|
On May 14 2009 23:56 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 23:41 Jibba wrote:
Because in the few posts Agraean has made, he's shown himself to be far more intelligent than you have in your 710, even if I wholly disagree with him. I'm used to it though. These are the same code pink fanatics, collegiate hooligans, ACORN house busting, Union arm wrangling bleeding heart liberals I have to deal with all the time. I've heard every pejorative in the dictionary thrown at me. Doesn't bother me one iota, because I actually believe in the founding ideals of America and that is far more important than having to lambast the hysterical left all the time. (Though it is fun at times making them eat their words)
You are part of why it sucks to live in this country. Half of this country despises the other half for completely manufactured reasons that are often contradictory. I'm guessing you're against "socialism" and national health care because the government can't do anything efficiently or correctly, but then you turn around and trust the government to torture the correct people for information and do it correctly to obtain quality information?
|
On May 15 2009 00:08 Jibba wrote:
Why are you making it such a partisan issue? Aside from the stance of neo-cons, who have a stake in promoting its effectiveness since they gave the orders to use it, I don't really see how it's a partisan issue. The people you mentioned are all deeply religious conservatives, with exception to Paul who is adamantly against torture, so I assume you come from that camp?
No, I'm not religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. They are aligned to my values, and vote accordingly. They actually vote in favor of Federalism, Originalism, and for a limited government.
I'm a conservative/libertarian so why wouldn't I align and endorse them? I want the fair tax, I want to abolish SS and Medicare, I want to privatize more of the school system, I want less federal government intrusion. I do not want East Germany circa 1952. I want this republic, not a mobocracy. I want what our founders fought for, and built, and intended for this country. I want that!
Individuals are infinitely more wise in spending their money, then the government spending their money.
Anyways, that was a little tangent, but you see, I don't classify as waterboarding torture, so what I call torture is not what you call it. When you say torture I think of Pol Pot, VC, NKVD, Inquisition, Gulogs, etc. Not this weak sissified version of what we now call torture (Such as loud metal music (RAWWWR, I actually listen to this go go Melo D / Black metal, phobias, perception, etc.).
|
On May 14 2009 18:40 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:44 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:41 Wohmfg wrote:On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality. You're talking about reality, and torture being "pussified", but have you been tortured? we've all been 'tortured' in the military liberal puss puss, i've never been through so much hazing, testosterone induced environments anywhere else the mental stress is 'torture' the physical stress is 'torture' OOoh god, the American people has been pussified so badly that people consider military training torture. Seriously how can you say that is torture and then say "well but waterboarding isnt anything" wow youre out of touch with the world. "which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for" ... says the guy who knows 100% torture will always get results based on...... hm a lot of imagination I suppose Did you know there's interrogations you can do by talking to people - ones which are actually very effective, as soon as they come to realise you understand their culture they don't watch you as the devil anymore and are much more likely to cooperate
no we/i don't consider military training torture, notice the 'torture' use of punctuation marks. my argument was in response to someone that feels the military doesn't use methods of torture to prepare its service men & women. the worlds being pussified is my other argument its not just america but thats what this has quickly turned in to, a death to america thread? i've been exposed to waterboarding and its a pretty fucking mild form of torture chief, yes all torture is wrong and if youre too shallow to see theres levels/escalations don't bother to bring your uneducated, unexperienced, novice intuition to the discussion.
let me ask you what experience you bring to the table, you base all your arguments off 50% opinion and 50% a TV news report right? does anyone bring anything experienced to the table? anyones opinion reinforced with something? i think your arguments are 'a lot of imagination'
the whole thing im trying to deter here is that theres just 1 side to torture, the moral side, it is effective and human nature hasn't changed in regards to war and all the things that go with it in thousands of years. i applaud humanities effort to move past our nature but it just hasn't happened yet, im a realist and i cant delude myself to thinking the world is a shiny happy fucking place, i think thats a part of growing up
|
On May 15 2009 00:41 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 23:56 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 23:41 Jibba wrote:
Because in the few posts Agraean has made, he's shown himself to be far more intelligent than you have in your 710, even if I wholly disagree with him. I'm used to it though. These are the same code pink fanatics, collegiate hooligans, ACORN house busting, Union arm wrangling bleeding heart liberals I have to deal with all the time. I've heard every pejorative in the dictionary thrown at me. Doesn't bother me one iota, because I actually believe in the founding ideals of America and that is far more important than having to lambast the hysterical left all the time. (Though it is fun at times making them eat their words) You are part of why it sucks to live in this country. Half of this country despises the other half for completely manufactured reasons that are often contradictory. I'm guessing you're against "socialism" and national health care because the government can't do anything efficiently or correctly, but then you turn around and trust the government to torture the correct people for information and do it correctly to obtain quality information?
