Does the United States have a right to torture suspected terrorist?

[E5RANGER375]

Nope. But here be the facts, as interpreted and currently law by the nations highest court.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans.

In Boumediene, the court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen. If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What’s more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices — and, indeed, not even the Bush administration — argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens.

Additionally, in 1982, the Supreme Court rules in Plyler v. Doe, public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. The Court stated that undocumented children have the same right to a free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents. This case has translated to other public entitlements, such as those benefits reserved to the poor.

well even the supreme court is wrong sometimes. thats why congress can overide their decisions if they want.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

[...]


Most of my arguments proceed from the likes of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. Like it or not, philosophy has a purpose -- without Western philosophy, you would be no better off than the savages with whom we're currently at war.

I'm sorry to hear that your ego is so fragile that you need to boost it by bashing other peoples' religions.

You do understand that it is possible to actually change policy... don't you?

Well, that's fine that you enjoy philosophy, but I never said that I eschewed it - simply that an ancient text of mythology isn't sufficient recourse for ethical quandaries given the innumerable barbarisms within it, as it would have us stone to death homosexuals and pagans and non-believers and clearly supports slavery (Exodus, Leviticus, etc. etc.), which even a child can understand is ethically untenable. So, yes, I hope you will forgive my lack of indulgence and recourse to a barbaric text - and if you don't, that's fine too, as I don't need forgiveness to be morally absolved in knowing that slavery is immoral - regardless of what the supposed great Creator of the Universe declares in opposition to that fact.

I too am sorry that your sense-of-self and self-identity are so dependent on the veracity of ancient mythology, but I am not so indebted to that text as to disregard reality or to wish for paradises which mirror the wonders of cruise ships.

As for changing policy, what has changed since the inception of our Republic save a lessening of liberties and an increase of religious zealotry?

There can be no true changing of policy in a self-supported, inured system which is so insular that any true would-be changes are haughtily dismissed, when any introduction of legislation to repeal the overreach of our masters' and owners' desires to control us and our lives is not allowed and not permissible. Doesn't seem too much like true change, does it. Seems more like hard-wrested concession after concession, each successive liberty always contigent upon being taken back and held once again by our masters and owners. Good luck, but I haven't seen true change implemented in this nation ever, and doubt it ever has since 1791, not knowing since I wasn't alive then, but it seems like a rather decent start with a rather unspectacular and tautological finish to our once-noble Republic.

 

[JBusch8899]

well even the supreme court is wrong sometimes. thats why congress can overide their decisions if they want.

Uh, no.

Only a constitutional amendment has the ability.

Wow.

 

[Fletch]

No one here is advocating torture or harsh interrogation on SUSPECTED terrorists. Only on those who are KNOWN terrorists.

And yet the title of the thread, as I've pointed out repeatedly, says that we're talking about SUSPECTED terrorists.

In spite of all the vitriol around here, we've all basically agreed that it's OK to kill someone who is in the process of committing mayhem. Which makes your next statements all the weirder:

Doing these things are not against the law, and are allowed under national and international law. Are they moral? No. They are not. But neither is killing a man regardless if he is a good or evil man. However, in order to win a war, one must do things that are immoral or he will fall victim to failure and defeat and many millions may die in the process.

I'm sorry some of you cannot stomach this concept and feel compelled to speak out against it. I'm not defending illegal or immoral actions of the government. I am however defending those overseas fighting and dying to protect us. They are not the government. They are our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, our friends. I'm sorry, but they are doing what's right to protect us, protect our Country. If you find what they are doing is wrong and you just can't stand it, I can give you the website for the ACLU if you wish.

You're contradicting yourself now... first we have a statement that actions in war are bad/wrong/immoral, followed by a statement that our soldiers are doing what's good/right/moral. So not only are you not paying attention to what any of us are writing, but you're also not even reading what you write. And almost every post from your side of this argument has implicitly carried this same contradiction: a desire for the bad/wrong/immoral to be excused on the basis of "it's war", along with a contradictory statement that our soldiers are only doing what's good/right/moral.

