"Enhanced" Interrogation

[KeatonKitsune]

We should not torture ANYONE. We should not stoop to their level of hatred.

I agree with this. A lot.

Because he is the one with the most power to stop this.

Actually, the deputy director for operations for the CIA has the most power to stop it. He directly approves these methods every time one is used. So um, yeah...

So I'd say it's pretty safe to say the world considers water boarding torture.

Well you’d be wrong.

I never said absolute restriction either.

But you did say it’s not possible to have freedom and restrictions at the same time, which is what I was arguing.

Heck, if that were true, as an American citizen, I could not have both freedoms (such as the freedom of speech) and restrictions (such as, except if I say “I will kill the president”) at the same time.

Forgive me if I don't like giving people with poor judgment guns and ammo.

Then you must not like giving anyone guns and ammo. Because every  single  person  on  this  planet  has poor judgment at times.

Alien seems to have been defined as anyone outside of the country regardless of citizenship.

There are several types of aliens. The ones detained in your story above are what is known as “naturalized” citizens, which means that they were not born here. The same type can never become president.

I didn't say it was legal. I said they were doing it.

Okay, well then we’re not talking about checks and balances anymore. Now we’re talking about enforcing those checks and balances.

I am not permitted to murder my neighbor. If I do so anyway, it’s not because my restrictions were not in place; it’s because I acted despite them.

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--

`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or

`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who—

Oh... looks like this law is only applicable to people in Guantanamo Bay... Hmm, kind of puts a huge dent in the utility of this law...

And it just so happens all 10 are in the same image! *coughbullshitcough*

Hmm, the image is blocked by my work, LOL!

What’s wrong with the idea of them all being in the same image? Did you read the story I posted? They were moved around together so that their stories could be easily compared...

Yes it is! How can you prove someone is guilty if you do not have a trial!? It's not supposed to be possible under our laws. Innocent until proven guilty! If you have not had a trial you are automatically supposed to be considered innocent by our law.

Right. So then how does the absence of a trial allow you to be tortured and killed? If we’re innocent until proven guilty, all the absence of a trial can do is keep you innocent!

If they can't follow by example what makes you think they can follow by threats?

You didn’t answer the question. I asked how giving our enemies our freedoms would lead to democracy.

You’re responding with a personal concern against democracy by “threats”, not answering the question.

Why do you feel so compelled to defend Bush?

Because a) I believe Bush gets a lot of undue blame for everything bad in the world, b) Rawr usually has very scathing comments about Bush and Big Brother in general, and c) I usually take up the defense of those I support and/or agree with.

it annoys me that you evade the issue with one-sentence responses by ranting about how Rawr always wants to demean Bush.

I’m not avoiding the issue. I created this topic. The issue is “enhanced interrogation”. Rawr simply loves to bring his hate for Bush into every damn topic, and I’m not going to flood my topic about an unrelated subject arguing with him about it.

[The Tao Of Bill]

Actually, the deputy director for operations for the CIA has the most power to stop it. He directly approves these methods every time one is used. So um, yeah...

And the President has authority over the CIA deputy director. Are you saying your boss does not have control over your actions? The president could fire the CIA deputy and hire someone who doesn't water board if he wanted to.

But you did say it’s not possible to have freedom and restrictions at the same time, which is what I was arguing.

Heck, if that were true, as an American citizen, I could not have both freedoms (such as the freedom of speech) and restrictions (such as, except if I say “I will kill the president”) at the same time.

No I said It's not possible for the government and the people to be free at the same time. The constitution was written to limit government freedom in order to give the people maximum freedom. The freedom of the government directly relates to the freedom of the people. If you give more power to the government you take away power from the people. That's how all government systems work.

There are several types of aliens. The ones detained in your story above are what is known as “naturalized” citizens, which means that they were not born here. The same type can never become president.

So these people are not American enough for our rights? That's not true one bit! The constitution gives all criminals right to a trial. The constitution does not even limit our rights to American citizens.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Did you read that? All criminal prosecutions. Not just citizen prosecutions. Not just people who were born citizens. Not just people who support America. All criminal prosecutions. The only time a right is restricted to a citizen is when it deals with either holding a public office or electing a public officer. Every other amendment in the constitution applies to all people.

Oh... looks like this law is only applicable to people in Guantanamo Bay... Hmm, kind of puts a huge dent in the utility of this law...

Guantanamo Bay is where most of this stuff is happening. Also the military commissions act applies to all detainees. Not just Guantanamo Bay. These are two different acts.

You didn’t answer the question. I asked how giving our enemies our freedoms would lead to democracy.