I work in an intelligence capacity, and yes, our Intelligence apparatus' are extremely well trained, funded, and operated. We do make mistakes however, so having one eye on us at all times, would be beneficial.
Not manufactured reasons at all. I believe in what my founder's created, the other side doesn't. I'll fight them if need be one day if they start to take away my rights (2nd amendment, free speech (See: Fairness Doctrine, 'free speech' zones on campus', etc.), 10th amendment, etc.)
I'm against it not only for those reasons, but philosophical as well. The two scenarios you brought up couldn't be more different than day and night and have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. This isn't an all or nothing game (Anarchy, or Totalitarianism), its a Republic v Oligarchy debate, which are the only two lasting forms of government that don't transition from one governmental archetype to the next.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 15 2009 00:43 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 00:08 Jibba wrote:
Why are you making it such a partisan issue? Aside from the stance of neo-cons, who have a stake in promoting its effectiveness since they gave the orders to use it, I don't really see how it's a partisan issue. The people you mentioned are all deeply religious conservatives, with exception to Paul who is adamantly against torture, so I assume you come from that camp? No, I'm not religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. They are aligned to my values, and vote accordingly. They actually vote in favor of Federalism, Originalism, and for a limited government. I'm a conservative/libertarian so why wouldn't I align and endorse them? I want the fair tax, I want to abolish SS and Medicare, I want to privatize more of the school system, I want less federal government intrusion. I do not want East Germany circa 1952. I want this republic, not a mobocracy. I want what our founders fought for, and built, and intended for this country. I want that! Individuals are infinitely more wise in spending their money, then the government spending their money. Anyways, that was a little tangent, but you see, I don't classify as waterboarding torture, so what I call torture is not what you call it. When you say torture I think of Pol Pot, VC, NKVD, Inquisition, Gulogs, etc. Not this weak sissified version of what we now call torture (Such as loud metal music (RAWWWR, I actually listen to this go go Melo D / Black metal, phobias, perception, etc.).
I brought it up because Inhone and De Mint are openly religious and say it affects their political ideology.
|
On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:
They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens.
Oh, explicitly? So where in the text is this specified? Where in the text of the Constitution is the federal government given the power to shit on the natural rights, which many of our liberal Founding Fathers cared so much about, of non-citizens?
|
On May 15 2009 00:43 Aegraen wrote:Anyways, that was a little tangent, but you see, I don't classify as waterboarding torture, so what I call torture is not what you call it. When you say torture I think of Pol Pot, VC, NKVD, Inquisition, Gulogs, etc. Not this weak sissified version of what we now call torture (Such as loud metal music (RAWWWR, I actually listen to this go go Melo D / Black metal, phobias, perception, etc.).
Since in your opinion waterboarding is not torture, you wouldn't sissy out of proposal of filming yourself getting waterboarded for few minutes? It won't take much to prepare for it, so i'm sure you won't waste much of your time. Looking forward to youtube video of your manliness.
|
On May 14 2009 23:50 Aegraen wrote:
Unlike you, and most Americans, I actually have high regard for my founding fathers, their intentions, and what they stood for.