If what they're doing is good/right/moral, then there is no need to defend them. And for what it's worth, I believe there IS a way to conduct a war morally -- and win it. I just don't believe this war is a moral one, though I place the blame for that on our politicians, not our soldiers. I'm reasonably confident that our soldiers are doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt. But that of course is a message that will never get through to your side of this discussion -- in your eyes, I'm just an anti-war, soldier-hating, tie-dye-wearing, foul-smelling hippie nutjob whose opinions can be written off before they're even expressed.

I have stated, over and over again, that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of someone who's causing mayhem, up to and including killing them. I don't know how many more ways I can say it before it finally sinks in, but I'm at the point of starting to google adult literacy programs to recommend. I'm pretty well convinced that none of you "kill hajji" types are actually reading my/our posts for comprehension, but rather looking for the next indication that it's your turn to start shouting again.

It seems to have escaped all of you that there's honestly not that much we disagree on. I can only hope, for the sake of the public, that your "friend-or-foe" identification skills are rather more finely tuned when you're out exercising your right to carry.

 

[SavageEagle]

And yet the title of the thread, as I've pointed out repeatedly, says that we're talking about SUSPECTED terrorists.

In spite of all the vitriol around here, we've all basically agreed that it's OK to kill someone who is in the process of committing mayhem. Which makes your next statements all the weirder:



You're contradicting yourself now... first we have a statement that actions in war are bad/wrong/immoral, followed by a statement that our soldiers are doing what's good/right/moral. So not only are you not paying attention to what any of us are writing, but you're also not even reading what you write. And almost every post from your side of this argument has implicitly carried this same contradiction: a desire for the bad/wrong/immoral to be excused on the basis of "it's war", along with a contradictory statement that our soldiers are only doing what's good/right/moral.

If what they're doing is good/right/moral, then there is no need to defend them. And for what it's worth, I believe there IS a way to conduct a war morally -- and win it. I just don't believe this war is a moral one, though I place the blame for that on our politicians, not our soldiers. I'm reasonably confident that our soldiers are doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt. But that of course is a message that will never get through to your side of this discussion -- in your eyes, I'm just an anti-war, soldier-hating, tie-dye-wearing, foul-smelling hippie nutjob whose opinions can be written off before they're even expressed.

I have stated, over and over again, that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of someone who's causing mayhem, up to and including killing them. I don't know how many more ways I can say it before it finally sinks in, but I'm at the point of starting to google adult literacy programs to recommend. I'm pretty well convinced that none of you "kill hajji" types are actually reading my/our posts for comprehension, but rather looking for the next indication that it's your turn to start shouting again.

It seems to have escaped all of you that there's honestly not that much we disagree on. I can only hope, for the sake of the public, that your "friend-or-foe" identification skills are rather more finely tuned when you're out exercising your right to carry.

I don't give a flying woot what the OP was discussing. I'm not talking about SUSPECTED terrorists. Your whole approach and side of the argument is now null and void to me because you're lumping me in with someone else's opinion. Good job ace.

And I never once contradicted myself. Sometimes doing what is right doesn't always mean what's right is what's moral.

Sorry, your whole post means nothing to me since you based the whole thing on two very wrong conclusions. Try again.

 

[jeremy]

If what they're doing is good/right/moral, then there is no need to defend them. And for what it's worth, I believe there IS a way to conduct a war morally -- and win it. I just don't believe this war is a moral one, though I place the blame for that on our politicians, not our soldiers. I'm reasonably confident that our soldiers are doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt.

I have stated, over and over again, that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of someone who's causing mayhem, up to and including killing them. I don't know how many more ways I can say it before it finally sinks in, but I'm at the point of starting to google adult literacy programs to recommend. I'm pretty well convinced that none of you "kill hajji" types are actually reading my/our posts for comprehension, but rather looking for the next indication that it's your turn to start shouting again.

