CIA Destroys/Hides Evidence Of Wrongdoing - Harman Warns against - Merged

[red states rule]

Honestly, I can't find a post where manfrommaine has EVER sided with terrorist.

:salute:

MM has pushed for surrender in Iraq, and on this thread he is more interested in the comfort of terrorists then stopping attacks

[red states rule]

you just make shit up. Show me where I have ever suggested that we protect the rights of terrorists.

and why do you ignore the two bolded sections of my last post altogether?

RSR: domestic enemy. traitor.:pee:

By saying they are covered under the GC and the US Constitution

[red states rule]

personally, I dont think the cia or fbi should be destroying tapes, even if its not illegal. The rule of thumb is... if you have nothing to hide, you dont destory potential evidence.

Just my two cents.

Dems knew about waterbording years ago. They saw the tapes. They did not whine about the treatment of terrorists back then

Waterboarding has not been used in years

However, when it was used on Abu Zubaida he broke in less then 1 minute. Agents said the information he gave them saved lives and prevented attacks

So Dems have to choose if they want to save lives or ensure the comfort of terrorists

[retiredman]

By saying they are covered under the GC and the US Constitution


I have never said that terrorists are covered under the Geneva Conventions, and I have never said that they are covered under the provisions of our Constitution in any way.

[actsnoblemartin]

what comfort do you think mm wants to give to the terrorists?


MM has pushed for surrender in Iraq, and on this thread he is more interested in the comfort of terrorists then stopping attacks

[actsnoblemartin]

how do you feel terrorists should be treated?


I have never said that terrorists are covered under the Geneva Conventions, and I have never said that they are covered under the provisions of our Constitution in any way.

[actsnoblemartin]

I support waterboarding and torture, because it can and has saved lives.

Now, obviously... I dont want it used for no reason, and i dont want tapes destroyed.

Accountability is important.


Dems knew about waterbording years ago. They saw the tapes. They did not whine about the treatment of terrorists back then

Waterboarding has not been used in years

However, when it was used on Abu Zubaida he broke in less then 1 minute. Agents said the information he gave them saved lives and prevented attacks

So Dems have to choose if they want to save lives or ensure the comfort of terrorists

[actsnoblemartin]

Iraq is not as simple as stay or leave.

We have a stated mission: get the iraqis to reconcile, but the bottom line is: there has to come a time, where if the horse we took to the water (iraqis) still refuses to drink we leave.

This whole argument of your a war monger, your a traitor is crap

the issues are:

can we get the iraqis to start reconciling?

if they have, how much time do we give them to finish.

if they are not done, by a certain point, do we leave?

Its not about failed war vs surrender...

its about 12/31/07 - the end of the war... and trying to make the best decisions possible, in a highly difficult. multi-complex situation.

[retiredman]

how do you feel terrorists should be treated?

I think we should follow the provisions of every treaty we have signed.... they are, after all, the LAW OF THE LAND. Do yourself a huge favor. Read the United Nations "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment". Whether you agree with it or not, it IS the LAW OF THE LAND....according to Article VI, paragraph 2 of our constitution.

As I have said, if you are willing to piss on the constitution, then, from my perspective, you are a domestic enemy of the state and an enemy of mine.

[Kathianne]

I think we should follow the provisions of every treaty we have signed.... they are, after all, the LAW OF THE LAND. Do yourself a huge favor. Read the United Nations "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment". Whether you agree with it or not, it IS the LAW OF THE LAND....according to Article VI, paragraph 2 of our constitution.

As I have said, if you are willing to piss on the constitution, then, from my perspective, you are a domestic enemy of the state and an enemy of mine.

You do mean the broadest of what has been signed, right? UN provisions, updated every 2.5 hours.

All the more reason we needed to pull out of UN yesterday.

[retiredman]

You do mean the broadest of what has been signed, right? UN provisions, updated every 2.5 hours.

All the more reason we needed to pull out of UN yesterday.

I mean UN conventions...treaties made and signed by nation state members....I am not talking about security council resolutions...but treaties.

[red states rule]

I mean UN conventions...treaties made and signed by nation state members....I am not talking about security council resolutions...but treaties.

Why am I not surprised you want the Useless Nations to tell the US how we shall protect ourselves?

Look at who sits on the UN's Human Rights Council. Yea, when it comes to genocidal dictators, they better beware of the UN's non-binding resolutions

http://www.un.org/ga/61/elect/hrc/

[retiredman]

Why am I not surprised you want the Useless Nations to tell the US how we shall protect ourselves?