You’re responding with a personal concern against democracy by “threats”, not answering the question.

Because they will say "Wait...you mean my friend got caught but you're not going to stone him to death? You're only going to lock him up and still allow him communication with his friends and family? Maybe Americans do have a better philosophy on life. Maybe democracy is the best type of government"

Instead all they see democracy as is another way to capture, kill and torture people who don't fall in line. Many Iraqis don't see a difference between America and Saddam. Many Iraqis have taken arms against America despite being against Osama Bin Laden and AlQueda

What’s wrong with the idea of them all being in the same image? Did you read the story I posted? They were moved around together so that their stories could be easily compared...

Because there have been several accounts of several men in several prisons of people undergoing torture under our hands. Just because the government only admits to 10 doesn't mean there are only 10. There have been many more than 10 accounts. But even only 1 account should be grounds to fire people.

Right. So then how does the absence of a trial allow you to be tortured and killed? If we’re innocent until proven guilty, all the absence of a trial can do is keep you innocent!

Because if they were treated as innocents they wouldn't be punished for a crime. They'd be locked up until a trial but they wouldn't be punished. It would at least keep innocent men (for the most part) from being tortured. Other laws would have to change to end the torture.

[Witless]

Actually, you’re spot on. Some of the people who were part of these interrogations said that a method proven to be much more effective was to build a relationship and a notion of trust with the people, get to know them, and then apply questions to the individuals.

It may have worked 50 years ago, but you can't honestly tell me that terrorists will fall for this kind of good cop, bad cop thing?

Maybe he does. But I don’t think it’s humanitarian to do this sort of thing as punishment. Eye for an eye is not a motto I want America to live by. Not in this sense.

Imprisonment is our usual method of punishment, but if you want to get physical, whip him or something. There’s a not-so-thin line between pain and the feeling of death.

I'm sorry, but whipping someone is torture too to be honest.

Yes it is! How can you prove someone is guilty if you do not have a trial!? It's not supposed to be possible under our laws. Innocent until proven guilty! If you have not had a trial you are automatically supposed to be considered innocent by our law.

Okay, then give them a trial and then torture them. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Because they will say "Wait...you mean my friend got caught but you're not going to stone him to death? You're only going to lock him up and still allow him communication with his friends and family? Maybe Americans do have a better philosophy on life. Maybe democracy is the best type of government"

*spills drink* Ahah, sorry Rawr. But I found this hilarious. You forget that it's not even about Democracy or Monarchy or any type of government control. These terrorist ( read: Al Queda ) fight for their religion and are trained/brainwashed to fight the ones who do not believe what they believe.

They'd probably think we're a bunch of wankers because we let them do whatever they want.

Many Iraqis don't see a difference between America and Saddam. Many Iraqis have taken arms against America despite being against Osama Bin Laden and AlQueda

How do you know this? How do you know that it's not because they live in Iraq and are being indoctrined by the citizens and government that they fight America.

You'd be pretty stupid to fight 2 parties while residing in enemy territory. You either pick a side, or be neutral.

They'd be locked up until a trial but they wouldn't be punished. It would at least keep innocent men (for the most part) from being tortured. Other laws would have to change to end the torture.

If they are innocent, why would they keep them prisoned?

 

[KeatonKitsune]

And the President has authority over the CIA deputy director. Are you saying your boss does not have control over your actions?

No, I’m just saying I am in more control of my actions than my boss.

The president could fire the CIA deputy and hire someone who doesn't water board if he wanted to.

Is this true? Can the president really fire the CIA deputy?

No I said It's not possible for the government and the people to be free at the same time.

Um...:

Government does not deserve freedom. Government deserves restrictions.

I believe it “deserves” both.

Not possible. You can't have a government with the power to do anything it feels is right and at the same time restrict it. You can only do one or the other, Keaton.

I think you did.

So these people are not American enough for our rights?

No, that’s not what I said.

You said they can take any American. I’m showing that it’s only applicable to aliens.

Did you read that? All criminal prosecutions. Not just citizen prosecutions.

I thought these people were being held and interrogated without a criminal prosecution... which would exclude them from this right...

Because they will say "Wait...you mean my friend got caught but you're not going to stone him to death? You're only going to lock him up and still allow him communication with his friends and family? Maybe Americans do have a better philosophy on life. Maybe democracy is the best type of government"

Will they?

Because there have been several accounts of several men in several prisons of people undergoing torture under our hands.

Right. Like I said before, the same group of men was moved to several different prisons.

But even only 1 account should be grounds to fire people.

Now this is where we agree.

