What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[ASPCA4EVER]

I didnt read that, some judge said they are not persons? that is very dangerous!

Page #19 post #182

Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not ‘persons’
Raw Story
A Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not “persons” according to it’s interpretation of a statute involving religious freedom

I was tossing this under the smoke screen that I had blown into the room...while you and I were having our 'COME TO JESUS MEETING'...remember!!!

LOL

 

[Pandora]

Page #19 post #182



I was tossing this under the smoke screen that I had blown into the room...while you and I were having our 'COME TO JESUS MEETING'...remember!!!

LOL

I had not noticed it, I was just looking for posts directed at me.

I do not like this "they are not persons" stuff. ROB? GEN? ANDY??

Can any of you explain this to me because I dont undersand why anyone would say they are not persons. Not Citizens sure, but persons??

 

[Pandora]

Page #19 post #182



I was tossing this under the smoke screen that I had blown into the room...while you and I were having our 'COME TO JESUS MEETING'...remember!!!

LOL

by the way,

I have met Jesus, he is great

 

[BigRob]

I had not noticed it, I was just looking for posts directed at me.

I do not like this "they are not persons" stuff. ROB? GEN? ANDY??

Can any of you explain this to me because I dont undersand why anyone would say they are not persons. Not Citizens sure, but persons??

The ruling stating they were not "persons" was in reference to a specific piece of legislation. Recognizing them as "persons" under that act would have given them basically all protections under the Constitution that they are not entitled to receive.

The whole ruling basically said they are not entitled to some Constitutional protections and has nothing to do with are they "persons" in the sense that they are human.

 

[Pandora]

The ruling stating they were not "persons" was in reference to a specific piece of legislation. Recognizing them as "persons" under that act would have given them basically all protections under the Constitution that they are not entitled to receive.

The whole ruling basically said they are not entitled to some Constitutional protections and has nothing to do with are they "persons" in the sense that they are human.

So just not Americans. Gosh I wish they said Not Americans instead of not persons. We are having enough trouble getting some people to see that the unborn and newly born are persons, and that Terri Schiavo was a person.

But thank you for the explanation.

 

[BigRob]

So just not Americans. Gosh I wish they said Not Americans instead of not persons. We are having enough trouble getting some people to see that the unborn and newly born are persons, and that Terri Schiavo was a person.

But thank you for the explanation.

Well in terms of the language in the legislation, they had to be classified as not "persons" in order to have their ruling be what they intended. Probably a poor choice of words, but had to be done.

 

[Andy]

And people wonder why I hate lawyers.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

by the way,

I have met Jesus, he is great

PSSST...did he give you the 'list of names'...you know the number of people that he plans on saving???

 

[Bunz]

OK Everyone,
I have been largely away for a few days. But I will do my best to jump back into this thread, and address the issues that have been discussed. There are several measures that I want to talk about, but due to the late hour I am going to hold off. Over the last few days I have been busy doing some spring cleaning and getting my FV ready for the season here in 6 weeks.

On a personal note, the forecast for Bristol Bay salmon is overall good, a fewer sockeye, but more Chinooks. The lower 48, SEAlaska, and Kodiak fisheries will be slighting down overall this year, which will make for a good market of the most pure and wild salmon available in the world. So gobble up wild salmon at the restaurants and especially at the grocery store(WalMart carries it) and enjoy.

(I know I have done nothing but be off topic and probably borderline spam in this post)

I will be back to respond to many posts tomorrow afternoon. Thanks so far for a good thread, and for the most part being polite and respectful and otherwise on topic. It is not to often we get a thread 200 posts in that could be described as that. So pat yourselves on the back, and I will be with you tomorrow.

 

[BigRob]

And people wonder why I hate lawyers.

Lawyers are not so bad.

 

[Dr.Who]

Generally in agreement with your post, but I would like to see the demand for the killing of gay people taken out of the Bible.

It has been. In the same way our constitution was ammended so too has the bible been expanded on dispensationaly.

First one uses a basic understanding of the Torah to see that it is a set of laws that were given to one group of Hebrews and not to all people.

Then one reads the OT to see what the purpose of the Law was.

Then one uses the NT to see that the Law has been fulfilled and "it is finished."

Should anyone tell you that gays should be killed you can easily point out that you and many others are not Jewish, that he/she has no problem cutting the grass on Saturday or eating shrimp or not killing adulterers.

Jesus paid the price, "all is permissible", the Law of Christ has replaced the Torah and we are now expected to love one another with a radical love. (The Hebrews were expected to do that before but they also had to exercise strict justice. It was a dilemma that was presented to them to force them to see that no one can follow the law. Life comes not through obedience to law but obedience to being faithful).

Radical love would require that Christians not hate those with whom they disagree but that they embrace them and do all they can to show God's love to people who are no worse than us with such dramatic intensity that they have no choice but to admit that only through God's help could one love that fully. They obviously fail very often.

