 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
I think the principle of unconstitutionality is sound. |
On what basis do you say that?
quote:
That still does not mean that G. advocated torture. |
Ok, let's say that I'm a legal advisor to the President. And I keep on writing memos to him insisting that it's totally legal to create concentration camps for white folks. Then, would you really think that I'm totally ambivalent on the issue, not actually advising doing just that?
quote:
The Fed statute is unconstitutional per the memo. |
Sorry, but memos from fascist advisors to the President do not constitute the LAW. You know, the thing that attorneys general (and the rest of the executive branch) are supposed to uphold, regardless of one's position on a particular law.
quote:
The international treaties do not apply to al Qaeda. |
Why do the Conventions Against Torture not apply to al-Qaeda? Please explain that.
quote:
The memo seeks to define what torture is and what it isn't. It does not advocate the use of torture. That is propaganda. |
No, the memo says that any form of torture is totally legal, that the specific prohibitions by Congress on torture are totally irrelevent. It shows a total disregard for how government works, or it shows a total lack of humanity. So which is it, is your boy a ****wit or a torturer?
Last edited by Ramo on 07-02-2005 at 08:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
Not 'torture' or 'pain' but Ned's information retrieval service:
"
Refinements of Penal Cruelty.--Tortures for different Purposes.--Water, Screw-boards, and the Rack.--The Executioner.--Female Executioners.--Tortures.--Amende Honorable.--Torture of Fire, Real and Feigned.
--Auto-da-fe.--Red-hot Brazier or Basin.--Beheading.--Quartering.--Wheel.--Garotte.--Hanging.--The
Whip.--The Pillory.--The Arquebuse.--Tickling.--Flaying.--Drowning.--Imprisonment.--Regulations of Prisons.--The Iron Cage.--The Leads of Venice.
"It is very sad," says the learned M. de Villegille, "to observe the infinite variety of tortures which have existed since the beginning of the world. It is, in fact, difficult to realise the amount of ingenuity exercised by men in inventing new tortures, in order to give themselves the satisfaction of seeing their fellow-creatures agonizing in the most awful sufferings."
In entering upon the subject of ancient modes of punishment, we must first speak of the torture, which, according to the received phrase, might be either previous or preparatory: previous, when it consisted of a
torture which the condemned had to endure previous to capital punishment; and preparatory, when it was applied in order to elicit from the culprit an avowal of his crime, or of that of his accomplices. It was also called
ordinary, or extraordinary, according to the duration or violence withwhich it was inflicted.
In some cases the torture lasted five or six consecutive hours; in others, it rarely exceeded an hour.
Hippolyte de Marsillis, the learned and venerable jurisconsult of Bologna, who lived at the beginning of the fifteenth century, mentions fourteen ways of inflicting torture.
The compression of the limbs by special instruments,or by ropes only; injection of water, vinegar, or oil, into the body of the accused; application of hot pitch, and starvation, were the processes most in use.
Other means, which were more or less applied according to the fancy of the magistrate and the tormentor or executioner, were remarkable for their singular atrocities. For instance, placing hot eggs under the arm-pits; introducing dice between the skin and flesh; tying lighted candles to the fingers, so that they might be consumed simultaneously with the wax; letting water trickle drop by drop from a great height on the
stomach; and also the custom, which was, according to writers on criminal matters, an indescribable torture, of watering the feet with salt water and allowing goats to lick them. However, every country had special customs as to the manner of applying torture. "
So it's taken a while for U.S. to catch up with Old Europe, but isn't gratifying to see the speed with which it's doing so?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Yes, Ted should be ashamed, it wasn't us who have been supporting torture and arbitrary detentions, destroying the Bill of Rights, undermining Judicial and Congressional review; it's you and the rest of the authoritarian right.
Incidentally, recent column from Herbert:
quote:
"During the whole time we were at Guantánamo," said Shafiq Rasul, "we were at a high level of fear. When we first got there the level was sky-high. At the beginning we were terrified that we might be killed at any minute. The guards would say to us, 'We could kill you at any time.' They would say, 'The world doesn't know you're here. Nobody knows you're here. All they know is that you're missing, and we could kill you and no one would know.' "
The horror stories from the scandalous interrogation camp that the United States is operating at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are coming to light with increased frequency. At some point the whole shameful tale of this exercise in extreme human degradation will be told. For the time being we have to piece together what we can from a variety of accounts that have escaped the government's obsessively reinforced barriers of secrecy.
We know that people were kept in cells that in some cases were the equivalent of animal cages, and that some detainees, disoriented and despairing, have been shackled like slaves and left to soil themselves with their own urine and feces. Detainees are frequently kicked, punched, beaten and sexually humiliated. Extremely long periods of psychologically damaging isolation are routine.