Because if they were treated as innocents they wouldn't be punished for a crime. They'd be locked up until a trial but they wouldn't be punished.

No, if they were tried as innocents, they wouldn’t be punished for a crime until proven guilty. A (fair) trial would not likely end in innocence for these people. They are top Al Queda members.

It may have worked 50 years ago, but you can't honestly tell me that terrorists will fall for this kind of good cop, bad cop thing?

I certainly can. And the men who have experienced both forms of interrogation back up this statement.

I'm sorry, but whipping someone is torture too to be honest.

That depends on interpretation. I call it punishment, as do most places who practice it.

[Loki]

It’s not the absence of a trial that allows this, and it’s not the presence of a trial that permits it. Let’s not jump to conclusions.

Yes it is! How can you prove someone is guilty if you do not have a trial!? It's not supposed to be possible under our laws. Innocent until proven guilty! If you have not had a trial you are automatically supposed to be considered innocent by our law.

And that's just stupid. Because what you're saying is that even though 100 people saw Person A kill someone, Person A is innocent until he has a trial. Then, let's say in said trial he has a good lawyer. They win the case. Person A goes free.

Great fucking system we have there. And don't think it doesn't work like that because it does. Lawyers care about winning, not about who's actually right or wrong. No one's going to use you as their lawyer if you have a record of failing to defend your clients.

You didn’t answer the question. I asked how giving our enemies our freedoms would lead to democracy.

You’re responding with a personal concern against democracy by “threats”, not answering the question.

Because they will say "Wait...you mean my friend got caught but you're not going to stone him to death? You're only going to lock him up and still allow him communication with his friends and family? Maybe Americans do have a better philosophy on life. Maybe democracy is the best type of government"

You're one ignorant person if you really believe that. I might even go as far as to say stupid, actually.

Right. So then how does the absence of a trial allow you to be tortured and killed? If we’re innocent until proven guilty, all the absence of a trial can do is keep you innocent!

Because if they were treated as innocents they wouldn't be punished for a crime. They'd be locked up until a trial but they wouldn't be punished. It would at least keep innocent men (for the most part) from being tortured. Other laws would have to change to end the torture.[/quote]
And I disagree that they should be treated as innoncents. That's just dumb.

For our safety, they should be guilty until proven otherwise.

And once again, I want to reiterate that I am not trying to support torturing them. But considering them innocent, IMO, is just dumb.

[The Tao Of Bill]

I'm sorry, but whipping someone is torture too to be honest.

Agreed...

*spills drink* Ahah, sorry Rawr. But I found this hilarious. You forget that it's not even about Democracy or Monarchy or any type of government control. These terrorist ( read: Al Queda ) fight for their religion and are trained/brainwashed to fight the ones who do not believe what they believe.

They'd probably think we're a bunch of wankers because we let them do whatever they want.

Well I don't expect the people who are already brainwashed to come around. But perhaps their children will or their childrens' children if we start showing the world some respect and give them sovereignty and freedom to make their own laws..

How do you know this? How do you know that it's not because they live in Iraq and are being indoctrined by the citizens and government that they fight America.

You'd be pretty stupid to fight 2 parties while residing in enemy territory. You either pick a side, or be neutral.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/
Watch the interview. A lot of the men in this prison claim the was the occupation of America that drove them to attack US troops even though they also hate Al Queda.
“An aggressor occupied my country, destroyed it and made millions [of] refugees. It is an honor to fight this,” one of the prisoners said. They sound like Americans would sound if China invaded us.

If they are innocent, why would they keep them prisoned?

Because they would still be under arrest and charged with a crime. Except in cases of bail in America we still lock people up awaiting trial for violent crimes.

No, I’m just saying I am in more control of my actions than my boss.

Not if your boss can fire you for your actions. You can choose to steal from your company. That would be your fault. But at the same time it would also be your bosses fault if he knew what you were doing and still allowed you to do it. If this happened in a corporation and it resulted in significant loss of equity the stockholders could legally sue the CEO of the corporation.

As a boss/manager you have the responsibility of keeping your employees in line. If you refuse to do anything about a rogue employee you are equally at fault under the law. You are liable for law suits and could even be considered an accessory to the crime committed under the law. You could literally be charged with accessory to extortion from your own company if you neglect to fire an employee you know is stealing.

No, that’s not what I said.

You said they can take any American. I’m showing that it’s only applicable to aliens.

There is no evidence that this sort of treatment is only limited to naturalized citizens. And if it was that is equally disgusting.

I thought these people were being held and interrogated without a criminal prosecution... which would exclude them from this right...

