Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I pegged you after you tried to lecture me about public schools even though you never set foot in one. Obviously, trying to explain war to you is an even bigger fool's errand.
I pegged you after you tried to lecture me about public schools even though you never set foot in one. Obviously, trying to explain war to you is an even bigger fool's errand.
Do you understand what a reaffirmation would entail?
But then, I'm sure you understand the effectiveness of waterboarding because you've personally experienced it?
Are you serious when you assume that criminals are afforded the same rights as any non-criminal (citizen)?
How do you know intel is six years old, and that all information was acquired only as a result of waterboarding? That is a damn long time between getting the information and doing something with it. No?
I am serious that criminals are protected by the constitution. we do not burn the constitution when we lock someone up....
we know as fact that the trail of evidence started with the nickname of a courier. We know that this courier’s nickname came from Khalid Sheik Muhammad (KSM). And we know as fact that this came from water boarding 6 years ago.
We also know this intel was verified via normal interrogation of other terror suspects that were being held at the time by the US in Rendition.
This was the starting point. And these are verifiable facts. These aren’t debate points. From these facts, the investigation began in which we sought out this courier. Now what happened after that point I have no idea and I am not making any assumption that more water boarding and others held in rendition more recently were part of this process. We simply do not know. We do know we have not used WB since Obama took office.
Seriously, debating known facts is silly. These aren’t things that are debatable.
The validity of the methods certainly is debatable and as is the extension of constitutional protection to non-citizens. I am all for a discussion on those points. But you need to recognize the facts before this is worth moving forward.
I am serious that criminals are protected by the constitution. we do not burn the constitution when we lock someone up....
we know as fact that the trail of evidence started with the nickname of a courier. We know that this courier’s nickname came from Khalid Sheik Muhammad (KSM). And we know as fact that this came from water boarding 6 years ago.
We also know this intel was verified via normal interrogation of other terror suspects that were being held at the time by the US in Rendition.
This was the starting point. And these are verifiable facts. These aren’t debate points. From these facts, the investigation began in which we sought out this courier. Now what happened after that point I have no idea and I am not making any assumption that more water boarding and others held in rendition more recently were part of this process. We simply do not know. We do know we have not used WB since Obama took office.
Seriously, debating known facts is silly. These aren’t things that are debatable.
The validity of the methods certainly is debatable and as is the extension of constitutional protection to non-citizens. I am all for a discussion on those points. But you need to recognize the facts before this is worth moving forward.
I am serious that criminals are protected by the constitution. we do not burn the constitution when we lock someone up....
Its not about burning the constitution, but once labeled a criminal, your freedoms aren't quite the same. No?
Quote:
we know as fact that the trail of evidence started with the nickname of a courier. We know that this courier’s nickname came from Khalid Sheik Muhammad (KSM). And we know as fact that this came from water boarding 6 years ago.
Provide a credible link that proves that claim.
Quote:
This was the starting point. And these are verifiable facts. These aren’t debate points.
I am looking forward to seeing those verifiable facts, your claim that this intel came about six years ago and as a result of waterboarding.
Its not about burning the constitution, but once labeled a criminal, your freedoms aren't quite the same. No?
Provide a credible link that proves that claim.
I am looking forward to seeing those verifiable facts, your claim that this intel came about six years ago and as a result of waterboarding.
curtailing freedom is not an indication that constitutional protection has been eliminated. criminals must be treated within the framework of the constitution.
you can do your own google research. if the point were obscure I would indulge.
Torture is abhorrent and civilized countries ban it. Both Colin Powell and John McCain (neo progs, I suppose) have spoken out against torture, knowing that such treatment emboldens the enemy to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" against our own soldiers when captured. Osama bin Laden was a mass murderer, someone who killed even other Muslims without a qualm. He planned and sanctioned terrorism around the world, not just America. We will never know what might have happened had the residents of the compound in Pakistan not opened fire on our Navy Seals. As it stands, the soldiers were correct in defending themselves, which is a far cry from waterboarding, genital shocks, mimicry of sexual acts or letting guard dogs come near a prisoner in an attack mode. Bin Laden was found due to a telephone call according to the news this morning, and not as a result of information gained through torture. The OP seems little more than an opportunity to take a cheap shot at those Americans who don't hold the same beliefs, or find torture repugnant...like Powell and McCain.
curtailing freedom is not an indication that constitutional protection has been eliminated. criminals must be treated within the framework of the constitution.
you can do your own google research. if the point were obscure I would indulge.
it isnt.
I didn't say that. What I did, however, is supported by your next sentence, and that they do not enjoy all liberties but are treated as exceptions. There is no need to bother with google for this fundamental knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
