Evil Genius

Slate has a great article on the history of torture in the United States. It's a quick read and worth your while.

Drop your comments here, or on my blog entry on the history of torture.

A few excerpts from the article.

Slate wrote: “Cameron isolated them in a sensory deprivation chamber. In a dark room, a patient would sit in silence with his eyes covered with goggles, prevented "from touching his body… he was restrained or bandaged so he could not scream.”

“At the most intensive stage of the treatment, many subjects were no longer able to perform even basic functions. They needed training to eat, use the toilet, or speak. Once the doctor allowed the drugs to wear off and ceased shock treatments, patients slowly relearned how to take care of themselves—and their pretreatment symptoms were said to have disappeared. So had much of their personalities. Patients emerged from Cameron's ward walking differently, talking differently, acting differently. Wives were more docile, daughters less inclined to histrionics, sons better-behaved. Most had no memory of their treatment or of their previous lives. Sometimes, they forgot they had children.”

” Since 9/11, as government documents and news reports have made clear, the CIA's experimental approach to coercive interrogation has been revived.”

Read the whole thing here.

Man that cant be fun to forget if you had any children

check this out. This is a video of Saddam's torture techniques. If you think sleep deprivation is bad, wait until you see this

p.s. it takes a while to download

http://www.lonetraveller.com/article24.html

And here is undeniable torture done by none other than Islamic terrorists...

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/daniel_p ... _2004.html

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2004/jun ... m-paul.jpg

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/kim_suni ... _2004.html

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/nick_ber ... _2004.html

And that makes it ok for us to do it? Shit, lets get the military into our elementary schools. School girls with grenades. The Viet-cong did it, so it's perfectly ok for us to do it.

Hell, Iraq once used mustard gas (gas we gave them, but whatever) on a civilian population. Why bother trying to occupy cities when we can just exterminate them like rats?

We fought the Nazis - and they rounded up political dissidents and members of religions they thought were subversive and sent them to death camps. It might be cruel, criminal, and evil - but it would cut down on terrorist attacks. Open up the gas chambers boys!

The Japanese used prisoners to experiment on and test new biological weapons which they then used in WWII. We fought them too -- and a smallpox outbreak in the Mid East would win the war on terror in a snap -- at the cost of a few billion lives - but a win.

We're the United States of America. We don't do shit like that. We're supposed to stand for democracy, liberty, justice, equality, and humanity. If we stoop to methods like torture - even if it is less overtly brutal than the methods used by our enemies, we have struck ourselves a far more serious blow than any terrorist attack ever could.

We must have a standard by which American actions are judged – and that standard must be the highest in the world. We must be beyond reproach and above suspicion.

If America no longer stands for American values - like freedom from torture - than we are no different from any other military strongman throughout human history -- and history will not care when we, like every other nation that has relied upon death and fear rather than love and loyalty, are thrown down into the dark grave of despots, warlords, and dictators.

I never said we should do it. You're imagining things again.

I simply pointed out that the people being detained are the same people who perpetrate acts like the aforeposted videos, and they are not innocent or peace-loving individuals. They are killers.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:I never said we should do it. You're imagining things again.

I simply pointed out that the people being detained are the same people who perpetrate acts like the aforeposted videos, and they are not innocent or peace-loving individuals. They are killers.

Detained? Lets call a spade a spade. The people being TORTURED, or at least some of them, did the things in the videos. Still, why would you post those videos unless it was to evoke the response that perhaps these people deserved what they got?

Who cares if they are innocent? Who cares if they are peace loving?

Don't dare accuse me of distorting your message when you know full well what that message is.

I posted a message discussing, in fairly unemotional detail, exactly what US interrogation techniques consist of. You responded with a series of links that amounted to "But these people torture people too!"

Now tell me, what possible message could that be meant to send other than "an eye for an eye." You are, explicitly or implicitly, justifying the torture of PEOPLE.

