[SailorMark]

Hello again, Mark:

Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.

The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. However, the writing of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.

excon

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?

[NeedKarma]

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?

Not a good example. This one is better:

A man rapes a girl. He gets two friends to testify that he was at their place at the time of the rape. Conspiracy?

[excon]

What is more important, the governments obligation to protect me or their supposed right to not have their feeling hurt?

Hello again, El and Mark:

What is more important?? The Constitution. Funny you didn't mention that.

Who needs a long drawn out argument? The facts are clear. The law is clear. We tortured people. That's a war crime. You call it something else. That's spin, cover for one's a$$, and vengeance.

What's NOT clear is what anybody is going to DO about it. I vote jail.

excon

PS> (edited) Oh yeah, I forgot. Even IF torture works, it's STILL illegal. I'm not going to say it doesn't work. Who cares? It's inhumane. It's uncivilized. It's disgusting. And, most of all, it's against the law.

[SailorMark]

Sailor Mark,

Great points. And ones that Tomder, Speechless and I have made to excon. He's wrong, his arguments are weak, he is stuck with ignoring facts in order to make his point, and he knows it. But he'll never admit it, because he can't stand to admit that Bush was right about ANYTHING. His hatred of Bush is so strong that he's willing to paint himself into a corner with his own arguments rather than accept that Bush was right about anything, especially anything having to do with the War on Terror (aka "Bush's War") that he decries so strongly.

Kudos on a well-reasoned response.

Elliot

Thank you for your vote of confidence. :)

[excon]

Thank you for your vote of confidence. :)

Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh?? It STILL ain't enough.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh??? It STILL ain't enough.

excon

That's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

[ETWolverine]

That's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

You mean as opposed to you, excon, Chou (when she was around), and Synen, trying to use "that tactic" against us?

I don't team up with anyone. I argue my own points because they are correct. If others are arguing the same points, perhaps it's because they are also correct.

I can't help it if others are intelligent and come to the same conclusions that I do. I'm just trying to work on the fools like you who don't evince that much intelligence on their own.

[excon]

A man shoots a home intruder and is arrested on murder charges. His legal team prepares for trial by discussing legal strategy. Memo is written saying they are basing their arguments on "Self-Defense." Conspiracy?

Hello again, Mark:

Ok, I guess I have to spell it out...

The writing of legal memos isn't illegal.

If you were a lawyer who wrote a memo telling your client that he can break the law, and he does, he's still guilty. You aren't. If, however, you KNEW he was breaking the law, and you wrote a memo AFTERWARDS to cover his little rear end, that's conspiracy.

I don't know if that's clear enough for you. Ought to be. It's simple enough.

I'm sure you'll find some other tangent to spout off on that has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. I'm used to the subterfuge.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Mark:

So, you need a team, huh??? It STILL ain't enough.

excon

Yeah, well, get a few more people on your side, and maybe it'll be a fair fight. Probably not, because if they agree with you, they probably aren't adding too much to your side in terms of intelligence.

:cool:

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

I'm just trying to work on the fools like you who don't evince that much intelligence on their own.

Touched a nerve? Hehe. Sticks and stones...

[NeedKarma]

... because if they agree with you, they probably aren't adding too much to your side in terms of intelligence..

Look at you, you're on a roll!

[ETWolverine]

Look at you, you're on a roll!

This from the person who has the Swedish Chef as an avatar.

[NeedKarma]

This from the person who has the Swedish Chef as an avatar.

It's Beaker!Beaker - Muppet Wiki - Muppets, Sesame Street, Henson
But that argument was a really good one! Bravo!

[SailorMark]

Hello again, El and Mark:

What is more important??? The Constitution. Funny you didn't mention that.

It seems to have slipped your mind where I said

As for my personal opinion, to use waterboarding to get a confession for use in a court of law, I would consider it a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and actions to get the confession a violation of 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If it was used to extract time sensitive information needed to save lives from someone who was an unlawful combatant whom intelligence indicated a very high likelihood that they had the information, then I don't. I consider it a reasonable search and I don't afford them the 5th amendment protections either as the Geneva Conventions are clear on the issue.