It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners.
|
On May 15 2009 00:41 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 23:56 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 23:41 Jibba wrote:
Because in the few posts Agraean has made, he's shown himself to be far more intelligent than you have in your 710, even if I wholly disagree with him. I'm used to it though. These are the same code pink fanatics, collegiate hooligans, ACORN house busting, Union arm wrangling bleeding heart liberals I have to deal with all the time. I've heard every pejorative in the dictionary thrown at me. Doesn't bother me one iota, because I actually believe in the founding ideals of America and that is far more important than having to lambast the hysterical left all the time. (Though it is fun at times making them eat their words) You are part of why it sucks to live in this country. Half of this country despises the other half for completely manufactured reasons that are often contradictory. I'm guessing you're against "socialism" and national health care because the government can't do anything efficiently or correctly, but then you turn around and trust the government to torture the correct people for information and do it correctly to obtain quality information?
It sucks to live in this country because people can't compromise, I personally like meeting people with different views than me.
|
On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 23:50 Aegraen wrote:
Unlike you, and most Americans, I actually have high regard for my founding fathers, their intentions, and what they stood for. It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners.
BOOM! OH NO YOU DIDNT!
|
On May 14 2009 23:40 Aegraen wrote:
What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp.
NO! Constitution applies to anyone on U.S. soil! Jesus, do you think when Canadians come over we just say "Fuck em, let's just rape the bastards and throw em in a ditch"? Shit, they're not US citizens, no rights for them right? You're either incredibly misinformed or just plain dense.
|
Aegraen, aren't you afraid of being fired or creating controversy? You are in the US military and you also claim to be in intelligence. And here you are propoting torture.
|
On May 14 2009 23:40 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 22:26 NiTenIchiRyu wrote:On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:
Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution. So what you're basically trying to say is that there is no legislation on Human Rights. Furthermore, you do not possess any rights under any constitution other than your own so your argument fails. You forfeit your abstract 'human rights', given by whom and what is unknown, when you enter the battlefield through proxies, wearing no uniform, belonging to no national army, militia, or other recognized entity, and start shooting at US Soldiers and civillians. These people deserve no rights. Even the VC at least wore uniforms, had a unified structure and command, and fell under POW status. What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp.
I may be mistaken, but I believe at least a few of the prisoners are fromt he Taliban, which technically was the government of Afghanistan, and therefore not mercenaries.
That aside, it seems rather obvious that in many cases torture may be resorted to after normal interrogations, since you just have to be sure you are not missing anything...
Kind of hard to sit idly with on principles when your actions will have real consequences, rather than a "oh shit I had bad logic" and nothing else.
|
This is quite related so i'll share recent Ali Soufans testimony about interrogation techniques:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30726062#30726062
+ Show Spoiler +The Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony from former lead FBI counterterrorism agent Ali Soufan. Soufan calls "enhanced interrogation techniques" "ineffective, slow, unreliable" and therefore harmful, "aside from the important considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our case and reputation." Soufan describes the successful non-coercive interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Jandal, who "identified many terrorists who we later successfully apprehended." Soufan describes an interrogation method he calls the "Informed Interrogation Approach," which seeks to capitalize on the natural fear that a detainee feels as a result of his custody by adopting a posture of openness and respect.
Soufan presents an interesting challenge to the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. Noting that it took 83 waterboardings to force Khalid Shake Mohammed to cough up information, he describes that technique as "slow" and therefore unreliable when information needs to be obtained quickly. Soufan also provides an unclassified chronology of the joint FBI-CIA efforts to question Abu Zubaydah. He says that his early efforts to coax information out of the Al Qaeda operate were successful, and CIA director George Tenet prepared a congratulatory telegram. As soon as Tenet learned that FBI agents -- not his CIA team -- had taken the lead role in the interrogation, he withdrew the congratulations and sent a team from the CIA's counterterrorism center to the interrogation site. That team was assisted by a contractor who "instructed" the new CIA operatives in tougher interrogation techniques. According to Soufan, the new team began to use the EITs. Zubaydah stopped cooperating. Soon, the FBI was brought back in. Zubaydah opened up like a book.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Aegraen, a question since you seem to know your stuff, has "waterboarding" ever being torture, for the military that is? Has the US military ever called it torture in the past? Has it ever been illegal?
|
|
|
On May 14 2009 11:16 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:33 LaLuSh wrote:On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 07:25 VegeTerran wrote:On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 06:55 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 14 2009 06:49 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not word wrangling anything. This is the Geneva Conventions. There is no moral compass in times of War! You either, are killed, or get killed. You have to extract all possible information by any means necessary.