Look at who sits on the UN's Human Rights Council. Yea, when it comes to genocidal dictators, they better beware of the UN's non-binding resolutions

http://www.un.org/ga/61/elect/hrc/


are you trying to suggest that UN conventions that are signed by the United States are not the law of the land?

[red states rule]

are you trying to suggest that UN conventions that are signed by the United States are not the law of the land?

Not when they dictate wher, when, and how the US protects itself.

Maybe you are willing to trust genocidal dictators when they sign a piece of paper - I am not

[retiredman]

Not when they dictate wher, when, and how the US protects itself.



then you are pissing on article VI of our constitution....and you are, therefore a domestic enemy of the United States. pure and simple. You should be shot.

[red states rule]

then you are pissing on article VI of our constitution....and you are, therefore a domestic enemy of the United States. pure and simple. You should be shot.

When the facts bite you on the ass - its back to the insults

[retiredman]

When the facts bite you on the ass - its back to the insults

no..the facts are quite clear. Article VI of the constitution is clear.... treaties signed by the united states become the law of the land. the united states signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment. It IS the law of the land.... to suggest otherwise is to IGNORE the facts and to PISS on the constitution...and, the way I was trained, those who would piss on our constitution are its enemies...be they foreign OR domestic.

[red states rule]

no..the facts are quite clear. Article VI of the constitution is clear.... treaties signed by the united states become the law of the land. the united states signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment. It IS the law of the land.... to suggest otherwise is to IGNORE the facts and to PISS on the constitution...and, the way I was trained, those who would piss on our constitution are its enemies...be they foreign OR domestic.

So when dictators who have sworn to destory the US signs a piece of paper promising to be a good boy we should breath a sigh of relief?

When trouble abounds the UN will be there doing nothing - the US will have to step in and take care of the problem

[retiredman]

So when dictators who have sworn to destory the US signs a piece of paper promising to be a good boy we should breath a sigh of relief?

When trouble abounds the UN will be there doing nothing - the US will have to step in and take care of the problem


when the United States government signs a treaty, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND according to Article VI of the Constitution. People like YOU who would piss on that, are domestic enemies of the state and should be shot.

[red states rule]

when the United States government signs a treaty, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND according to Article VI of the Constitution. People like YOU who would piss on that, are domestic enemies of the state and should be shot.

Nothing like MM's tolerance for those who have a different opinion

[retiredman]

Nothing like MM's tolerance for those who have a different opinion

is your "opinion" that Article VI of the constitution is not applicable anymore?

[waterrescuedude2000]

I have NEVER said that terrorists have rights under the US Constitution.

and pissing on the constitution is pissing on the constitution.

you have stated you don't care what we do to protect america.... your willingness to do anything flies in the face of the constitution.

fact:

U.S Constitution, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

fact:

The United States is a signatory to the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment"

you piss on the constitution. you are a domestic enemy and all your flag waving does not change that fact. traitor. enemy.

I personally agree with RSR here. Terrorists have no rights. yes they were not written in the Constitution cause they didn't have to deal with it. You have to overcome and adapt. you attack the big dog your gonna get your ass handed to you thats what they did they pissed most of us off. Obviously MM would rather see American lives lost. So may I ask what is your position on waterboarding and torture?? Is it Humane??? Let me guess you are gonna say no and be nice to them. I got news for you WAR IS NOT NICE!!! You do what you have to do to win and that means killing them before they kill you. You know if I was out in the field and captured us a tango and I beleive he has information that can save the lives of my men I would torture him so that I can save a fellow american. Fuck the terrorists. But we will just let you go support them as you obviously do. So go wave your white flag maybe you can go be Reid's official flag waver. I'm sure hed give you an award for wanting to see americans killed. And as far as civilians go yes they die in war also. It is sad but civilians have died in every war in the history of the world I guarantee it.

[retiredman]

I personally agree with RSR here. Terrorists have no rights. yes they were not written in the Constitution cause they didn't have to deal with it. You have to overcome and adapt. you attack the big dog your gonna get your ass handed to you thats what they did they pissed most of us off. Obviously MM would rather see American lives lost. So may I ask what is your position on waterboarding and torture?? Is it Humane??? Let me guess you are gonna say no and be nice to them. I got news for you WAR IS NOT NICE!!! You do what you have to do to win and that means killing them before they kill you. You know if I was out in the field and captured us a tango and I beleive he has information that can save the lives of my men I would torture him so that I can save a fellow american. Fuck the terrorists. But we will just let you go support them as you obviously do. So go wave your white flag maybe you can go be Reid's official flag waver. I'm sure hed give you an award for wanting to see americans killed. And as far as civilians go yes they die in war also. It is sad but civilians have died in every war in the history of the world I guarantee it.


