So Begins the Castration of the great US of A

[Snakebit.]

Why not protest if you don't like someone policies ? Or have America forgot how to protest ?

Watched a good movie on the topic lately . http://www.supernovatube.com/play.php?viewkey=832726ec7f2e16ecd76c

[Spekkio]

The purpose of this post is merely to fact check some of the inane babble going on in this thread (I bet I could find more, but I could only skim through some of it):

1. Papa, America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. To claim that it is tearing the country apart shows a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy behind the creation of our government.

2. Papa, not every prisoner in GTMO was captured on a battlefield. In fact, some of the prisoners are U.S. citizens being denied Constitutional rights. To suggest that we should "skip this step" (referring to elminating due process) in order to "save lives" is illegal, contrary to our country's principles, and extremely dangerous.

3. Ion, the Constitution says nothing regarding whether these rights ought to extend to foreign citizens, enemy combatants, or POWs. In addition, a lot of the debate surrounding what to do with them arises from how we should classify the prisoners in GTMO. Up until the recent "war on terror," we have always fought battles against an enemy with a distinct organization comprised of identifiable members. Since a "terrorist" is not limited to one person, group, or organization, it creates a whole gray area which we have never dealt with before.

4. @All, the truth is, none of us know how prisoners at GTMO are treated (and if we did, we wouldn't be able to talk about it). To claim that they are or are not tortured is purely speculation.

5. Snakebit, Bush did not amend the Constitution. The President actually has no say in Constitutional amendments; they are drawn up by Congress, must be approved by a 2/3 vote in both houses, and must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Alternatively, the states can call a Constitutional Convention and draw up the amendment themselves with a 2/3 vote; however, none of the 27 amendments have been adopted in such a way.

6. Kebab, there has never been, nor is there now, an "American Empire;" therefore, it is impossible for one to have fallen.

7. Kebab, a low dollar is a good thing for domestic businesses. Of course foreign countries' presses (ie, Austria) are going to complain about such a thing due to their inability to compete in such a market.

8. Kebab, unemployment in Dec, 2008 was 7.2%, which is not higher than it has been in the "last sever [sic] decades." In fact, you only need to go back to 1993 to find unemployment being higher.

9. Kebab, we are in a recession, but the economy is not "falling apart." In fact, we are fairing much better in this period than most of western Europe.

10. Kebab, I can assure you that Hadjib in Iraq does not give two shits about any civil war in South America or Africa, and certainly not enough to blow himself up over it. It also doesn't help your argument that the vast majority of South America is Roman Catholic, which Islamic terrorists tend to disdain. Your claim that Islamic terrorism is arising from U.S. gov't manipulation in these regions is not only unsupported, but also completely illogical.

[Dux]

@Papa Skull:
Waterboarding is alright but torture isn't?  First of all, waterboarding is torture.  Secondly, you seem to be making a utilitarian argument: Waterboarding is permissible because it saves lives, thus helping more than hurting.  Why, then, isn't torture allowed?  If torture saves lives, why shouldn't we employ it?  Really, who cares if some terrorist gets tortured?

If there's anything wrong with America, it's people like you. 

[Westfall]

@Papa Skull:
Waterboarding is alright but torture isn't?  First of all, waterboarding is torture.  Secondly, you seem to be making a utilitarian argument: Waterboarding is permissible because it saves lives, thus helping more than hurting.  Why, then, isn't torture allowed?  If torture saves lives, why shouldn't we employ it?  Really, who cares of some terrorist gets tortured?

If there's anything wrong with America, it's people like you. 

ding ding ding.

[Roberto1223]

dude papa. waterboarding is toture i already tried to explain why just by using definitions, i cannot make it more simple than that sorry man.

one day you'll get it though.

[Snakebit.]

Spekkio . You might have misunderstood me a bit . I wasn't referring to the way , how those amendments were adapted . I was trying to say that at the least it is not bad that he is trying to fight terrorism by external and INTERNAL means. Yes i agree that he skipped normal legeslative procedure but in my opinion that was a good thing to do. It would take more time to pass those laws a lot more probably + i am not sure that they would pass in the congress .

Sometimes doing the right thing in politics / law somehow goes against the things that people want.
One of those examples that there is no state religion nowadays .We have free religion .
If the state says we are Orthodox Christians than the rest groups will feel unhappy about it and will probably protest and other way around . Sometimes to solve a problem you need to go against 'what the people want' because what people want is not ALWAYS correct.