I would rather be alive than dead. Also, if you think what happened to the detainees as torture, then there were many persons subjected to torture on the Fear Factor. Its still wrong. Im sorry im not going to play mind games with you. If you have to do it then you say "ok we have to torture". We have to do something wrong to protect ourselves. You don't pretend its something else. You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture. Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture. Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy. In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy). You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War. do you really believe the crap you're writing? Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story. Idiot. Ever wonder how fucking insensitive and out of touch with reality you come off arguing about definitions of torture in the manner you do? For reference you should watch the movie "Hotel Rwanda", and see the defintion of genocide being argued while at least half a million people are slaughtered. Your comments are as contradictory to common sense and out of touch with reality as those in the movie. And I will have you know, that you conviently omitted Article 3 of the geneva convention: Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. Any person detained is at minimum guaranteed the rights in Article 3. They can expect to be treated humanely, as well as being tried by a "regularly constituted court". Not some bullshit military commision invented by Bush. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you would stop using the term enemy combatant. As it's a term invented by the Bush administration and as it infact creates confusion, since "enemy combatants" may indeed have rights according to the geneva convention. Enemy combatants fall into two cathegories; either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants. And to conclude: unlawful enemy combatants and non-combatants (popularly referred to only as enemy combatants in the United States) do at the very least enjoy the rights of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocumentI know Article 3 was originally designed for securing combatants' rights in civil wars. But if the US refuses any other type of classification, they are infact bound apply this one. The Supreme Court has on several occasions ruled that the Geneva Convetion, in specific article 3, can be applied to detainees held by the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror." Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling
"As to the laws of war, to the majority these necessarily include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, each of which require more protections than the military commission provides. The UCMJ, Art. 36 (b), which requires that rules applied in courts-martial and military commissions be "uniform insofar as practicable." Stevens found several substantial deviations, including:
* The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
* Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
* Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch (with an exception not here relevant).
These deviations made the commissions violate the UCMJ.
The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the "at least" applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:
1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan's case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;
2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory; and
3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a "regularly constituted court," which the military commission is not.
Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan." The Bush Administration's 5-6 years of legal filibustering does not allow for nor does it raise any remotely valid question of "legal greyzones" in regards to the definition of torture or the rights of detainees. It is just that: legal filibustering, bureaucracy, a catch 22; call it what you will. Most of all it makes you look like a fucking fool invoking definitions and throwing around socialist slanders as a means of justifying something inherently wrong. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, exposion to phobias, being detained without trial etc. Not strictly defined as torture? Oh come on, man! This has nothing to do with being liberal or socialist. It's common sense! It may take your legal system another half a decade to catch up and revise history. Meanwhile I'm sure you'll still be arguing defintions... To what avail? *edit: Sorry for personal insults etc directed towards Aegraen. Easily get fired up when people start throwing definitions around. i don't think you read article 3 correctly, what you got out of that article and what i got are different. it says at a minimum all persons that took no active part in the hostilities, surrender included, or the incapable are prohibited from violence to, hostages, degradation or trials to sentencing/passing judgement to the end of execution and the sick/wounded shall be cared for it doesn't say any person captured is given at a minimum these rights, the terminology is very specific
Read more closely:
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
There is a big difference between using past (as you're doing) and present tense. It says persons taking no active part in the hostilities, explicitly enumerating detainees as members of armed forces who have laid down their arms. Anyone placed "hors de combat" (out of the fight/combat), whichever way listed, is considered a person who has lain down his/her arms; from that moment on that person is not partaking in hostilities.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
I rather have Aegraen's answer since he is in the military.