I have never suggested that terrorists be granted any "rights" written into the constitution of the united states.

clearly, you are too fucking dumb to grasp the meaning of Article VI. Go back to the sports forum:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I have never suggested that terrorists be granted any "rights" written into the constitution of the united states.

clearly, you are too fucking dumb to grasp the meaning of Article VI. Go back to the sports forum:laugh2:

At least he is not so fucking dumb to call for the murder of others who disagree with him

[waterrescuedude2000]

when the United States government signs a treaty, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND according to Article VI of the Constitution. People like YOU who would piss on that, are domestic enemies of the state and should be shot.

We are not pissing on the constitution and while there are some things I don't like about the country I live in it is still the best nation in the World and I would not hesitate to defend it again. Even though we let little pussies like you try and ruin everything and blame everyone else. Taking it as far as calling him a traitor.... HMMMM you are the one who wants to let the terrorists kill americans. You say we need to pull out of afghanistan and Iraq. I got news for you this nation does not back down. May I ask have you forgotten about 9-11??? I think about it every day and it keeps me white hot. I am personally proud of our country for us giving them all the terrorist a little carpet ride to allah prematurely.

[retiredman]

At least he is not so fucking dumb to call for the murder of others who disagree with him

are you denying the fact that you are advocating ignoring the constitution?

[actsnoblemartin]

im trying to figure out what article 6 is, and what your point is, referring to it.

feel free to explain further, if you wish

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/search?fromPage=compaqtop&query=article+6+of+the+constitution&do=Search


here is a wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution


then you are pissing on article VI of our constitution....and you are, therefore a domestic enemy of the United States. pure and simple. You should be shot.

[red states rule]

are you denying the fact that you are advocating ignoring the constitution?

I am advocating the US defends the US and not the UN

[retiredman]

I am advocating the US defends the US and not the UN


are you advocating pissing on Article VI?

[retiredman]

We are not pissing on the constitution and while there are some things I don't like about the country I live in it is still the best nation in the World and I would not hesitate to defend it again. Even though we let little pussies like you try and ruin everything and blame everyone else. Taking it as far as calling him a traitor.... HMMMM you are the one who wants to let the terrorists kill americans. You say we need to pull out of afghanistan and Iraq. I got news for you this nation does not back down. May I ask have you forgotten about 9-11??? I think about it every day and it keeps me white hot. I am personally proud of our country for us giving them all the terrorist a little carpet ride to allah prematurely.

go read article VI again.

go read the "UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment"

get back to me.

[red states rule]

are you advocating pissing on Article VI?

OK, so you would rather have dead bodies after a terrorist attack, and I would rather stop the attacks before they happen

We now know where each of us stands on this issue

[retiredman]

OK, so you would rather have dead bodies after a terrorist attack, and I would rather stop the attacks before they happen

We now know where each of us stands on this issue

answer the question: are you, or are you not advocating pissing on Article VI of the U.S. COnstitution?

[actsnoblemartin]

im looking for proof that article six says: we will never tortue anyone, no matter

once i find that proof, i will gladly say the truth.


are you denying the fact that you are advocating ignoring the constitution?

[retiredman]

im looking for proof that article six says: we will never tortue anyone, no matter

once i find that proof, i will gladly say the truth.

like I said earlier.

read article VI

and then read the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment.

The latter is a treaty that we signed.

see if you can figure out the connection between the two.

[actsnoblemartin]

here is what article six says

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[waterrescuedude2000]

go read article VI again.

go read the "UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment"

get back to me.

I am not saying that we need to piss on it... But on the other hand I disagree with that. There is no cruel or inhumane treatment or punishments. I may not be religious but I do believe the old saying an eye for an eye. So think of some of the sorry wankers on death row.... There is one here in Nevada he beat an 86 year old lady to death with a tire iron after he broke into her home... So beating an 86 year old lady in your opinion is not cruel or inhumane???? But using a fucking needle to kill him is cruel and unusual punishment??? Our state supreme court forced the stay of his execution to determine if a needle is Cruel what a fucking joke. Or taking airplanes and using them as missiles and killing many many civilians. Did you happen to see the video of the people jumping out of windows???? Fuck the terrorists let them suffer and die like the shitbags they are

[actsnoblemartin]

You are correct about what article six says, let me read the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment.




like I said earlier.

read article VI

and then read the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment.