No they wouldn't be because the constitution says you cannot be held without being accused of the crime your being held for.

Will they?

This is how democracy has spread, does spread and will always spread. It is also the only way it has ever spread successfully.

And that's just stupid. Because what you're saying is that even though 100 people saw Person A kill someone, Person A is innocent until he has a trial. Then, let's say in said trial he has a good lawyer. They win the case. Person A goes free.

Great fucking system we have there. And don't think it doesn't work like that because it does. Lawyers care about winning, not about who's actually right or wrong. No one's going to use you as their lawyer if you have a record of failing to defend your clients.

If 100 people saw a man kill someone and they still let him off there is probably a good reason for it. Because I don't think there has ever been a reported case of that happening.

[KeatonKitsune]

Not if your boss can fire you for your actions.

That’s not true at all. I can steal from my job and there’s nothing my boss can do to stop me. All she can do is punish me as a consequence. If I wanted to walk out of here right now with this computer, there’s little anyone could do about it except for me (helps that I sit right by the door, lol).

As a boss/manager you have the responsibility of keeping your employees in line. If you refuse to do anything about a rogue employee you are equally at fault under the law.

Right, but would my boss’ boss get in trouble? Not likely.

Now my question is, what’s the structure of the CIA? I don’t think that the President is directly over the deputy director, meaning there is someone in between these two positions. I don’t think the deputy director reports directly to the President. But I could be wrong.

There is no evidence that this sort of treatment is only limited to naturalized citizens. And if it was that is equally disgusting.

Okay, but any such treatment would, according to what you showed me, be illegal. Which as I’ve stated, would mean that you need to re-direct your argument, because it’s now not about the law itself, but the lack of proper enforcement of that law.

No they wouldn't be because the constitution says you cannot be held without being accused of the crime your being held for.

No, technically, they would be excluded. But now you’re trying to apply a different right to the people.

This is how democracy has spread, does spread and will always spread. It is also the only way it has ever spread successfully.

What? No.

I can’t think of a time it has spread this way.

But I can think of exactly 50 times (well okay minus a couple probably) it’s worked by force in the past, and that’s just off the top of my head.

How do you think this land we sit on now came to be a democracy? We forcibly took control of nearly all of it.

[Deku]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316790,00.html

There's your precious President Bush in action Keat, proving that it is mostly (if not all) his fault.  The House is willing to pass the ban on waterboarding but Bush has threatened veto.  If you agree with him (as you said you did), how do you defend his actions?

[The Tao Of Bill]

Not if your boss can fire you for your actions.

That’s not true at all. I can steal from my job and there’s nothing my boss can do to stop me. All she can do is punish me as a consequence. If I wanted to walk out of here right now with this computer, there’s little anyone could do about it except for me (helps that I sit right by the door, lol).

As a boss/manager you have the responsibility of keeping your employees in line. If you refuse to do anything about a rogue employee you are equally at fault under the law.

Right, but would my boss’ boss get in trouble? Not likely.

Yes he would. Especially in a corporation or a partnership where you do not technically own the property. If your boss allows you to steal from the company and it can be proven he allowed it to happen can be put in prison for it. If an employee sexually harasses another employee and the boss knows about it and allows it he can be sued. Bosses are fully responsible for the choices of their employees and if they fail to get rid of, suspend or otherwise punish an employee for a crime committed they can be liable for a lawsuit or even prison time under the law. It's called being an accessory.

Now my question is, what’s the structure of the CIA? I don’t think that the President is directly over the deputy director, meaning there is someone in between these two positions. I don’t think the deputy director reports directly to the President. But I could be wrong.

It doesn't matter. Bush is actively allowing waterboarding as well as actively pushing against any legislative ban on waterboarding. He deserves blame for this. He deserves to be tried for war crimes and executed for this.

There is no evidence that this sort of treatment is only limited to naturalized citizens. And if it was that is equally disgusting.

Okay, but any such treatment would, according to what you showed me, be illegal. Which as I’ve stated, would mean that you need to re-direct your argument, because it’s now not about the law itself, but the lack of proper enforcement of that law.

The law itself is fucked up in that the executive and legislative branches are telling the judicial branch what they can and can't hear trials on. That is unconstitutional. And it's because these judges don't know how to deal with this situation that these American citizens are having so much trouble getting a trial.

No they wouldn't be because the constitution says you cannot be held without being accused of the crime your being held for.

No, technically, they would be excluded. But now you’re trying to apply a different right to the people.

No they wouldn't be excluded and no this isn't a different right. This is from the same amendment. If you are locked up that is a criminal prosecution. If you aren't charged with a crime and held indefinitely that's unconstitutional.