This is all being done in the name of fighting terror. But the best evidence seems to show that many of the people rounded up and dumped without formal charges into Guantánamo had nothing to do with terror. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to get caught in one of Uncle Sam's depressingly indiscriminate sweeps. Which is what happened to Shafiq Rasul, who was released from Guantánamo about a year ago. His story is instructive, and has not been told widely enough.
Mr. Rasul was one of three young men, all friends, from the British town of Tipton who were among thousands of people seized in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. They had been there, he said, to distribute food and medical supplies to impoverished Afghans.
The three were interviewed soon after their release by Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been in the forefront of efforts to secure legal representation for Guantánamo detainees.
Under extreme duress at Guantánamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. They also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden. The tape had been made in August 2000.
For the better part of two years, Mr. Rasul and his friends, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, had denied involvement in any terror activity whatsoever. But Mr. Rasul said they eventually succumbed to long months of physical and psychological abuse. Mr. Rasul had been held in isolation for several weeks (his second sustained period of isolation) when an interrogator showed him the video of bin Laden. He said she told him: "I've put detainees here in isolation for 12 months and eventually they've broken. You might as well admit it now."
"I could not bear another day of isolation, let alone the prospect of another year," said Mr. Rasul. He confessed.
The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody.
Mr. Rasul has said many times that he and his friends were freed only because their alibis were corroborated. But they continue to worry about the many other Guantánamo detainees who may be innocent but have no way of proving it.
The Bush administration has turned Guantánamo into a place that is devoid of due process and the rule of law. It's a place where human beings can be imprisoned for life without being charged or tried, without ever seeing a lawyer, and without having their cases reviewed by a court. Congress and the courts should be uprooting this evil practice, but freedom and justice in the United States are on a post-9/11 downhill slide.
So we are stuck for the time being with the disgrace of Guantánamo, which will forever be a stain on the history of the United States, like the internment of the Japanese in World War II |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/7herbert.html
Last edited by Ramo on 08-02-2005 at 01:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
I support it also. I like the one were they strap you to a table, put a glass bowel on your stomach with a rat inside. apply blow torch and let the rat dig down into your gut. sounds cool!!!! that would make you talk.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
1. Your boy Albertorquemada Gonzales has tacit advocated torture.
2. Being a humanitarian worker in Afghanistan, like Rasul mentioned above, does not mean you have fought against the US. Detention is largely arbitrary.
3. Any citizen is protected by the Bill of Rights. Including folks like Hamdi, in contrast to the opinion of Speedy Confession Gonzales.
4. The Courts can review the Gitmo situation only because folks in the Center for Constitutional Rights strongly opposed totalitarians in the DoJ like Gonzales, and beat them in SCOTUS after three years of strong opposition.
Why do you hate freedom so much, Ned? |
Let's focus on 3. You limited the Bill of Rights to citizens. I assume, therefor, that your would contend that we have to give every "citizen" who is captured on the battlefield a "trial by jury" in which a prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man was an enemy combatant, and that if we did not, we'd have to release the detainee to again take up arms against the US?
BTW, I have heard it contended by the left that every detainee has a right to such a trial by jury. You don't go so far, do you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Let's focus on 3. You limited the Bill of Rights to citizens. I assume, therefor, that your would contend that we have to give every "citizen" who is captured on the battlefield a "trial by jury" in which a prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man was an enemy combatant, and that if we did not, we'd have to release the detainee to again take up arms against the US?
BTW, I have heard it contended by the left that every detainee has a right to such a trial by jury. You don't go so far, do you? |
No, I believe every detainee has the right to due process, regardless of citizenship. I mentioned citizenship because it was a weaker claim, and thus easier to prove - I don't want you to go off onto an irrelevent tangeant, so you could skirt the issues.
As to your specific question, yes, I do believe so. Just as if you were arrested for, say, murder, I would support your right to due process, and risk the possibility that you would murder again. Because I believe in freedom. Even for right-wing nutjobs.
But perhaps you could move on to your bizarre ideas of the Commander-in-Chiefs war-time powers', how he could ignore a specific law by Congress and signed by a President prohibiting torture, and how he could ignore a treaty passed by the Senate and signed by a President, and when the courts have not declared these laws and treaties unconstitutional. And how an attorney general, who is supposed to uphold the law, regardless of his opinions toward it, can have these ideas.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2005 06:50
Not because the fact that we've engaged in torture isn't undermining the US war on terror... nooo..
Attachment: 
|