The latter is a treaty that we signed.

see if you can figure out the connection between the two.

[retiredman]

I am not saying that we need to piss on it... But on the other hand I disagree with that. There is no cruel or inhumane treatment or punishments. I may not be religious but I do believe the old saying an eye for an eye. So think of some of the sorry wankers on death row.... There is one here in Nevada he beat an 86 year old lady to death with a tire iron after he broke into her home... So beating an 86 year old lady in your opinion is not cruel or inhumane???? But using a fucking needle to kill him is cruel and unusual punishment??? Our state supreme court forced the stay of his execution to determine if a needle is Cruel what a fucking joke. Or taking airplanes and using them as missiles and killing many many civilians. Did you happen to see the video of the people jumping out of windows???? Fuck the terrorists let them suffer and die like the shitbags they are

if your advocate ignoring the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, you need to understand that that means that you advocate pissing on our constitution. We SIGNED it. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. fact.

[red states rule]

if your advocate ignoring the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, you need to understand that that means that you advocate pissing on our constitution. We SIGNED it. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. fact.

OK waterrescuedude2000 now you did it

MM may order a firing squad for you as well

[retiredman]

OK waterrescuedude2000 now you did it

MM may order a firing squad for you as well

do you deny the fact that you advocate ignoring article VI of our constitution?

[waterrescuedude2000]

if your advocate ignoring the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, you need to understand that that means that you advocate pissing on our constitution. We SIGNED it. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. fact.

Fuck the UN!! They are almost as useless as you. There should be no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment. No where have I ever said that we should piss on the constitution. Period full stop end of story. Now let me ask if someone where to beat a relative of yours who was 86 with a tire iron what would you want done to that person?? Perhaps a few years in prison so that he can get out and do it again????

In who's book???? Yours??

[5stringJeff]

when the United States government signs a treaty, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND according to Article VI of the Constitution. People like YOU who would piss on that, are domestic enemies of the state and should be shot.

I think it's a bit extreme to say that people who disagree with treaties ought to be shot. I disagree with the US involvement in the UN. Should I be shot?

[retiredman]

Fuck the UN!! They are almost as useless as you. There should be no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment. No where have I ever said that we should piss on the constitution. Period full stop end of story. Now let me ask if someone where to beat a relative of yours who was 86 with a tire iron what would you want done to that person?? Perhaps a few years in prison so that he can get out and do it again????

no. If you suggest that we should ignore the requirements of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, then you are, BY DEFINITION saying that we should piss on the constitution.

what part of:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
do you NOT fucking understand????

[waterrescuedude2000]

I think it's a bit extreme to say that people who disagree with treaties ought to be shot. I disagree with the US involvement in the UN. Should I be shot?

More than likely he would have to say yes.

[retiredman]

I think it's a bit extreme to say that people who disagree with treaties ought to be shot. I disagree with the US involvement in the UN. Should I be shot?


If you advocate pissing on the constitution, you are a domestic enemy of it.

[waterrescuedude2000]

no. If you suggest that we should ignore the requirements of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, then you are, BY DEFINITION saying that we should piss on the constitution.

what part of:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
do you NOT fucking understand????

Let me reiterate BULLSHIT!!!!!

[retiredman]

Let me reiterate BULLSHIT!!!!!


what part of article VI do you not understand?

[waterrescuedude2000]

Mainequeer I believe that 5string asked you a question.....

[red states rule]

Mainequeer I believe that 5string asked you a question.....

Maybe he is rounding up another firing squad and that will be his answer

[retiredman]

Mainequeer I believe that 5string asked you a question.....


I answered it, why can't you answer mine?

[waterrescuedude2000]

what part of article VI do you not understand?

I disagree with some things about this nation saying that there is such thing as cruel and unusual punishment is one of them. That is just the stupidest shit I have ever heard. And you mainequeer are just a worthless pencil dick lower than whaleshit jackass.

[waterrescuedude2000]

If you advocate pissing on the constitution, you are a domestic enemy of it.

He asked you if he should be shot????

[retiredman]

I disagree with some things about this nation saying that there is such thing as cruel and unusual punishment is one of them. That is just the stupidest shit I have ever heard. And you mainequeer are just a worthless pencil dick lower than whaleshit jackass.

the FACT remains. America signed a treaty about torture. The moment we signed it, it became the law of the land. If you disagree with it, get it overturned...get our government to withdraw from the convention...but until we do... like it or not...it IS the LAW OF THE LAND...and if you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land, you are an domestic enemy of the constitution. pure and simple.