Same goes about your ex president Klinton . He had used a lot of money to try to kill Bin Laden , he got close to it but didn't . A lot of his advisors  criticized him for that but now we can see that it would be a lot better if he had actually spend more money and killed Bin Laden.

Those laws in the long run will probably prevent another 9/11 accident .

[MR.Mic]

America is a civilized country.
Civilized countries should never use torture.

[Farley4Fan]

The purpose of this post is merely to fact check some of the inane babble going on in this thread (I bet I could find more, but I could only skim through some of it):

1. Papa, America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. To claim that it is tearing the country apart shows a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy behind the creation of our government.

Old Liberalism =/=  Current Liberalism

Current liberalism is pushing for gigantic government lately, it's like they've got socialistic dreams in their back pockets.  It's not exactly tearing the country apart, but it is a disease, and is currently NOT what America stands for.

2. Papa, not every prisoner in GTMO was captured on a battlefield. In fact, some of the prisoners are U.S. citizens being denied Constitutional rights. To suggest that we should "skip this step" (referring to elminating due process) in order to "save lives" is illegal, contrary to our country's principles, and extremely dangerous.

Then give them trials.  I'm only suggesting skipping this step if they are not U.S. citizens AND if they ARE known terrorists.  What good would a trial do for those known terrorists with all the evidence against them and NO evidence for them?  Only reason skipping a trial would be acceptable in my opinion. 

3. Ion, the Constitution says nothing regarding whether these rights ought to extend to foreign citizens, enemy combatants, or POWs. In addition, a lot of the debate surrounding what to do with them arises from how we should classify the prisoners in GTMO. Up until the recent "war on terror," we have always fought battles against an enemy with a distinct organization comprised of identifiable members. Since a "terrorist" is not limited to one person, group, or organization, it creates a whole gray area which we have never dealt with before.

I agree somewhat.

4. @All, the truth is, none of us know how prisoners at GTMO are treated (and if we did, we wouldn't be able to talk about it). To claim that they are or are not tortured is purely speculation.

Only somewhat true Spek.  We do know that we are using water boarding against known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, and it has saved lives.  We have seen videos, we have heard reports, we have a good idea about what goes on and unfortunately because of this, the recently castrated America wishes to close it down.  Well, a bit more than half of it does.

5. Snakebit, Bush did not amend the Constitution. The President actually has no say in Constitutional amendments; they are drawn up by Congress, must be approved by a 2/3 vote in both houses, and must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Alternatively, the states can call a Constitutional Convention and draw up the amendment themselves with a 2/3 vote; however, none of the 27 amendments have been adopted in such a way.


6. Kebab, there has never been, nor is there now, an "American Empire;" therefore, it is impossible for one to have fallen.

Agree.

7. Kebab, a low dollar is a good thing for domestic businesses. Of course foreign countries' presses (ie, Austria) are going to complain about such a thing due to their inability to compete in such a market.

The dollar will rebound eventually.

8. Kebab, unemployment in Dec, 2008 was 7.2%, which is not higher than it has been in the "last sever [sic] decades." In fact, you only need to go back to 1993 to find unemployment being higher.

9. Kebab, we are in a recession, but the economy is not "falling apart." In fact, we are fairing much better in this period than most of western Europe.

Often overlooked.  This is a world wide recession, which the world will recover from.  To pin ALL of this on the former U.S. prez is next to crazy.

10. Kebab, I can assure you that Hadjib in Iraq does not give two shits about any civil war in South America or Africa, and certainly not enough to blow himself up over it. It also doesn't help your argument that the vast majority of South America is Roman Catholic, which Islamic terrorists tend to disdain. Your claim that Islamic terrorism is arising from U.S. gov't manipulation in these regions is not only unsupported, but also completely illogical.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Oh and I don't have a lot of time these days.  If anyone's thinking I'm blowing off you're arguments then I'm not.  Feel free to quote whatever post you want me to respond to and I'll try to get back in the discussion when I can.

[Farley4Fan]

Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture?  Go with Webster not your brains I see.  What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that.  In this case, the ends justify the means.  In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil.  So, here is your choice plain and simple:

A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)

Choice is obvious.  Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives.  A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process.  Be friggin proud. 

/castration

[Snakebit.]

Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture?  Go with Webster not your brains I see.  What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that.  In this case, the ends justify the means.  In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil.  So, here is your choice plain and simple:

A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)

Choice is obvious.  Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives.  A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process.  Be friggin proud. 

/castration

Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?

Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and  Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .

[LennardF1989]

EDIT: I dont even feel like bringing back my old reply, as Papa Skull is on the loose again with his physcological warfare. If you say you shouldn't torture he will come up with something like: "What if if he knows where your loved one is whoes got kidnapped but won't say a thing".

[Westfall]

I know...its not worth it.

[Spark Mandriller]

Feel free to quote whatever post you want me to respond to and I'll try to get back in the discussion when I can.

Why would anyone want you to post more?

[Spekkio]

Spekkio . You might have misunderstood me a bit . I wasn't referring to the way , how those amendments were adapted . I was trying to say that at the least it is not bad that he is trying to fight terrorism by external and INTERNAL means. Yes i agree that he skipped normal legeslative procedure but in my opinion that was a good thing to do. It would take more time to pass those laws a lot more probably + i am not sure that they would pass in the congress .

I don't know if this is a language barrier at work, but the President cannot make laws, either. That is solely Congress's job. The President has the option to veto new laws, but Congress can then override said veto with a 2/3 majority.

Old Liberalism =/=  Current Liberalism

Current liberalism is pushing for gigantic government lately, it's like they've got socialistic dreams in their back pockets.  It's not exactly tearing the country apart, but it is a disease, and is currently NOT what America stands for.

The definition of liberal is not a socialist. You should take more care to use words that mean what you intend to state.

Then give them trials.  I'm only suggesting skipping this step if they are not U.S. citizens AND if they ARE known terrorists.  What good would a trial do for those known terrorists with all the evidence against them and NO evidence for them?  Only reason skipping a trial would be acceptable in my opinion.

How does one become a "known terrorist?" Who decides this?

Only somewhat true Spek.  We do know that we are using water boarding against known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, and it has saved lives.  We have seen videos, we have heard reports, we have a good idea about what goes on and unfortunately because of this, the recently castrated America wishes to close it down.  Well, a bit more than half of it does.

Whether or not waterboarding is torture is debatable, and I have not seen any confirmed reports of waterboarding saving lives. I'm not saying it has happened one way or the other, mind you. It's just simply not made public, which was my original point.

[Farley4Fan]

Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture?  Go with Webster not your brains I see.  What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that.  In this case, the ends justify the means.  In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil.  So, here is your choice plain and simple:

A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)

Choice is obvious.  Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives.  A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process.  Be friggin proud. 

/castration

Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?

I'm not the one that decides that.  You know, there are people in gitmo that we KNOW (For sure, like a fact) are terrorists, KNOWN terrorists.  Don't get this idea in your head that we are stupid and don't have ways of knowing who had/has plans to engage in terrorist activity.  

There is some Grade A scum in there.  Where will it go?  U.S. soil?  Hope we got max security for the rest of their lives.

Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and  Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .
Where are you getting this?  Of course not.  In fact some of the detainees were u.s. citizens, and should get a trial.  All I was saying was that if we've known of this terrorist for a long time, if we have intel, video, whatever, of that person committing or helping to engage in terrorist activity, why should a trial be given?  There is no evidence for this person, and there is infinite against him/her.  That's what I mean by obvious.  They know why they are there.  The terrorists I mean.  They are going to wonder why they are let loose.  

And still no one has anything to say about the 60-70 men that returned to the battlefield?  No one?  No surprise there.

And Lennard, I only ask that question because it's a good question.  Still haven't gotten an answer.  If it's such a BS thing to ask you then why won't you say why?  It's fair.  The job of the president is to protect the people, is it not?  It's a parent's job to protect their children.  It's not unfair to say that the president has to protect the people like they are his/her children, is it?  So, I ask you, if you were president or a parent, would you use this technique of interrogation if it meant possibly saving the lives of your children/people?  If not, you are not fit to be either one.  That's what I'm saying.  If you won't do your job because you sympathize for known terrorists then you should not have that job.  Criticizing the president for doing what he deemed necessary to protect his people is ridiculous.  

Spekkio, I said that liberals have socialist ideas in their back pockets and it's what they've been pushing for lately.  It is not what they would have been pushing for originally.  That's why I'm saying that current day libs is not old day libs.