This is how democracy has spread, does spread and will always spread. It is also the only way it has ever spread successfully.

What? No.

I can’t think of a time it has spread this way.

But I can think of exactly 50 times (well okay minus a couple probably) it’s worked by force in the past, and that’s just off the top of my head.

How do you think this land we sit on now came to be a democracy? We forcibly took control of nearly all of it.

What history book were you reading? When was democracy spread to America by force? We separated from England by force but no one came to us with a gun to our heads and said BECOME A DEMOCRACY OR DIE!

Most revolutions tend to be violent. But the choice to become a democratic country is usually decided on by the people of the nation. We were not forced by anyone to become a democracy. We just learned about how good it was from books about Greece. We became democratic by example and not by bullets. No successful democracy came from someone putting a gun to someones head and saying become a democracy or die. It has to be a collective choice by the people.

[Loki]

What history book were you reading?

What post were you reading?

When was democracy spread to America by force? We separated from England by force but no one came to us with a gun to our heads and said BECOME A DEMOCRACY OR DIE!

Most revolutions tend to be violent. But the choice to become a democratic country is usually decided on by the people of the nation. We were not forced by anyone to become a democracy. We just learned about how good it was from books about Greece. We became democratic by example and not by bullets. No successful democracy came from someone putting a gun to someones head and saying become a democracy or die. It has to be a collective choice by the people.

Keaton never said anything us being forced to be a democracy, Rawr. He said we used force to become a democracy. Which is true, because we had to beat the crap out of the British so that we could become one. How the fuck did you gather that he was suggesting we were forced into it? Seriously. What the hell are you babbling about? Do you just have to be against Keaton in everything now that you put words in his mouth? Or are you just hearing what you want to hear and trying to make others look bad?

[The Tao Of Bill]

What history book were you reading?

What post were you reading?

When was democracy spread to America by force? We separated from England by force but no one came to us with a gun to our heads and said BECOME A DEMOCRACY OR DIE!

Most revolutions tend to be violent. But the choice to become a democratic country is usually decided on by the people of the nation. We were not forced by anyone to become a democracy. We just learned about how good it was from books about Greece. We became democratic by example and not by bullets. No successful democracy came from someone putting a gun to someones head and saying become a democracy or die. It has to be a collective choice by the people.

Keaton never said anything us being forced to be a democracy, Rawr. He said we used force to become a democracy. Which is true, because we had to beat the crap out of the British so that we could become one. How the fuck did you gather that he was suggesting we were forced into it? Seriously. What the hell are you babbling about? Do you just have to be against Keaton in everything now that you put words in his mouth? Or are you just hearing what you want to hear and trying to make others look bad?

Did you read MY post? I said democracy is never successfully spread forcefully. The American Revolution had nothing to do with the start of our democracy other than it gave us independence. Our revolution is not an example of democracy being spread by force. Our revolution is an example of the people deciding to start a democratic republic by choice. No one forced democracy on us. And no country that had democracy forced on them has been successful at keeping it for more than a few years. Democracy is only successful when it is a collective decision by the people and when those people stand up against tyranny. Neither of which has happened in Iraq or any other country we tried to force democracy on.

Basically democracy is a very fragile thing. And unless a large majority of the people have a vested interest in preserving democracy it doesn't last very long.

[Loki]

Did you read MY post? I said democracy is never successfully spread forcefully. The American Revolution had nothing to do with the start of our democracy other than it gave us independence.

That sounds a lot like forcing our previous government to allow us to have the democracy we wanted. We forced the British out of here so we could change the form of government. Not my fault if you interpreted the man's post incorrectly.

Our revolution is not an example of democracy being spread by force. Our revolution is an example of the people deciding to start a democratic republic by choice. No one forced democracy on us.

You're right. We forced it on the ex-government. We used force to remove the previous establishment and set up democracy. What's so hard to understand?

[The Tao Of Bill]

That's not the same as someone coming into your country and saying "You must become democratic or you will be killed at our hands"

Our case was a rise of the people. Iraq's case is a rise of a foreign occupation.

Unless democracy is born from the people it will not be successful.

Once again. We didn't become a democracy by force. We could have chosen to install another monarchy if we wanted to. We became independent by force. That's true. But we became a democracy by choice and we defended democracy all these years by choice.

Democracy can only succeed if the people choose to not only start it but to maintain it. And generally the people do not maintain it if they didn't choose to have it. And no one gave the Iraqi people a choice.

[Loki]

Well maybe it just hasn't worked yet.