[5stringJeff]

If you advocate pissing on the constitution, you are a domestic enemy of it.

I don't advocate pissing on it. I advocate withdrawing from the treaty.

[red states rule]

the FACT remains. America signed a treaty about torture. The moment we signed it, it became the law of the land. If you disagree with it, get it overturned...get our government to withdraw from the convention...but until we do... like it or not...it IS the LAW OF THE LAND...and if you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land, you are an domestic enemy of the constitution. pure and simple.

When did we "torture"?

What do you consider torture MM? Loud music in the cells, turning up the heat. or turing down the temp, making them watch 24 hours of Hillary speeches. sleep deveration, yelling at the terrorists, or threats?

[retiredman]

I don't advocate pissing on it. I advocate withdrawing from the treaty.


FINE. but until we DO withdraw, that treaty is the law of the land, is it not?

[waterrescuedude2000]

the FACT remains. America signed a treaty about torture. The moment we signed it, it became the law of the land. If you disagree with it, get it overturned...get our government to withdraw from the convention...but until we do... like it or not...it IS the LAW OF THE LAND...and if you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land, you are an domestic enemy of the constitution. pure and simple.

You are the one supporting terrorists therefore you are the enemy of the state. You seem to believe that we need to pull out of Iraq... But we have killed quite a few of their biggest officers in Iraq. So would you rather fight them there or here???

[retiredman]

You are the one supporting terrorists therefore you are the enemy of the state. You seem to believe that we need to pull out of Iraq... But we have killed quite a few of their biggest officers in Iraq. So would you rather fight them there or here???

quit tap dancing. do you, or do you not, advocatge pissing on article VI of the US constitution?

[5stringJeff]

FINE. but until we DO withdraw, that treaty is the law of the land, is it not?

If the Constitution says it is, it is. However, I would say that if the Constitution and a treaty obligation ar ein conflict, the Constitution wins out.

[retiredman]

If the Constitution says it is, it is. However, I would say that if the Constitution and a treaty obligation ar ein conflict, the Constitution wins out.

where does the constitution conflict with the UN convention that we signed? Are you suggesting that the constitution specifically permits torture?

[red states rule]

You are the one supporting terrorists therefore you are the enemy of the state. You seem to believe that we need to pull out of Iraq... But we have killed quite a few of their biggest officers in Iraq. So would you rather fight them there or here???

and a town that was once a hotbed for AQ is now back in control of the Iraq government

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

[waterrescuedude2000]

the FACT remains. America signed a treaty about torture. The moment we signed it, it became the law of the land. If you disagree with it, get it overturned...get our government to withdraw from the convention...but until we do... like it or not...it IS the LAW OF THE LAND...and if you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land, you are an domestic enemy of the constitution. pure and simple.

Even though I was once sworn to uphold it I don't have to agree with everything in the constitution. Anchor baby laws thats another that needs to be ratified.. But back to the point. I spent a long time defending this nation that I love. How long have you mainefag?????

[red states rule]

Even though I was once sworn to uphold it I don't have to agree with everything in the constitution. Anchor baby laws thats another that needs to be ratified

MM thinks a worthless treaty from the UN is more important then saving lives

[retiredman]

Even though I was once sworn to uphold it I don't have to agree with everything in the constitution. Anchor baby laws thats another that needs to be ratified.. But back to the point. I spent a long time defending this nation that I love. How long have you mainefag?????

no one said you had to agree with it...but when you advocate pissing on it, you become a domestic enemy OF it.

I spent 25 years in uniform. how long have you watersportboy?

[waterrescuedude2000]

Where they ride bikes in boot camp... But if you spent time in the military and came out a dumbocrat you are stupider than I thought

[red states rule]

no one said you had to agree with it...but when you advocate pissing on it, you become a domestic enemy OF it.

I spent 25 years in uniform. how long have you watersportboy?

Must have taken some blows to the head in those 25 years - that woukld explain alot

[retiredman]

Where they ride bikes in boot camp... But if you spent time in the military and came out a dumbocrat you are stupider than I thought


I raised my hand on 6/26/68 in Tecumseh Court and retired in Brunswick on 9/1/93.

how long to do YOU have in service, watersportsboy?

[retiredman]

Must have taken some blows to the head in those 25 years - that woukld explain alot

and you never served....

and now admittedly piss on the constitution.

fucking traitor.

[red states rule]

and you never served....

and now admittedly piss on the constitution.

fucking traitor.

MY you are in a testy mood - given up on the death threats already?

