09-12-2004 06:52									#151
	Increase the size of your Attachments

People who believe that detainees ought to be beaten are brave.

	09-12-2004 06:53									#152
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I disagree, but you're free to your opinion.

	09-12-2004 06:56									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Traitor.

	09-12-2004 07:03									#154
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm at a loss for words over this.

	09-12-2004 07:10									#155
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd If it's gaining information by method of causing mental anguish, the goal is still to cause mental anguish.

If I'm threatening to kill a person if they're escaping, am I trying to use mental anguish to prevent them from escaping?

	09-12-2004 07:11									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

YES

THERE! I SAID IT

now for the love of god please please stop

	09-12-2004 07:13									#157
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Then you're absurd.

	09-12-2004 07:14									#158
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I told myself; "Take it easy Mario"

	09-12-2004 07:35									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

In fact, the federal government is currently inflicting mental anguish upon all Americans, with the death penalty for murder.

	09-12-2004 07:59									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Because any bastardization of the law that you pull out of your arse is definitely legitimate.

Not only do your examples clearly not follow from the text of the law, there is far more to laws than their text; common law, court decisions, etc. flesh out exactly what laws mean. The First Amendment, for instance, doesn't mean that laws against slander, shouting fire in a theatre, etc. are prohibited.

	09-12-2004 08:34									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If a law's rational enforcement is dependent on interpretation by the courts, it's a shitty law.

	09-12-2004 08:40									#162
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Who said it's dependent on the courts? You're just making **** up about it.

Is the First Amendment a shitty law? Having the courts and common law as a basis for new law is necessary, otherwise laws would be insanely long.

	09-12-2004 09:07									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Who said it's dependent on the courts?

You. A literal interpretation of the law supports me.

quote: Is the First Amendment a shitty law?

Very much so. It's so vague and ambiguous that basically all of our constitutional rights that supposedly derive from it have been pretty much made up by the courts.

	09-12-2004 09:15									#164
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: You.

I said that where? I offered the possibility. I said that I'm no expert on the terror laws, so can't offer a definitive answer.

quote: A literal interpretation of the law supports me.

No, it doesn't. As I said, you're ignoring the pre-condition.

quote: Very much so. It's so vague and ambiguous that basically all of our constitutional rights that supposedly derive from it have been pretty much made up by the courts.

No, the 1st Amendment is literally clear-cut.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And again:
"Having the courts and common law as a basis for new law is necessary, otherwise laws would be insanely long."

	09-12-2004 09:31									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: No, the 1st Amendment is literally clear-cut. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice how none of that is actually true? Congress has made plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, and the Courts have signed off on them. Almost none of the Constitution is taken literally; if it were, the government would be virtually nonfunctional.

And our laws are insanely long - but it's hidden by the fact that all of that length is in the court interpretations of law.

	09-12-2004 09:37									#166
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Notice how none of that is actually true? Congress has made plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, and the Courts have signed off on them. Almost none of the Constitution is taken literally; if it were, the government would be virtually nonfunctional.

Own goal.

And that it isn't taken literally without context in no way makes it a bad law.

quote: And our laws are insanely long - but it's hidden by the fact that all of that length is in the court interpretations of law.

Again, own goal. Congress can't possibly come up with every extenuating circumstance regarding a law (as with this anti-torture law). So when there's a dispute, it goes through the court system. That's how the system works.

	09-12-2004 10:41									#167
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The funniest thing is that the when ratifying the UN Covention Against Torture, the US EXPANDED the definition to including using truth serum as torture under US law.

	09-12-2004 11:12									#168
	Suffering from ads?

A lot of things that United States does, is "funny."

	09-12-2004 11:20									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Notice how none of that is actually true? Congress has made plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, and the Courts have signed off on them. Almost none of the Constitution is taken literally; if it were, the government would be virtually nonfunctional. Own goal. And that it isn't taken literally without context in no way makes it a bad law.

That it must be "interpreted" (what it really means is the Justices make **** up that's clearly not there) makes it a pretty awful law.

quote: And our laws are insanely long - but it's hidden by the fact that all of that length is in the court interpretations of law.

quote: Again, own goal. Congress can't possibly come up with every extenuating circumstance regarding a law (as with this anti-torture law). So when there's a dispute, it goes through the court system. That's how the system works.

No, the idea is that the legislating body is supposed to make the law, not the judiciary. As it is, the judiciary makes **** up because the legislature can't get it's stuff together and right stuff that isn't completely ambiguous or insane.

	09-12-2004 13:48									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wow, it's been a long time since I saw the torture-loving right get so soundly whipped in an argument

	09-12-2004 13:54									#171
	Got spare money?

Yeah, it's usually the torture loving left that gets pwned.

	09-12-2004 16:39									#172
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: That it must be "interpreted" (what it really means is the Justices make **** up that's clearly not there) makes it a pretty awful law.

Not really. In the case of the 1st Amendment, most of the exceptions (i.e. slander) have its origins clearly in common law.

quote: No, the idea is that the legislating body is supposed to make the law, not the judiciary. As it is, the judiciary makes **** up because the legislature can't get it's stuff together and right stuff that isn't completely ambiguous or insane.

Why do you keep repeating the same things? What you suggest simply isn't a practical idea. Writing in every single exception to a law isn't going to work. Ever. Period.

Anyways, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Anti-Torture Statute.

	09-12-2004 22:00									#173
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Wow, it's been a long time since I saw the torture-loving right get so soundly whipped in an argument

To be fair, I don't think any right-wingers here has shown themselves to be a fan of torture. Instead, almost inevitably, some have shown that they don't think the US ever tortures people, and if anyone provides evidence that it has been going on, will decide that the evidence is definitely wrong, or that what it shows isn't really torture. Quite why people find it so hard to accept that the US may be torturing a bunch of possibly the most hated people they've faced in decades, when they've done it before with similar captives, and when the government does its damned best to keep the captives in a legal limbo where they could be "legally" tortured, is a bit of a mystery to me.