It worked pretty damn well for Christianity, why can't it work for anything else?

[KeatonKitsune]

There's your precious President Bush in action Keat, proving that it is mostly (if not all) his fault.  The House is willing to pass the ban on waterboarding but Bush has threatened veto.  If you agree with him (as you said you did), how do you defend his actions?

The 222-199 vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President George W. Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.

Maybe you should read a little more carefully the articles you shove under my nose before opening your mouth like that, friend.

Also, I’d like you to explain how this article puts most of the blame on Bush for waterboarding. But I won’t hold my breath.

EDIT: pun not intended, but lol...

If your boss allows you to steal from the company and it can be proven he allowed it to happen can be put in prison for it.

Yeah that’s true. But this wasn’t in your original question to me.

He deserves to be tried for war crimes and executed for this.

Now this IMO is VERY excessive, and completely untrue. No one ever died by waterboarding, so I don’t see how anyone could be executed for this. Not to mention, if ANYONE would be more to blame, it would be the individuals who actually performed the actions. Even if Bush does support waterboarding, that does not mean he would approve the murder of anyone.

Moreover, I somehow doubt that anyone will EVER be executed for the death of a WAR criminal, non-US citizen, and terrorist.

The law itself is fucked up in that the executive and legislative branches are telling the judicial branch what they can and can't hear trials on. That is unconstitutional.

Well first of all that’s a new argument, but okay. Also I don’t think it’s unconstitutional...

If you are locked up that is a criminal prosecution.

Is it?

If you aren't charged with a crime and held indefinitely that's unconstitutional.

Only for US citizens... That’s for whom the constitution was written. You know, “we the people”?

What history book were you reading? When was democracy spread to America by force? We separated from England by force but no one came to us with a gun to our heads and said BECOME A DEMOCRACY OR DIE!

The stuff of which I speak is tread lightly around in American books, but if you know your history, which I am sure you do, you will know this. We took over this land by force, killing, maiming, or exiling anyone who refused to follow our new laws.

We became democratic by example and not by bullets.

Define ‘We’, if you will.

That's not the same as someone coming into your country and saying "You must become democratic or you will be killed at our hands"

This happened here in the United States. And we now have one of the most successful democratic systems in the world. Just wanted to point that out.

[The Tao Of Bill]

There's your precious President Bush in action Keat, proving that it is mostly (if not all) his fault.  The House is willing to pass the ban on waterboarding but Bush has threatened veto.  If you agree with him (as you said you did), how do you defend his actions?

The 222-199 vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President George W. Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.

Maybe you should read a little more carefully the articles you shove under my nose before opening your mouth like that, friend.

Also, I’d like you to explain how this article puts most of the blame on Bush for waterboarding. But I won’t hold my breath.

EDIT: pun not intended, but lol...

I fail to see how what the article said is any different from what Deku said.

If your boss allows you to steal from the company and it can be proven he allowed it to happen can be put in prison for it.

Yeah that’s true. But this wasn’t in your original question to me.

Okay... but you just admited that under the law a boss is resposible for the actions of his employees and if that boss supports or fails to punish an employee breaking the law then the boss is guilty of a crime. That's exactly what is happening here. Bush has not only failed to punish the people waterboarding but has threatened to veto a bill banning waterboarding. He is guilty of a war crime.

He deserves to be tried for war crimes and executed for this.

Now this IMO is VERY excessive, and completely untrue. No one ever died by water boarding, so I don’t see how anyone could be executed for this. Not to mention, if ANYONE would be more to blame, it would be the individuals who actually performed the actions. Even if Bush does support water boarding, that does not mean he would approve the murder of anyone.

Moreover, I somehow doubt that anyone will EVER be executed for the death of a WAR criminal, non-US citizen, and terrorist.

Do you know how many Nazi's were executed with water boarding on the list of war crimes committed? Water boarding is considered torture and thus considered a war crime. And people who commit war crimes, especially ones as heinous as torture deserve to be tried and executed.

The law itself is fucked up in that the executive and legislative branches are telling the judicial branch what they can and can't hear trials on. That is unconstitutional.

Well first of all that’s a new argument, but okay. Also I don’t think it’s unconstitutional...

Then you have obviously never read the constitution.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...

The judicial branch has the power to review any case involving any treaty signed including the Geneva conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. Both of which were broken when the president decided it was okay to water board.

If you aren't charged with a crime and held indefinitely that's unconstitutional.

Only for US citizens... That’s for whom the constitution was written. You know, “we the people”?

Wrong! We the people does not mean citizens.