[retiredman]

MY you are in a testy mood - given up on the death threats already?

you and watersportsboy are both acknowledged traitors. you both care ZERO about the constitution of the united states.

you both are worthless pieces of shit.

[red states rule]

you and watersportsboy are both acknowledged traitors. you both care ZERO about the constitution of the united states.

you both are worthless pieces of shit.

and you are another warm and fuzzy liberal

Funny how you demand peopee debate with you,, then you turn around and issue death threats when folks disagree with you - as well as the usual insults

[retiredman]

and you are another warm and fuzzy liberal

Funny how you demand peopee debate with you,, then you turn around and issue death threats when folks disagree with you - as well as the usual insults

I issued no death threats. I merely stated that I believe that domestic enemies of the constitution should be shot. you have clearly and unambiguously stated that you believe that article VI of the u.s. constitution should be pissed upon.

connect the dots.

[red states rule]

I issued no death threats. I merely stated that I believe that domestic enemies of the constitution should be shot. you have clearly and unambiguously stated that you believe that article VI of the u.s. constitution should be pissed upon.

connect the dots.

Yea right, you issued no death threats - only saying I should be shot. More word games from you - no shocker on that

[retiredman]

Yea right, you issued no death threats - only saying I should be shot. More word games from you - no shocker on that

do you think that america's enemies should be shot?

[red states rule]

do you think that america's enemies should be shot?

NO, I do not think you should be shot - just put in a padded room under strict Doctors care

[retiredman]

NO, I do not think you should be shot - just put in a padded room under strict Doctors care

nice dodge. I am not the one advocating pissing on the constitution. that would be you.

[actsnoblemartin]

i went for a walk.

here is the text if anybody cares, im starting to read it, and will render my analysis as soon as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

here is my source.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=the+UN+Convention+against+Torture+and+Oth er+Cruel+or+Inhuman+Treatment+or+Punishment.&ei=UTF-8&fr=hp-psdt

[red states rule]

nice dodge. I am not the one advocating pissing on the constitution. that would be you.

The terrorists thank you for your support, while the troops wish you would shut your blowhole

[retiredman]

The terrorists thank you for your support, while the troops wish you would shut your blowhole

how the fuck would you know what the troops wish? you are a cowardly traitorous pussy who has never been NEAR a uniform.... and you advocate pissing on the very document all those troops have sworn to support and defend!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

how the fuck would you know what the troops wish? you are a cowardly traitorous pussy who has never been NEAR a uniform.... and you advocate pissing on the very document all those troops have sworn to support and defend!:laugh2:

When I post many of the reactions of the troops about you and your party you dismiss them as "cut and paste"

They hold you and your party in very low esteem - and at election time

[actsnoblemartin]

A few things, the united states did sign the treaty, and in 2004 ratified the treaty but....

here is the interesting part: can anybody translate this from lawyer into english?

Recent history

Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[2] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[3] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[4][5]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

and optional protocol:

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2002 and in force since 22 June 2006, provides for the establishment of "a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," to be overseen by a Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("Subcommittee on Prevention").

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

[red states rule]

A few things, the united states did sign the treaty, and in 2004 ratified the treaty but....

here is the interesting part: can anybody translate this from lawyer into english?

Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[2] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[3] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[4][5]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

For the Useless Nation to lecture the US on human rights is a joke. Look who they have sitting on their Human Rights Council

[actsnoblemartin]

Personal analysis.

#1 The united states is a sovereign nation, and its first reponsibility is to protect its citizens.

#2 The United States has a moral and ethical right to do whatever is neccesary to protect their citizens

#3 I believe torture is neccesary (in certain cases), to obtain information that can and has saved lifes.

#4 I believe the u.s. has a right to modify or dis-continue any treaty without cause or reason, if it in the u.s. best interests of the country, its citizens or its strategic interests

#5 Laws are not meant to be strictly enforced, but to be interpreted and every situation judged differently

[actsnoblemartin]

As stated in my analysis, the u.n. is not a country and has it has been shown over and over again are biased, immoral, and shown antagonistic malice toward the u.s. and israel. It has never been a fair broker, it is the nevil chamberlin, signing people to useless treaties that they could never enforce and then asking america to pay for it, it has a long track record or dishonesty, treachery, and un-even handed topics.

I believe it has no legal or moral authority to enforce any law or resolution let alone lecture anybody on how to act.

They are cowardly beauracrats

The
For the Useless Nation to lecture the US on human rights is a joke. Look who they have sitting on their Human Rights Council

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The US is not beholden to other jurisdictions that are to place the US in an inferior position, otherwise our Constitution would be as valuable as butt wipe.............


Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, for at least these two reasons --- 1) because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and 2) because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN --- U.S. "membership" in the United Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order.

From: http://aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/article4.html

[actsnoblemartin]

Nor should it ever be. Brilliant point, the u.s. constitution means nothing to those who hate us, and if they could they would take away all our freedoms and make us either a muslim caliphate, or one world government, and we know the only people who truly care about our republic are american citizens, not illegals, not europeans, not muslims, not any other country.

Just us mate


The US is not beholden to other jurisdictions that are to place the US in an inferior position, otherwise our Constitution would be as valuable as butt wipe.............



From: http://aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/article4.html

[red states rule]

Nor should it ever be. Brilliant point, the u.s. constitution means nothing to those who hate us, and if they could they would take away all our freedoms and make us either a muslim caliphate, or one world government, and we know the only people who truly care about our republic are american citizens, not illegals, not europeans, not muslims, not any other country.

Just us mate

Most on the kook left do see the US as the bad guy in this war

Saving American Lives? Not in my Name!
A surprised interviewer got a glimpse at the face of true evil last week when Vice peeResident SElect Dick "Torquemada" Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, boasted that he would dunk a terrorist in water if it would save "American lives" of all things.

American lives? I cannot place enough exclamation points at the end of this sentence to adequately express my outrage!!!!!!!

Put aside for a moment that fact that American lives are not Cheney's to save; but are they even worth saving? Does a society that would sanction the dunking of an innocent terrorist for the sake of self-preservation even deserve to exist?

As a patriotic liberal who spent the weekend vainly hoping his underwear would dry through his pants, I couldn't live with myself knowing that somewhere out there someone was going through the same unspeakable torture just to protect the lives of people who are vastly inferior to me. I encourage other progressives who feel the same way to join their shrill voices with mine and demand that that no more terrorists are dunked, doused, drenched, or moistened in our names. The lives of the American people are simply not worth it.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/10/saving_american.html

[retiredman]

Nor should it ever be. Brilliant point, the u.s. constitution means nothing to those who hate us, and if they could they would take away all our freedoms and make us either a muslim caliphate, or one world government, and we know the only people who truly care about our republic are american citizens, not illegals, not europeans, not muslims, not any other country.

Just us mate


but if the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a position of absolute primacy with US, then we are bound to fail as a society and as a nation-state.

Again...Martin...members of the military take an oath upon entering the service. They do not take an oath to defend the country.... they take an oath to defend the constitution. that is how important it is and needs to continue to be.

[red states rule]

but if the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a position of absolute primacy with US, then we are bound to fail as a society and as a nation-state.

Again...Martin...members of the military take an oath upon entering the service. They do not take an oath to defend the country.... they take an oath to defend the constitution. that is how important it is and needs to continue to be.

If we do not defend America we will lose this war - which is what you want anyway MM (and your party)

[retiredman]

If we do not defend America we will lose this war - which is what you want anyway MM (and your party)

if the only way you can find to "defend America" is by pissing on the constitution, it really isn't America anymore, is it?

I really want to win the war against Islamic extremism. I have always said that and always believed that winning that war was essential to our future peace and safety.

You and I differ on whether or not the actions in Iraq are a legitimate and productive part of that war. You say yes...I say no...but both of us want to win the war against Extremist islamists. We have that in common... The big difference: you would gladly piss on the document that makes us different than any other country. I would continue to support and defend it against all enemies - foreign AND domestic.

[Dilloduck]

if the only way you can find to "defend America" is by pissing on the constitution, it really isn't America anymore, is it?

I really want to win the war against Islamic extremism. I have always said that and always believed that winning that war was essential to our future peace and safety.

You and I differ on whether or not the actions in Iraq are a legitimate and productive part of that war. You say yes...I say no...but both of us want to win the war against Extremist islamists. We have that in common... The big difference: you would gladly piss on the document that makes us different than any other country. I would continue to support and defend it against all enemies - foreign AND domestic.

What exactly are you doing to protect the constitution?

[retiredman]

What exactly are you doing to protect the constitution?

two off the top of my head:

1. remaining involved in the political process and highlighting the efforts of others to weaken or ignore the constitution.

2. continuing to provide tangible support to those active duty personnel who are actively involved in its defense.

how about you?

[Dilloduck]

two off the top of my head:

1. remaining involved in the political process and highlighting the efforts of others to weaken or ignore the constitution.

2. continuing to provide tangible support to those active duty personnel who are actively involved in its defense.

how about you?

Is it making any difference ?

