic extremist detainees? correct?

[red states rule]

so your position is that any form of interrogation: hypothermia, extreme sleep deprivation, electric shock, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, EVERYTHING is fair game when interrogating islamic extremist detainees? correct?

I answered your question - why not return the favor

Are you willing to hear libs on TV defending NOT using all methods to stop an attack, after an attack?

[retiredman]

I answered your question - why not return the favor

Are you willing to hear libs on TV defending NOT using all methods to stop an attack, after an attack?

I am willing to listen to americans defend not resorting to torture to get information.

You are now on record as being perfectly willing to piss on the constitution.

[red states rule]

I am willing to listen to americans defend not resorting to torture to get information.

You are now on record as being perfectly willing to piss on the constitution.

So you would rather have dead Americans then cause the terrorists some discomfort.

And you call me an enemy of the state

[retiredman]

So you would rather have dead Americans then cause the terrorists some discomfort.

And you call me an enemy of the state

I never said that. I said I do not condone the unconstitutional and illegal use of torture.

you have pissed on our most precious document.

[red states rule]

I never said that. I said I do not condone the unconstitutional and illegal use of torture.

you have pissed on our most precious document.

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by red states rule
I answered your question - why not return the favor

Are you willing to hear libs on TV defending NOT using all methods to stop an attack, after an attack?

I am willing to listen to americans defend not resorting to torture to get information

So you would rather fight a PC war - you are willing to lose it but you will feel good about your intentions

[retiredman]

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by red states rule
I answered your question - why not return the favor

Are you willing to hear libs on TV defending NOT using all methods to stop an attack, after an attack?

I am willing to listen to americans defend not resorting to torture to get information

So you would rather fight a PC war - you are willing to lose it but you will feel good about your intentions
I would not resort to torture, regardless. That is not the same as "fighting a PC war" as you put it. And most career military officers agree with me that we should NOT torture.

and you would piss on our constitution. why do you keep avoiding admitting that?

[pegwinn]

I would not resort to torture, regardless. That is not the same as "fighting a PC war" as you put it. And most career military officers agree with me that we should NOT torture.

and you would piss on our constitution. why do you keep avoiding admitting that?

Your opinion is your own and I will not debate you on it (unless of course you open up) but in the interest of full disclosure....... Military Officers have to be confirmed by the Senate. The higher the rank, the shorter the list, and the better a chance to fail confirmation for a "non-PC" slip in the past.