Radical love would require that those who in doing what their conscience tells them is ok see that it causes their neighbor to stumble will refrain from that. If for you it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols but your neighbor has trouble eating that meat then you skip it too even at personal sacrifice. In the same way those who are attracted to same sex partners in a culture that does not accept that should ask themselves what is the most loving way to handle it. Protest and demanding ones rights have never been the bible way to handle these things in love. They obviously fail very often.

The weak changes their behavior for the sake of the strong and the strong changes their behavior for the sake of the weak. And sometimes the weak discover that they are in actuality the strong and the strong discover that they are in actuality the weak.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, fair enough. Let's start a list.

I say it's OK to lie to the prisoners, the way cops sometimes lie to suspects to get them to open up.

It's OK to play good cop, bad cop.

It's OK to keep asking the same question over and over until the suspect finally forgets what lies he already told.

OK, you add something, or attack one of mine.

I agree.

I would add that it is ok to put someone in a container with a caterpillar and to lie to them so they think is a stinging insect that just might kill them.

 

[Dr.Who]

You're entitled to your opinion. And of course there are good religious based groups out there. In fact my favorite little old Aunt is part of one small local group that does do good.

This one seem more like statistical fact than like opinion.

But the fact is on the grand scale it's ALWAYS Conservatives who love to "talk" religious values trying every single trick in the books to cut or eliminate funding for ADC, food stamps, children's healthcare, head start, homeless shelters... and the list goes on & on & on.

Maybe because it is immoral to fund these coercive programs and all those people should be helped without coercion?

Wanting to do away with those bad programs is not the same as wanting to hurt the people the programs presently enable, er I mean help.

And the Far Right radical religious wing is not only dangerous... they are unAmerican. They justify killing doctors and bombing women's clinics.

But equating holy rollers with the far radical right is just as ludicrous as equating Senator Lieberman with the Weather Underground.

And it's not hard to build up disdain for the snake oil salesmen Evangelists either. They con & bilk & drain bank accounts and often hurt people who can least afford it like the ill & elderly.

Con men disguised as religious folk are just as despicable as con men disguised as benevolent politicians.

America is a land where freedom of choice and freedom both, of and from religion is so very important.

Yep.

We see the damage to peoples lives and especially women everyday with other fanatic fundamentalist religious groups like the Taliban and say... but extreme Christians could never act like that.

BULL SH1T!!!

If they are actually followers of Christ they can't. But if they are wolves in sheeps clothing then obviously they can. I have no trouble telling the difference and I bet you don't either.

We're always just one step away from a David Koresh or a Jim Jones. And there are many more who want an American Theocracy.

There are people like that but it would be a mistake to overestimate their numbers of influence.

Well known Evangelists like the Reverend Hagee and Reverend Ron Parsley are far more dangerous to Americans individual liberties than even the overtly dangerous ones because they've already tasted power through their use of slick fear mongering pulpit telemarketing campaigns.

They are bad but government officials are far more dangerous since those sham evangelists only try to influence them but statist politicians don't need any help to influence themselves.

As a father of 2 daughters I'm perfectly fine and in full support of letting each individual woman decide what goes on inside her own body. And no one has to choose an abortion.

I am too. As long as it is not the immoral killing of a human being. Answer that question and we can easily decide what to do about abortion.

But I do know that it definitely should not up to me... or you... or the government to decide. Not only is it wrong to try a legislate that someone be a government forced incubator... it physically cannot be done.

If the alternative is to allow one to kill innocent human life then it is a no brainer. Is it killed? innocent? Human? life?

In the end it is ALWAYS totally up to the woman regardless. The only question is should we endanger women's lives by withholding safe sterile medical care.

Every person, women or man, should be given every safe sterile medical care she can buy or have donated unless it results in the avoidable death of another human life.

 

[Dr.Who]

You bring up airport restroom gay stall sex Republican Larry Craig as a justification for the attempted drowning of someone by forcing stuff down their throat... How utterly apropos...

I know it's extremely hard to run cover for Bush and be honest at the same time... but let's try.

If I come over to your house and I grab you by the hair and stuff your head in the toilet and hold you under water until you pass out and then pull you out just so you don't die... just to do it again and again and again... to get information out of you that you may or may not even have... THAT'S TORTURE PLAIN & SIMPLE no matter how slick you try to spin it my friend! I'm physically hurting you to get information.

It's no different than the Viet Cong shoving bamboo sticks up under our GI's fingernails... they didn't die from that either... still torture!

But hey talk big & bold if ya like.

Bush & Cheney are right on the cusp of being brought up on charges. Up till now President Obama has been trying to throw water on the idea and just move forward.

But I'd love for the country and the world to see the under oath testimony myself. Maybe we'll all get the chance to see a Bush/Cheney defense with all the evidence out on the table...

If you wrote that again without any of the errors and inaccuracies it would sound a whole lot less convincing.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well in terms of the language in the legislation, they had to be classified as not "persons" in order to have their ruling be what they intended. Probably a poor choice of words, but had to be done.

It's not like the government has never done anything totally ridiculous because the only other alternative would be something even more ridiculous.