|
On May 14 2009 11:12 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:20 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality. First of all, there is never any case where someone is about to die and we have to torture someone to get the password or some movie bullshit. It's not a fair analogy. Second, stop pretending to know what I am about to say. You have the moral reasoning of someone completely different from me. You present the world as some kind of ongoing battle of good versus evil which is completely different from my perspective. You completely ignore the societal implications of allowing torture, I think that's pretty shortsighted. Do you even realize how what you brand as evil is allowed to exist in the first place? Even if you think torture is morally justifiable, I am pretty sure you have no clue as to how effective it really is (nor do I) so don't even try to argue about this. And branding anyone against torture as a liberal is complete childish nonsense, McCain is not a liberal, as are many opposed to torture. Is this really necessary? As if a liberal point of view would be less valid. First off it's not a ticking time bomb scenario. Not every way to gather intelligence has another correlative to extract that information. For example, you can extract information from clandestine operations (known as HUMINT), where there are no other means to gather the same information. The same correlative can be drawn. How are you going to know about a plot that a select few know about? SIGINT? Nope. ELINT? Nope. MASINT? Nope. COMINT? about a one in a billion chance. IMINT? Nope. (Just for the record, my college major is in Intelligence Studies, and I work in an Intelligence field) Also, I do not consider waterboarding torture, where you do. So, when I say torture, it implicitly means things like what the VC employed, Pol Pot, NKVD, SS, etc. McCain is as liberal as any democrat. He is a RINO! Proposing socialist-lite idea's and promoting near the same things as Obama makes you...not a liberal? Please, you are intelligent, you can look past the little designations next to their name right? The 2 witches of the NE are liberals also, I have no idea why the GOP lets them stay in the party or any RINOS for that matter. They should all be booted out! Good vs Evil? Nope. Self-preservation? Yes. Do I think Islam is a fucked up religion and all the people wishing death to the US to die? Hell yes, and I'll do everything I can to see that day to fruition. That goes for anyone seeking to do physical harm to the US, or its citizens here and abroad. We went in and annihilated the Barbary Pirates when they were attacking our merchants, and citizens. This is no different. There is no moral compass, and high ground when in war. You do what you have to do to survive. Every soldier knows this. You have most likely never served, so you don't understand. You ignore the societal impacts of not using every means to achieve victory. Do I condone horrendous acts I call torture? Hell no. There is a line to be drawn, but waterboarding is not where that line is at. US Special Forces, get waterboarded. Do they get their legs broken, or bamboo shoved up their fingernails, or tied to horses and their tendons ripped, or malnurished, et al I could go on. No, no no because we in the military know what is, and is not torture, however subjective the word is. Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are. Yes, to me a liberal viewpoint is invalid. Taking over banks, private companies, branding conservatives extremists, trashing the constitution, yes, all invalid! 1776 American signing off.
You can't be serious guy
|
Aegraen. Would you ever hold it as possible or even entertain the thought that some of the things the founding fathers proclaimed might by today's standard be... archaic or antiquated? Especially the parts about economy and government?
To address your prejudices towards swedes I want to start off saying I consider myself a traditional liberal at heart (not the US kind of liberal, read up on classic/trad liberalism, shares alot of traits with libertarianism -- although less fundamentalist). However. I consider traditional liberalism in its purest sense and in today's society to be an idealist idea. One to strive for, very much so -- but not something to be implemented with force upon a society that isn't ready for it. Do you think it's a coincidence that there in today's world is no purely "free" deregulated society without a interventionist or regulating government? The way society works in our day and age a truly deregulated society is as far fetched an idea as the idea of the proletarian revolution leading to a truly communist society. Well, according to me at least. I believe society and increased freedom has to mature hand in hand and -- hopefully -- in time lead to the society of our ideals.
Enough about that though. Just had to get that off my chest. The real reason I wrote this post was so I could quote the following:
US Constitution Article I, section II
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (This was amended in 1868, giving all citizens the same rights).
Black's are worth three fifths of a free white person. I wonder if circa anno 1860, you'd have defended the founding fathers as adamantly...
Some rights are not, and will never, be explicitly worded or phrased. Some will undeniably be considered archaic, and some will be added as amendments. I'm interested to know: Do you claim that if a certain right isn't explicitly listed in the constitution, it ought not exist? What about amendments? The founding fathers certainly had nothing to do with most of the amendments? Do you not consider amendments as, in a sense, rights too? Or are they just a load of bullcrap? Supreme court rulings, affirming certain rights not listed by the founding fathers but based on amendments; just a load of crap too?
I'm interested to hear your views on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