Fletch,
I clipped out the pieces dealing with someone elses problems...

One of my biggest fears, is that some Politician will decide again that War can be fought with morals... Everytime they decide that, it gets more difficult for the common soldier. Unfortunately. Trust me I would really wage a war with a morals. It has never happened, it will never happen. When the Politicians start playing at dictating rules we pay the price. The is no ring here, Marques de Queenbury does not apply here. We had made leaps and bounds during this war of getting the decision making back into the place of the actual war fighters. We are already starting the back slide with the Politicians again... It is getting to the point again that Joe out being fired upon is having to call back to an 0-6 (COL) or higher in some instances to be allowed to engage an enemy. All because some Politicians think that you can wage a war with morals...

Morals are fine for the Alphabet agencies in the States. By all means hold their feet to the fire on what they can and cannot do. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. We have seen this done many times throughout Our Nations history. By all means the treatment of suspected terrorists in the states should be done with some type of over sight lest the start drifting what they try to do to all... The rules that we in the Military operate under are a lot tighter than what the G-men use...

 

[Fletch]

I don't give a flying woot what the OP was discussing. I'm not talking about SUSPECTED terrorists. Your whole approach and side of the argument is now null and void to me because you're lumping me in with someone else's opinion. Good job ace.

I'm responding to YOUR posts, "ace". Are you disavowing your own words now?

And I never once contradicted myself. Sometimes doing what is right doesn't always mean what's right is what's moral.

Then define right and wrong without using morality.

Sorry, your whole post means nothing to me since you based the whole thing on two very wrong conclusions. Try again.

Which conclusions are wrong? Obviously not the one about your reading for comprehension.

 

[Fletch]

Which conclusions are wrong? Obviously not the one about your reading for comprehension.

Y'know what? I apologize for that last crack. It was inflammatory and unnecessary.

 

[Fletch]

We are already starting the back slide with the Politicians again... It is getting to the point again that Joe out being fired upon is having to call back to an 0-6 (COL) or higher in some instances to be allowed to engage an enemy. All because some Politicians think that you can wage a war with morals...

Your problem here is not with morality, but with politicians' love for "oversight" and hatred for empowerment. There is nothing necessarily immoral about engaging an enemy, and the average grunt is probably perfectly capable of making that determination. The issue is with the politicians believing that everyone needs someone else looking over their shoulders at all times. Your fight is with bureaucracy, not morality.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm responding to YOUR posts, "ace". Are you disavowing your own words now? Reread your OWN post. You said the OP was discussing SUSPECTED terrorists. I never did and said so. Ace. Quit twisting my words and the facts to fit your fantasy world out in Nowherehoma.



Then define right and wrong without using morality. Seriously? You can't comprehend what I'm saying? Sorry, I'm not going to continue to explain anything to someone who won't listen in the first place.



Which conclusions are wrong? Obviously not the one about your reading for comprehension.

All of your conclusions are wrong because you're not comprehending what I'm posting as it's very clearly stated. So even though your last sentence makes absolutely NO sense, you're obviously the one with reading comprehension problems. Now I have better things to do than argue with someone who can't comprehend people.
Good day.

 

[jeremy]

Your problem here is not with morality, but with politicians' love for "oversight" and hatred for empowerment. There is nothing necessarily immoral about engaging an enemy, and the average grunt is probably perfectly capable of making that determination. The issue is with the politicians believing that everyone needs someone else looking over their shoulders at all times. Your fight is with bureaucracy, not morality.

Ohhh... I know mine enemy is the Bureaucracy... LOL...

 

[Fletch]

Reread your OWN post. You said the OP was discussing SUSPECTED terrorists. I never did and said so. Ace. Quit twisting my words and the facts to fit your fantasy world out in Nowherehoma.