Lets expand that further...

The US Constitution does not give civil rights to people who are not US citizens. The obligation of the government to protect me from terrorists is spelled out. Article I section 8 says congress has to protect me from terrorists, Article I section 9 says they can't declare something illegal after the fact.

Article II, section 2 says the President may require the opinion (read "memo") concerning anything he has oversight on in order to perform his duties. He is also the one in charge of the military that the congress is required to provide in order to take on the terrorists.

Article III, section 3 says that by trying to impart civil rights unto a terrorist in order to protect them from our government is itself a treasonous act.

Article IV section 2 says if they are not already US citizens then they do not have all the rights conferred by the Constitution.

Article IV section 4 says that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government and the federal government has to protect it from invasion (again, terrorists coming here or even planning on coming here to commit acts of terrorism is bad and the government is supposed to take care of the problem for me).

Amendment 9 says that my rights under this Constitution are not surrendered because you want to (treasonously?) give the unlawful combatants civil rights under the it also.


Game, set, and match, have a nice day! :cool:

[SailorMark]

That's been the tactic on this board since they got here.

Thanks for proving your point. Its okay for you and not for me. Liberal elitism at its finest.

[excon]

Hello again, Mark:

The United States of America is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture from 1984, which clearly contains the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law. So, if under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a government official - whether it's a high official or a low official or a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That isn't just the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention

The Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is of course also a signatory, also provides that all contracting parties will bring before its courts any individuals or government officials who have committed breaches of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions.

Does Geneva also provide or impose a legal obligation on the United States to investigate and prosecute those who may be guilty of committing war crimes? Of course,

But in my opinion, the Geneva Conventions are not the main source because I do not consider this so-called "war on terror" as an international armed conflict. This was the paradigm of President Bush in order to justify certain practices under the assumption that human rights law would not apply, but of course human rights law does apply, no matter how much you twist the law

excon

[NeedKarma]

Thanks for proving your point. Its okay for you and not for me. Liberal elitism at its finest.

Did I give excon a glowing review of his post like you did? I didn't did I.

[SailorMark]

Did I give excon a glowing review of his post like you did? I didn't did I.

I just gave someone a thank you. I gave no "glowing reviews" of a post by somebody else, just merely referred back to one because it answered the questions of legality which excon said wasn't offered yet. I don't have a long history here and was in no way using them as part of my "team" as you inferred. You did however add practically nothing substantive to the argument and simply agreed with him and gave him a little moral support. You did exactly what you said I was doing, didn't you?

[SailorMark]

The United States of America is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture from 1984, which clearly contains the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law. So, if under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a government official - whether its a high official or a low official or a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That isn't just the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention

The Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is of course also a signatory, also provides that all contracting parties will bring before its courts any individuals or government officials who have committed breaches of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions.

Does Geneva also provide or impose a legal obligation on the United States to investigate and prosecute those who may be guilty of committing war crimes? Of course,

But in my opinion, the Geneva Conventions are not the main source because I do not consider this so-called "war on terror" as an international armed conflict. This was the paradigm of President Bush in order to justify certain practices under the assumption that human rights law would not apply, but of course human rights law does apply, no matter how much you twist the law

excon

Again, OHCHR (then toture convention) which you refer to just says you can't torture but doesn't define when something is torture and when it is not. We used waterboarding to train our military to resist harsh interrogation tactics but it is not torture during the training period. The question became what exactly is torture and where to stop during questioning. This is the reason behind the memos so that they would comply with OHCHR Section 1. In addition to this, it clearly states that it doesn't apply to " pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

By applying your interpretation, serving a search warrant against somebody would violate this convention. It comes back to YOU being the one who gets to define what torture is because you don't like what was done.

[galveston]

It is such typical "liberal" thinking that wants to attach more importance to UN rules than to our US Constitution.

That is a position that I strongly feel is against my best interests.
It was difficult to get the States originally to relinquish a part of their power to a federal government. They did not trust a centeral government.

I understand that the further government gets from the populace (more layers) the less responsive it is to those governed.

Count me as one of those rednecks who want the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

Retain our sovereignty at all costs!!