Published on November 7, 2005 By InfoGeek In Current Events
There is a current proposal by the Senate to ban torture. Most people agree that torturing someone is a bad thing. Now, we are not talking about the police interrogation techniques that have passed legal muster, what I am talking about its torture.

Let’s say. For example, taking a hammer and whacking the boys a few times.

In general most people don’t like torture, so the Republican controlled Senate says, “OK, we’ll pass a law. No torture.”

And Bush just said recently that “We do not torture!” So this should be an easy pass. We don’t like torture, Bush says we don’t torture. Slam Dunk. Right?

No. The shot is rejected by Richard “hidden location” Cheney who wants an exemption for the CIA from the new law.

My question is, “If the president is saying we don’t torture, and Cheney wants an exemption, who is this “WE” the President is talking about?

IG


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 07, 2005
torture abuses by the department of the interior


Or the Department of Agriculture! Mr. President, we must defend ourselves from a an attack! An attack by a new enemy!

(get ready for it)

An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!

IG
on Nov 07, 2005
An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!


force feed suspects surplus sorhgum mixed with cayenne over subsidized prunes. i guarantee they'll soon be spilling their guts.
on Nov 07, 2005
It's Bush and I. That's the only we. We're tight.

Dan
on Nov 07, 2005
you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.


Oh but yes it does! That is unless they are American citizens. Other than that they do NOT get the protection of the constitution.
on Nov 07, 2005

you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.

No, the supreme Court has never said that "We the People" applies to French, Germans or Arabs.  You are wrong.

on Nov 07, 2005

Or the Department of Agriculture! Mr. President, we must defend ourselves from a an attack! An attack by a new enemy!

(get ready for it)

An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!

Now watching that movie is torture!

on Nov 07, 2005
Oh but yes it does! That is unless they are American citizens. Other than that they do NOT get the protection of the constitution.


No, the supreme Court has never said that "We the People" applies to French, Germans or Arabs. You are wrong.


you're both outta your depth. the prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment in the 8th amendment and its extenstion to the states and therefore all government agencies does not make an exception for non-citizens.

furthermore, the us is party to treaties and conventions which ban torture of anyone anywhere.

the whole point of gonzales memo was to assert the executive is not bound by the constitution in those regards and anyone he delegates to do whatever to non-citizen prisoners is protected from prosecution.

in case you've forgotten, the surpreme court didn't buy it.
on Nov 07, 2005

you're both outta your depth. the prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment in the 8th amendment and its extenstion to the states and therefore all government agencies does not make an exception for non-citizens.

Wrong again.  It is constrained by the preamble.  As in who is defined.  As in unless you want to amend it.  Yes it does.  Sorry, you lose.

on Nov 07, 2005

furthermore, the us is party to treaties and conventions which ban torture of anyone anywhere.

the whole point of gonzales memo was to assert the executive is not bound by the constitution in those regards and anyone he delegates to do whatever to non-citizen prisoners is protected from prosecution.

in case you've forgotten, the surpreme court didn't buy it.

First, the SCOTUS has not ruled.  Second, Treaties do not usurp the Constitution.  Third, you are not on SCOTUS so you cannot make law.

on Nov 07, 2005
bush, cheney & gonzales have no problem with ignoring the constitutional protection afforded to citizens either btw.

at least one us citizen--jose padilla--is being illegally denied due process at the moment.
on Nov 07, 2005
Wrong again. It is constrained by the preamble. As in who is defined


citizen is defined. where in the preamble is the government given free rein to do whatever the hell it wants to non-citizens?

the constitution does not exist to limit rights...except in neo-con wet dreams.
on Nov 08, 2005
Wrong again. It is constrained by the preamble. As in who is defined


citizen is defined. where in the preamble is the government given free rein to do whatever the hell it wants to non-citizens?

the constitution does not exist to limit rights...except in neo-con wet dreams.


Try again!


PREAMBLE

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Please show me where in this that says constitutional protection is given to non-citizens? You should go read some law books kb. Non-citizens are NOT covered by the constitution.
on Nov 08, 2005
Much as I hate to, Doc, I have to differ with you. We supposedly hold these truths to be self-evident. We consider these rights "inalienable". To say that they are only "self-evident" for US citizens is silly.

That said, I don't give a rats ass. I feel confident enough in myself that I can say I am capable of doing something wrong when I feel that it serves my safety and well-being. I think it is hypocritical to make something that is wrong into something right by twisting words and their definitions.

I don't think torture does anyone any good, frankly. I doubt we get any intelligence of use from it very often, and killing these Gitmo stooges would be far more effective than making them eternal "dissidents" like friggin Russian novelists.

So, in short, people who think torture is necessary should do what they are given the power to do, and stop trying to pretend they are morally right, when in reality they are doing a nasty thing they feel is necessary regardless of right or wrong. I have a problem with people making bad into good, a lot more than I have people doing bad things.
on Nov 09, 2005
Much as I hate to, Doc, I have to differ with you. We supposedly hold these truths to be self-evident. We consider these rights "inalienable". To say that they are only "self-evident" for US citizens is silly.


Why should they be afforded the protection of "our" constitution? Have they fought or died to uphold it? Nope. Do they support it in "any" fashion? Nope. That document was made to protect "Americans" in my opinion. All that being said...I don't hold with "torture" either. The prohibition of it should be a "human right" not just a constitutional one.
on Mar 11, 2006
So, in short, people who think torture is necessary should do what they are given the power to do, and stop trying to pretend they are morally right, when in reality they are doing a nasty thing they feel is necessary regardless of right or wrong.


Whoooo! Go Machiavelli!

No seriously, I am not being sarcastic. I have thought this way ever since I read "The Prince"

But on that note...torture is bad...M'kay?
2 Pages1 2