Waterboard the Underwear Bomber?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ah, acording to Holder, you are wrong

No.

Holder defined the 'intent'.

Then, he had to suck his own toe on his own definition.

So NO doesnt fit now does it



Edited to add;

And his (Holder) definition fits that of the US justice Dept. Obama not withstanding

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think we should get him a great Lawyer, have a nice trial with all his constitutional rights protected. We can let our national security interests be discovered in pre-trial motions. Maybe give him a big 'ole group hug, to improve his self-esteem!

This dude is an unlawful enemy combatant, he needs to go to Gitmo, be tried by a military tribunal and executed after he exploited for any intel.

It's a fucking war, way too many lately have forgotten that.

Let the flaming begin.

The Bush Administration, even beyond its terms in office, still has the right wingers bamboozled into thinking that there is a 3rd legal category called "enemy combatant" for which there are neither (a) constitutional protections due a criminal defendant, nor (b) protections of the Geneva Convention due a prisoner of war.

THERE IS NO SUCH THIRD CATEGORY - it is an UNLAWFUL figment of the Bush Administrations' collective minds, and will go down in history as as much a shameful blot in American jurisprudential history as the Dred Scott decision or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I think we should get him a great Lawyer, have a nice trial with all his constitutional rights protected. We can let our national security interests be discovered in pre-trial motions. Maybe give him a big 'ole group hug, to improve his self-esteem!

This dude is an unlawful enemy combatant, he needs to go to Gitmo, be tried by a military tribunal and executed after he exploited for any intel.

It's a fucking war, way too many lately have forgotten that.

Let the flaming begin.

The Bush Administration, even beyond its terms in office, still has the right wingers bamboozled into thinking that there is a 3rd legal category called "enemy combatant" for which there are neither (a) constitutional protections due a criminal defendant, nor (b) protections of the Geneva Convention due a prisoner of war.

THERE IS NO SUCH THIRD CATEGORY - it is an UNLAWFUL figment of the Bush Administrations' collective minds, and will go down in history as as much a shameful blot in American jurisprudential history as the Dred Scott decision or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

What ever the term. The situation has been handled the same through many presidents admins

Only one here is "banboozled"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What ever the term. The situation has been handled the same through many presidents admins

No, actually it really hasn't.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

What ever the term. The situation has been handled the same through many presidents admins

No, actually it really hasn't.

Sorry, you are wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>In this case "luck" trumping poor performance IS a good thing

Agreed, as was the immediate subduing of the bomber first by another passenger then by the crew. It would surely have been nice to have the system work as well on 9/11.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>In this case "luck" trumping poor performance IS a good thing

Agreed, as was the immediate subduing of the bomber first by another passenger then by the crew. It would surely have been nice to have the system work as well on 9/11.

Yes

And neither acount for the failures for this kind of plot to get that far in the first place

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What ever the term. The situation has been handled the same through many presidents admins

No, actually it really hasn't.

Sorry, you are wrong

Am not.

[rushmc 18]

Just to follow up

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skycop 0]

The Bush Administration, even beyond its terms in office, still has the right wingers bamboozled into thinking that there is a 3rd legal category called "enemy combatant" for which there are neither (a) constitutional protections due a criminal defendant, nor (b) protections of the Geneva Convention due a prisoner of war.

THERE IS NO SUCH THIRD CATEGORY - it is an UNLAWFUL figment of the Bush Administrations' collective minds, and will go down in history as as much a shameful blot in American jurisprudential history as the Dred Scott decision or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

Quote

Thank you for that legal opinion, that's exactly what it is OPINION.

While you guys are doing all that fancy lawyerin' I'm much more concerned about an ENEMY that is intent on destroying our way of life.

They don't give a rat's ass about what legal opinion is in vouge, they are too busy plotting and planning another attack.

The very fact that we try to put some type of rules on a conflict that by definition has none, should somewhat fill the legal requirements of LOAC.
Nothing is perfect, but affording enemy combatants American style legal rights is laughable.

George Bush is a crafty bastard, he still has his magic powers bamboozling folks a year after he left office. He must be alot smarter than people give him credit for. Maybe, just maybe, some legal minds better than yours realized some limits need to be pushed.

Leave the fighting to those who know how to fight, as unpleasant as it may be. Our future depends on it.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

• Quote

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Just to follow up

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

I urge you to read the dissenting opinions in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a 5 to 4 decision.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Just to follow up

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

I urge you to read the dissenting opinions in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a 5 to 4 decision.

Exactly the point my friend.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skycop 0]

I urge you to read the dissenting opinions in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a 5 to 4 decision.

Quote

5-4

A W is a W right?

No former presidential pun intended........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

• Quote

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

A W is a W right?

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

[skycop 0]

Dude,
That's creepy, I don't like you in THAT way........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

A W is a W right?

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

You lost

Get over it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just to follow up

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

I urge you to read the dissenting opinions in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a 5 to 4 decision.