Does the Constitution apply to non-citizens?
The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all "persons," not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association. These basic principles generally apply regardless of an immigrant's legal status, and the ACLU believes that immigration status should be irrelevant to the application of these essential constitutional safeguards.

As long as you are a human being you are given all the same constitutional rights with exception to the ones specifically labeled for citizens such as the right to vote or the right to run for and hold several public offices. Every other right applies to everyone. The only thing that doesn't require a trial is if an illegal alien is outed as an illegal alien. Because that is not a criminal issue. They don't get thrown in jail they get deported. However if an illegal alien committed a crime they would be tried like any US citizen. They also have free speech, and freedom from having their homes and personal property searched without a warrant.

What history book were you reading? When was democracy spread to America by force? We separated from England by force but no one came to us with a gun to our heads and said BECOME A DEMOCRACY OR DIE!

The stuff of which I speak is tread lightly around in American books, but if you know your history, which I am sure you do, you will know this. We took over this land by force, killing, maiming, or exiling anyone who refused to follow our new laws.

We used force to become independent. Not to become a democracy. We could have become another monarchy or some other form of tyranny. We CHOSE democracy by free will. There is a HUGE difference between our people rising up against the king and taking the land by force and say, if france came in and took us away from england by force and said you're a democracy now. That would only lead us to be pissed at france for pushing change on us we weren't ready for.

Democracy can only be born by the people. It cannot be forced upon the people by a foreign entity.

We became democratic by example and not by bullets.

Define ‘We’, if you will.

The American Colonists

That's not the same as someone coming into your country and saying "You must become democratic or you will be killed at our hands"

This happened here in the United States. And we now have one of the most successful democratic systems in the world. Just wanted to point that out.

What are you on about Keaton? Again what history books are you reading that say someone came into our country and took it over and said we have to be a democracy. No one came into our country. We took over the land we had been living in for 200 years. We were not taken over by a foreign entity.

[KeatonKitsune]

I fail to see how what the article said is any different from what Deku said.

Well look at the bolded part carefully. The article states that the White House is threatening a veto, but then Deku says the White House is willing to pass the ban.

Bush has not only failed to punish the people waterboarding but has threatened to veto a bill banning waterboarding. He is guilty of a war crime.

While you and I may feel waterboarding is torture, it apparently is not illegal in the eyes of the government, and therefore not a crime. The simple fact that they’re trying to put a ban on it shows that it’s not considered illegal. Unethical, and worthy of a ban, maybe.

Do you know how many Nazi's were executed with water boarding on the list of war crimes committed?

No. How many?

Water boarding is considered torture and thus considered a war crime.

Is it?

Again, many people who have used and are against the tactic agree that it’s not torture, but simply unnecessary, and ineffective. While we here believe it’s torture, not everyone agrees with us.

The judicial branch has the power to review any case involving any treaty signed including the Geneva conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. Both of which were broken when the president decided it was okay to water board.

Once again, two main flaws exist with this argument, both of which I have pointed out before.

1.   As you’ve pointed out, they’re being held without a case, so this negates the above quote being applicable here.
2.   Waterboarding’s torture status is still up in the air.

As long as you are a human being you are given all the same constitutional rights

Actually, even in the quote above, it mentions that you still have to be WITHIN the United States.

So while I may be mistaken on that, you are wrong as well.

There is a HUGE difference between our people rising up against the king and taking the land by force and say, if france came in and took us away from england by force and said you're a democracy now. That would only lead us to be pissed at france for pushing change on us we weren't ready for.

You’re so tuned to the American history books that you’re missing the point.

We came to this continent and converted, by force, any and all indigenous life here to our way of society; democracy. You seem to forget all the native American and Mexican peoples we forced to exist as a democracy or die resisting it.

It HAS happened, despite how much you want to forget about it.

The American Colonists

I hope you realize by now, if nothing else, from my last comment, that the scope of peoples incorporated into our democracy extends much farther than the American colonists. Indigenous people, as well as the many slaves we had delivered to us also must be counted in this “We”.

No one came into our country.

You said it best. The American Colonists did.

[Twilight Wolf]

I fail to see how what the article said is any different from what Deku said.

Well look at the bolded part carefully. The article states that the White House is threatening a veto, but then Deku says the White House is willing to pass the ban.

Sorry, have to clear some confusion.  Let's examine this closely.

The 222-199 vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President George W. Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.

Now Deku.

The House is willing to pass the ban on waterboarding but Bush has threatened veto.

He means the House of Representatives, not the White House.

Again, many people who have used and are against the tactic agree that it’s not torture, but simply unnecessary, and ineffective. While we here believe it’s torture, not everyone agrees with us.

