Posted on 12/10/2014 5:03:48 PM PST by Bettyprob
Texas Senator Ted Cruz is reminding Americans that no civilized nation should ever torture prisoners.
“Torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end. Civilized nations do not engage in torture and Congress has rightly acted to make absolutely clear that the United States will not engage in torture,” Cruz said during the Q-and-A portion of a speech at the Heritage Foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.and the Eighth:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The intent is simple: the Bill of Rights is not for Citizens, but for government, more specifically restraining it.
If that is true, why does the Bill of rights say that its purpose is to restrict the government, and not protect the rights of the citizens
?
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
“The definition of torture is important here.”
Correct.
And for me, waterboarding is not torture. So I’m totally okay with it.
you could not be more wrong - it is for the constraint of government, but only the AMERICAN GOVT VIS A VIS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have?
Kinda like the British during the Revolutionary War: "We fight like men, out in the open, and don't hide behind trees or hills".
Then we send our finest troops to ride the roads in Afghanistan and Iraq and get blown to kingdom come with IEDs. That also causes CONCUSSIONS! Liberals are against CONCUSSIONS in football games, but apparently it is ok with them on the roads of Afghanistan.
No, genius, read the Geneva Hague Conventions, we do it whether our enemy does or not. That said, we don’t fight stupid like the redcoats.
Your post didn’t contradict mine, was it intended to?
Cruz doesn’t just “say things”, and I doubt that this brilliant lawyer with the father who was tortured in a Cuban prison, doesn’t know exactly what he intended to say, and what he thinks about torture.
Our enemy has not/will not sign the Geneva Conventions. They do not operate by the GC. They haul out prisoners and shoot them, if the prisoners are lucky.
We are therefore not bound by the GC.
You are an advocate for fighting stupidly. You are smart, but you have been misled.
Terrorists have no rights where the eighth amendment to the Constitution is concerned, as they are not US Citizens.
Now with that said, there needs to be care by our agents in CIA not to violate the Geneva Convention on interrogation and torture. I do not believe they did that, because all that was done was submitted to attorney’s familiar with international law, and approved.
Stop playing the Democrat playbook, just because you are a Ted Cruz supporter. If we allow a right ‘charismatic’ person to do as he pleases or jump when he speaks in his/her defense, without holding that person to a conservative standard that upholds the right’s beliefs, then we are no better than those who elected Obama.
I like Cruz, but he is not the infallible one.
Obama and the Dems, who think giving the ‘Miranda rights’ to non citizens and prosecuting them as citizens, are playing games with our nations laws and creating a Constitutional Crisis to destabilize our nation.
NO TERRORIST FROM A FOREIGN NATION HAS ANY RIGHT TO THE US CONSITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS....They do, however, have the rights to the Geneva Convention protections. I do not believe our interrogations violated those.
If terrorists have rights in the Geneva Convention(s), then why even have them? I thought the point of the Conventions was to give men reasons to “behave” in wartime treatment of other armies, civilians and prisoners. There is problem if we treat terrorists like POWs, which is part of what the left is trying to do.
No uniform = No Convention
My comment is in answer to a statement by another Freeper, who thinks we committed terrorism by violating the 8th Amendment, and Foreign Terrorists have no right to US Constitution protection.
Terrorists have no protection under International Law AFAIK. I believe that they can be summarily executed on the battlefield. The live ones we have are “dead men walking.”
Should a guard from the Hanoi Hilton have observed our interrogations he would have fallen over laughing if told that we were torturing these guys. I can hear him say “That’s not torture. Let me show ya how to do it!”
The whole Senate committee’s purpose was to feed the Democrat meme about GWB.....
They gotta do something their guy really sucks.........no way they can drag Obama up, so I guess they need to drag Bush down..............while they still can.....
Didn’t happen in the Pacific......
Ah, so when the Sixth Amendment says in all criminal prosecutions
it really means if the accused is a Citizen
? Or No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
it really means no citizen
?
I suppose the Natural Born Citizen requirement doesn't apply to non-citizens either, in your model, because the Constitution's constraints only apply WRT Citizens.
(That would, in a certain way, explain why no-one has legal standing in Obama's NBC cases.)
In any case, your view of things has an absolutely terrible loophole: there are actions which the government says terminate your citizenship, if this is of unconstrained scope it could be expanded so that it is very easy to lose your citizenship and, after that, deny you all the [legal] protections you had by virtue of your citizenship.
What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have?
I'm a computer programmer; CS is one of the fields that's largely insulated from liberal bullshit
in education.
I deal with assertions and logical reasoning every day, when a parameter is said to be positive I take that to mean that it is greater than zero; likewise, when a legal document says something like no person
, congress shall pass no law restricting […]
, or no X Law shall be passed
that such actually apply.
“The article of the Geneva Convention bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs”
Who were we at war with, Iraq? We took down Sadaam Hussein, and how many of those terrorists captured were from Iraq?
A group of Terrorists known as Al Queda were captured from various nations, and although we invaded Iraq over WMDS, we were not at war with the citizens of Iraq, but Hussein and sons human rights violations.
At the same time we were dealing with the group of Terrorists who attacked us, and at that time there was no nation claiming the terrorists, nor had any nation stated they supported Al Queda.
ISIS is a state claimed caliphate; with whom we would have ‘prisoners of war’ (POWs). ISIS has declared war on us...so I am in agreement with the drone attacks....don’t take prisoners.
What we had in Bush terms were terrorists aka ‘enemy combatants’ from a group at war with us.... a separate issue from Iraq itself?
So we have no obligation under the Geneva Conventions in my opinion with groups of terrorists, although McCain and others may think so, because wasn’t the GC meant to provide for nation to nation soldier conflicts with citizens of those nations.
As part of a roaming group with no GC nation, unless we are at war with them, then what if they are operating outside of their home nations approval, then do they qualify for GC protection?
A ‘terrorists group’ declaration of war on America? That doesn’t fit in the explanation of Geneva Convention coverage does it?
Now, what will that mean for ISIS terrorists we capture? As they have declared a national Caliphate? Al Queda was not a nation, but a group, so would they qualify under GC?
This is just my opinion, however, I am not an attorney. I agree that soldiers are POWs and under the GC protection.
If they qualify for GC protection, they should have it.
If terrorist groups do not, then what’s the point of this torture report, it’s bogus?
Bush took the care to hire attorney’s familiar with international law and GC.....and they said it was legal. On what did they base it? I think something similar.
but you idiot....you are ignoring the entire template......this is written ONLY FOR CITIZENS. That’s the context.
You need to get your brain out of the left brained programming world and learn a little something about the broad view, the big picture. You’re so buried in details you’ve forgotten WTF you are even reading!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.