Someone in Indiana, calling Oklahoma "nowhere"? That's funny right there.

 

[Fletch]

All of your conclusions are wrong because you're not comprehending what I'm posting as it's very clearly stated. So even though your last sentence makes absolutely NO sense, you're obviously the one with reading comprehension problems. Now I have better things to do than argue with someone who can't comprehend people.
Good day.

As I said, there's far less disagreement than you seem to believe. Maybe when you cool down a bit you'll understand that and we can get to the make-up sex.

Until then, have a good one dude. I'll buy you a beer next time you're in the middle of nowhere. Oh wait -- you already are!

Namaste

 

[E5RANGER375]

Uh, no.

Only a constitutional amendment has the ability.

Wow.

and how does a constetutional ammendment happen???

WOW

 

[E5RANGER375]

And yet the title of the thread, as I've pointed out repeatedly, says that we're talking about SUSPECTED terrorists.

In spite of all the vitriol around here, we've all basically agreed that it's OK to kill someone who is in the process of committing mayhem. Which makes your next statements all the weirder:



You're contradicting yourself now... first we have a statement that actions in war are bad/wrong/immoral, followed by a statement that our soldiers are doing what's good/right/moral. So not only are you not paying attention to what any of us are writing, but you're also not even reading what you write. And almost every post from your side of this argument has implicitly carried this same contradiction: a desire for the bad/wrong/immoral to be excused on the basis of "it's war", along with a contradictory statement that our soldiers are only doing what's good/right/moral.

If what they're doing is good/right/moral, then there is no need to defend them. And for what it's worth, I believe there IS a way to conduct a war morally -- and win it. I just don't believe this war is a moral one, though I place the blame for that on our politicians, not our soldiers. I'm reasonably confident that our soldiers are doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt. But that of course is a message that will never get through to your side of this discussion -- in your eyes, I'm just an anti-war, soldier-hating, tie-dye-wearing, foul-smelling hippie nutjob whose opinions can be written off before they're even expressed.

I have stated, over and over again, that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of someone who's causing mayhem, up to and including killing them. I don't know how many more ways I can say it before it finally sinks in, but I'm at the point of starting to google adult literacy programs to recommend. I'm pretty well convinced that none of you "kill hajji" types are actually reading my/our posts for comprehension, but rather looking for the next indication that it's your turn to start shouting again.

It seems to have escaped all of you that there's honestly not that much we disagree on. I can only hope, for the sake of the public, that your "friend-or-foe" identification skills are rather more finely tuned when you're out exercising your right to carry.

heres .50 cents, call someone who cares. maybe charter

 

[Fletch]

heres .50 cents, call someone who cares. maybe charter

Yes, you've been swinging your epeen around quite vigorously, and it's very impressive. Give it a rest.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Uh, no. Congress can pass legislation on a matter ruled on by the SCOTUS that does pass Constitutional muster. Happens all the time.

Uh, no.

Only a constitutional amendment has the ability.

Wow.

 

[JBusch8899]

and how does a constetutional ammendment happen???

WOW

Well, according to my copy of article 5 of the constitution, along with the current law empowering the National Archives and Records Administration to its compulsory acts in this matter: A constitutional process to amend the same, involves either a convention for the purpose of the same, which has yet to occur within the history of this country; or the passage of a resolution by 2/3 of both houses of the Congress, further approved by 2/3 of the various state legislatures, followed by it's certification by the Archivist of the United States.

Its a bit more complicated than a simple congressional vote as you had previously mentioned.

/Civics lesson

 

[JBusch8899]

Uh, no. Congress can pass legislation on a matter ruled on by the SCOTUS that does pass Constitutional muster. Happens all the time.

Well, duh. However that really wasn't the point, was it?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well duh, yeah it was. You said an amendment to the Constitution was required to overrule a SCOTUS rulling. You're wrong.

Well, duh. However that really wasn't the point, was it?