[retiredman]

that's hard to quantify, isn't it? the troops that are supported by my congregation certainly indicate that it makes a difference in THEIR lives...

and regarding the impact of my political participation, we would have to know, somehow, where everything would be if I were NOT participating.

are you gonna answer MY question, or just continue to rudely ignore it while offering more of your own?

[Dilloduck]

that's hard to quantify, isn't it? the troops that are supported by my congregation certainly indicate that it makes a difference in THEIR lives...

and regarding the impact of my political participation, we would have to know, somehow, where everything would be if I were NOT participating.

are you gonna answer MY question, or just continue to rudely ignore it while offering more of your own?

I think that unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can safely assume that the constitution would be the same whether you participated in the political process or not.

[retiredman]

I think that unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can safely assume that the constitution would be the same whether you participated in the political process or not.

so..perhaps, if I, individually, became disinterested in preserving the constitution, there would be no measureable impact....however, there can be no doubt that, if everyone who cared about the constitution, became disinterested in preserving it, the degradation would be measurable. Guys like RSR - and you, apparently - would be more than willing to piss on whatever articles of the constitution stood in their way and no one would stand against them/you.

And I think it is safe to assume that you are going to continue to be rude and avoid questions posed to you even as you continue to pose new ones to me.

[Dilloduck]

so..perhaps, if I, individually, became disinterested in preserving the constitution, there would be no measureable impact....however, there can be no doubt that, if everyone who cared about the constitution, became disinterested in preserving it, the degradation would be measurable. Guys like RSR - and you, apparently - would be more than willing to piss on whatever articles of the constitution stood in their way and no one would stand against them/you.

And I think it is safe to assume that you are going to continue to be rude and avoid questions posed to you even as you continue to pose new ones to me.

There are millions who care about preserving the constitution. People just disagree as to what that means. That's why the Supreme Court is there. Take a break, Atlas--everyone is expendable.

[actsnoblemartin]

absolute primacy?

Im not saying, dont keep our word, be a dishonest nation, and be as evil as the islamic extremists. What im saying is...

#1 the constitution is open to interpretation

#2 in 2004, the u.s. ratified it, only with the option to do whatever it thought was neccesary or wanted lol

#3 sometimes, you have to lie, to do the wrong thing for right reason.
its more complex then just right or wrong, you have to take everything into account, and plenty of times, make the best of two lousy or barely moral decisions. and even then hindsight is twenty twenty

#4 what is your point about the united states wont succeed as a nation?

#5 the constitution is important, and so are reasonable safeguards, but also we must balance that with the fact.. without the county, you have no constitution.


but if the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a position of absolute primacy with US, then we are bound to fail as a society and as a nation-state.

Again...Martin...members of the military take an oath upon entering the service. They do not take an oath to defend the country.... they take an oath to defend the constitution. that is how important it is and needs to continue to be.

[actsnoblemartin]

really great point, somebody has to have the final word, even if i disagree with them saying illegals are entitled to free education


There are millions who care about preserving the constitution. People just disagree as to what that means. That's why the Supreme Court is there. Take a break, Atlas--everyone is expendable.

[Psychoblues]

There ain't no such thing as "free" anything, martin.



really great point, somebody has to have the final word, even if i disagree with them saying illegals are entitled to free education

Am I to take it that you think Americans should pay for the education individuals that have somehow cheated the system?

[actsnoblemartin]

There ain't no such thing as "free" anything, martin.

me: excellent point


you: Am I to take it that you think Americans should pay for the education individuals that have somehow cheated the system?

me: i disagree with the supreme court, and hope the supreme court over turns that ruling, but until then... we have to follow the law.

We should do everything in our power legally, to fight to stop it.

[Psychoblues]

It's a shame, ain't it?



me: i disagree with the supreme court, and hope the supreme court over turns that ruling, but until then... we have to follow the law.

We should do everything in our power legally, to fight to stop it.

I wish the USSC would have compelled Florida to abide it's own laws in 2000.

[red states rule]

There ain't no such thing as "free" anything, martin.




Am I to take it that you think Americans should pay for the education individuals that have somehow cheated the system?

It is about time a lib admitted there ain't no such thing as "free". Yet they keep wanting to give hand outs to as many people as possible

[Psychoblues]

Ain't it a shame???????? The pukes can't win an argument or even sustain a credible idea so the "merge" thing magically happens.

[red states rule]

Ain't it a shame???????? The pukes can't win an argument or even sustain a credible idea so the "merge" thing magically happens.

Seems you are the one on the ropes and losing badly here