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.
Because the RESULTS and FACTS say so. Sorry that it's an inconvenient truth for you, but we're talking about waterboarding and interrogation techniques...not torture...and it worked...FACT.
Not a fact, a claim made by some officials and contradicted by others. But even if true, it doesn't change the law.
Explain to me how torturing an adult for information on possible acts he others willingly and knowingly conspired to commit against other human beings is the same as walking into a school with AK-47's and bombs that you proceed to set off and shoot the place up with up?
Nobody said they were the same, and nobody needs to say that they are. Both are illegal. Case closed.
but with the UN Convention Against Torture, which the Constitution regards as the supreme law of the land, on a par with itself. And that treaty does not make the distinctions that the Geneva Convention does.
WHAT? WTF are you talking about? Please elaborate on your theory that some UN treaty or convention has anything at all to do with the US Constitution. Where in the world did you get the misguided notion that the US Constitution regards some UN convention as the "supreme law of the land?"
I'm dying to hear this one. The assertion was made the POWs, who are covered by the Geneva Conventions, couldn't be interrogated in the manner discussed, and I pointed out the Al Qaeda and our enemies are not POWs based on the criteria set forth.
WHAT? WTF are you talking about? Please elaborate on your theory that some UN treaty or convention has anything at all to do with the US Constitution. Where in the world did you get the misguided notion that the US Constitution regards some UN convention as the "supreme law of the land?"
I'm dying to hear this one.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! I was just about to ask the same question.
WHAT? WTF are you talking about? Please elaborate on your theory that some UN treaty or convention has anything at all to do with the US Constitution. Where in the world did you get the misguided notion that the US Constitution regards some UN convention as the "supreme law of the land?"
I'm dying to hear this one. The assertion was made the POWs, who are covered by the Geneva Conventions, couldn't be interrogated in the manner discussed, and I pointed out the Al Qaeda and our enemies are not POWs based on the criteria set forth.
Umm. Article VI of the US COnstitution sort of spells it out rather succinctly. Here's the relevent section of 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;
WHAT? WTF are you talking about? Please elaborate on your theory that some UN treaty or convention has anything at all to do with the US Constitution. Where in the world did you get the misguided notion that the US Constitution regards some UN convention as the "supreme law of the land?"
From the US Constitution, dolt. Article VI.
Quote:
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.
I'm dying to hear this one. The assertion was made the POWs, who are covered by the Geneva Conventions, couldn't be interrogated in the manner discussed, and I pointed out the Al Qaeda and our enemies are not POWs based on the criteria set forth.
You're the illiterate fools who keep talking about the Geneva Conventions, not us.
Guess Bill beat me to it on the treaty thing. Good job Bill. Not too surprised they don't know what's in the Constitution, are you?
You're the illiterate fools who keep talking about the Geneva Conventions, not us.
Guess Bill beat me to it on the treaty thing. Good job Bill. Not too surprised they don't know what's in the Constitution, are you?
All I can tell you is you have neither an understanding of the US Constitution or an understanding of what international conventions cover Prisoners of War. You show your ignorance and arrogance with every post.
All I can tell you is you have neither an understanding of the US Constitution or an understanding of what international conventions cover Prisoners of War. You show your ignorance and arrogance with every post.
What part of "supreme law of the land" am I misinterpreting, genius? And from which radio talk show host did you get your constitutional training?
Treaties, once ratified by the Senate, are part of domestic law. Sorry, they are. You can revile a particular treaty all you like. Doesn't change a goddamn thing.
I'm sorry you are so blind about how committing atrocities in response to atrocities committed is not an equal action.
Let me rephrase my question so I can get a clear understanding of your point of view. If the Russians had in their possession prior to the Beslan incident a person they knew had possession of information of upcoming plans and they totured him to get it thereby preventing the slaughter of 186 children would it be justified?
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.