Exactly the point my friend.

MY point is the SCOTUS majority got this one wrong (and 4 justices were willing to say so)
- just as it got it wrong in Dred Scott; just as the courts got it wrong in (initially) upholding Japanese-American internment, or in endorsing the kangaroo court conviction of General Yamashita at the end of WWII. Long-term history will be a very harsh judge of the legalities that were trampled by the Bush Administration after 9/11, a very harsh judge.

[billvon 2,400]

>While you guys are doing all that fancy lawyerin' I'm much more
>concerned about an ENEMY that is intent on destroying our way of life.

And while "you guys" seem to just want to hurt people like that, I'd rather stop them more permanently. Getting good intelligence from them and then proving their guilt is the best way to make that happen.

It might feel good to torture him. It will feel better in the long run to stop their kind from pulling off such attacks.

>George Bush is a crafty bastard, he still has his magic powers
>bamboozling folks a year after he left office.

Nope, they're gone. That's why this guy will be dealt with as provided for by the US Constitution, as much as some people dislike it.

>Leave the fighting to those who know how to fight, as unpleasant as
>it may be.

Agreed. Likewise, leave law to those who understand it.

[rushmc 18]

Fact is they are the final arbitor. Which makes them right whether You agree with it or not.

In the end it also decides our discussion as well

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>While you guys are doing all that fancy lawyerin' I'm much more
>concerned about an ENEMY that is intent on destroying our way of life.

And while "you guys" seem to just want to hurt people like that, I'd rather stop them more permanently. Getting good intelligence from them and then proving their guilt is the best way to make that happen.

It might feel good to torture him. It will feel better in the long run to stop their kind from pulling off such attacks.

>George Bush is a crafty bastard, he still has his magic powers
>bamboozling folks a year after he left office.

Nope, they're gone. That's why this guy will be dealt with as provided for by the US Constitution, as much as some people dislike it.

>Leave the fighting to those who know how to fight, as unpleasant as
>it may be.

Agreed. Likewise, leave law to those who understand it.

You still do not get it

As defined by Holder is it a question on intent.

A definition that make him look stupid

So, it is not a question of hurt. Which when performed as trained for US interrogators, it does not. But, then you really dont care do you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

What were you thinking????

Only you can use the internet or only you know the results of given specific SC rulings??????

Wow.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skycop 0]

While you guys are doing all that fancy lawyerin' I'm much more
>concerned about an ENEMY that is intent on destroying our way of life.

And while "you guys" seem to just want to hurt people like that, I'd rather stop them more permanently. Getting good intelligence from them and then proving their guilt is the best way to make that happen.

Quote

All sarcasm aside, this conflict is no place for lawyer vs. lawyer sematics. Some limits need to be pushed due to the nature of the conflict, it's a fine line. I don't think anyone really knows where the line actually is. Mistakes can and have happened, but an agreesive approach has worked well so far.

I've never said torture ever "felt good" that's an assumption you made that is baseless. I know a bit about interview and interrogation, you do get much more with sugar than you do with vinegar. BUT, when it comes to time sensitive intel involving a potential attack, limits HAVE to be pushed (i.e waterboarding). AQ trained operatives are trained in resistance techniques, they use our "rules" against us.

Agreed. Likewise, leave law to those who understand it.

I do understand law, however I also understand the nature of conflict. There will be plenty of time to argue and point fingers after all this is over, but that will be a long long time.........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Tell you what: I do not give a flying sh*t of who hates my country. As long as they're far away, do not have any influence on my mother country - who cares? If they're a threat to my Germany, we have to ward them off. Nowadays, allies are priceless

>>As long as they're far away, do not have any influence on my mother country - who cares?

Sounds a little too, 'out-a-sight, out-a-mind' and a bit naive.


>>If they're a threat to my Germany, we have to ward them off.

That is how most of us feel about the US.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, acording to Holder, you are wrong

No.

Holder defined the 'intent'.

Then, he had to suck his own toe on his own definition.

So NO doesnt fit now does it

It fits like a fucking glove.

Holder was quite clear in saying that if the intent is to harm in order to get what you want from them then it is torture. The only reason that you are confused about this is that the R's asking the question went to great lengths to befuddle you with false definitions of torture.

There does not need to be permanent harm involved for it to be torture.

The intention does not does not have to be solely to cause harm with no other purpose.

If you actually knew what torture meant you wouldn't even be trying to argue this.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

> Some limits need to be pushed due to the nature of the conflict, it's a
> fine line. I don't think anyone really knows where the line actually is.

I think most people do. It's in the US Constitution and the Geneva accords.

>Mistakes can and have happened, but an agreesive approach has worked
>well so far.

No, that's the point. Torture doesn't work. That's why it's a bad idea - because people can die due to the bad intelligence you get from torture. Contrary to popular belief, the war on terror is not really much like a 24 episode, and Jack Bauer is just a fictional character.

>I do understand law . . .

Cool, then you do know where the line is.