Fair enough.  I can buy that.  Let us take a look at the Geneva Convention for a second.

: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Surely waterboarding is a form of coercion.  Or at the very least unpleasant disadvantageous treatment of a kind.  Perhaps we get around that by not calling them prisoners of war?  Let's examine the definition of a prisoner of war/

"militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

Btw, the above were taken from wikipedia.

It is a dicey definition.  Arguably, the resistance in Iraq are militias and organized.  They could have a recognizable sign, I suppose.  As for the last one...that is up to interpretation.  The resistance is doing pretty much the modern equivalent of what America did to gain its independence from Britain (guerilla tactics, attacking innocent people [As I recall, some people who wished to remain loyal to Britain were attacked], etc.)

So, as to whether or not the United States is breaking a convention, it depends on your interpretation.  I personally think that we are breaking the convention, but that could just be me.  After all, everyone deserves to be treated humanely.

We came to this continent and converted, by force, any and all indigenous life here to our way of society; democracy. You seem to forget all the native American and Mexican peoples we forced to exist as a democracy or die resisting it.

Ummm...not always.  The Native Americans we pretty much told "get out of our land" (read trail of tears).  And both wars (the war with Florida and Mexico) were fought over land, not over forcing them to become a democracy. 

In regards to the overall topic itself of forcing people to adapt to our way of life, I will concede that it has worked in the past in some cases.  However, not always, as you should be willing to concede as well.  You should also be willing to concede that just because it can work does not make it right (The join us or die mentality.  That in itself is a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy.)

Okay... but you just admited that under the law a boss is resposible for the actions of his employees and if that boss supports or fails to punish an employee breaking the law then the boss is guilty of a crime. That's exactly what is happening here. Bush has not only failed to punish the people waterboarding but has threatened to veto a bill banning waterboarding. He is guilty of a war crime.

Easy there.  I agree with the logic that a boss is responsible for the actions of his employees.  (Yes, I said his and not his or her.  That is beside the point.)  Again, with the above logic, it depends on whether or not you interpret the resistance as prisoners of war.  I think they are, so, in theory, Bush could be convicted of a war crime.  However, the United States believes these people as "enemy combatants" and as such, to my understanding, do not fall under the guidelines of the geneva conventions. 

He could be convicted of one, depending upon your interpretation of waterboarding. 

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If waterboarding falls into any of those categories, than the CIA Director, as far as I understand, committed a war crime in that he broke a law of war.  Wikipedia saws one of the sources for the laws of war are international humanitarian law, a category into which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights certainly falls.

As for whether or not waterboarding itself is torture...

Waterboarding, when used against people captured in the context of war, may also amount to a war crime as defined under the federal war crimes statute 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in international armed conflicts), and violations of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions (in non-international armed conflicts). Waterboarding is also an assault, and thus violates the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113, when it occurs in the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” a jurisdictional area which includes government installations overseas. In cases involving the U.S. armed forces, waterboarding also amounts to assault, and cruelty and maltreatment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm

It is written by several law students, so at the very least I assume that their knowledge of federal statutes is sound. 

However, it grows late, and I grow tired and cannot look up the actual statues to quote them.  Secondly, this post has probably been a bit...wandering.  Forgive me, I did not get much sleep

[KeatonKitsune]

So, as to whether or not the United States is breaking a convention, it depends on your interpretation.  I personally think that we are breaking the convention, but that could just be me.  After all, everyone deserves to be treated humanely.

I definitely agree with you. IMO, waterboarding is definitely against the treaty of the Geneva Conventions.

Ummm...not always.  The Native Americans we pretty much told "get out of our land" (read trail of tears).  And both wars (the war with Florida and Mexico) were fought over land, not over forcing them to become a democracy.

Yeah, okay, but the fact that we still have native Americans and Mexicans living here proves that we did “allow” some of them to stay, under our management.

And the wars, I believe, were at least in part because they did not initially agree to live under our rules.

In regards to the overall topic itself of forcing people to adapt to our way of life, I will concede that it has worked in the past in some cases.  However, not always, as you should be willing to concede as well.  You should also be willing to concede that just because it can work does not make it right (The join us or die mentality.  That in itself is a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy.)

Oh, you’re right, and I do agree. It’s just that when people say “NEVER EVER”, the Socrates in me comes out.

[The Tao Of Bill]

I definitely agree with you. IMO, waterboarding is definitely against the treaty of the Geneva Conventions.

And since we signed the Geneva conventions that makes George Bush and the CIA director guilty of a war crime.