It doesn't matter if they are terrorists, war criminals, or genocidal maniacs. Torture is wrong. It is something the bad guys do. It is evil. It is un-American. It is unacceptable.

When you start suggesting that torture is bad, but it's only happening to bad people, you do so at the expense of the fundamental value that torture in and of itself is a crime against the state and against humanity.

Fine - if you want to play this game - if you really want to be the guy that defends torture, let’s see you do it.


I said torture was wrong and what we were doing was wrong.

You posted a bunch of links about how the people we are torturing did bad things and tortured people as well.

If you're not trying to say that torture is ok if it's bad people being tortured....
If you're not trying to say that what goes around comes around...
If you're not trying to defend the idea that torture is in any way acceptable or somehow made more acceptable by the failings or crimes of the person being tortured....

Then what are you saying?

What noble and high minded principal of democracy, freedom, and liberty are you championing when you point at a fellow human being who was tortured by a government that (supposedly) stands for human rights and say "but look what they did?"

I eagerly await your response.

Killfile wrote:You are, explicitly or implicitly, justifying the torture of PEOPLE.

I am not, you're imagining things yet again.

I posted a message discussing, in fairly unemotional detail, exactly what US interrogation techniques consist of. You responded with a series of links that amounted to "But these people torture people too!"

They do more than torture, they kill people simply because they believe the killing is for Allah.

It doesn't matter if they are terrorists, war criminals, or genocidal maniacs. Torture is wrong. It is something the bad guys do. It is evil. It is un-American. It is unacceptable.

I have said torture is wrong in my previous posts in other topics. Just goes to show that you do not read and/or pay attention to what I say.

You posted a bunch of links about how the people we are torturing did bad things and tortured people as well.

If you're not trying to say that torture is ok if it's bad people being tortured....
If you're not trying to say that what goes around comes around...
If you're not trying to defend the idea that torture is in any way acceptable or somehow made more acceptable by the failings or crimes of the person being tortured....

I'm saying that sleep deprivation and the playing of rap music is a far cry from having your head cut off. That being said, electrical shock or other methods of removing life or limb from these people should not be tolerated.

I just find it disheartening that you would rush to post a report on how the US tortures and completely ignore the real ENEMY of freedom, these terrorists.

The methods we are using are a long way from sleep deprivation and music. We're using electroshock, we're wrenching people's joints to the point of breaking and then shackling them to the ground like that. We're turning attack dogs loose on people.

That you're willing to trivialize that isn't actually what sets me off. I'm reading your posts, and I see you saying that you disapprove of torture. There's just no sincerity there. You say you disapprove of torture the same way I say I disapprove of wine in a box.

No - this is what tells me everything I need to know.

I just find it disheartening that you would rush to post a report on how the US tortures and completely ignore the real ENEMY of freedom, these terrorists.

You buy into the lie, hook line and sinker. Let me tell you something, and I'll make this as clear as possible. If a hundred hijackers were to run a hundred planes into the sky scrapers of this country, if a thousand suicide bombers were to attack the gatherings of friends and family around the country in these next few months... if all that were to happen, our vaunted freedom would be not be damaged one iota.

Lives would be lost, to be sure. And the souls who perished at the hands of those cold blooded murders would themselves by martyrs to freedom, but the United States would, the moment after those bombs went off and those planes crashed, be just as free as before anything happened.

The enemies of freedom are those that would take the freedoms from innocents (and many who we have tortured are innocents). In the name freedom we have invaded your rights of privacy. We have imprisoned American Citizens for having the wrong color skin or worshiping God by the wrong name. We have eliminated the right to a jury trial, eliminated the right to confront the accuser, eliminated the right to due process and equal protection.

Terrorists are not enemies of freedom. Terrorists are enemies of the state. No bomb or box cutter can take your freedom from you quite like the stroke of a pen.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the PATRIOT act, which stole from you your right to privacy and your right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, became law.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the Bush administration circumvented the checks and balances in the Constitution and created a system of military tribunals free from judicial oversight.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the Bush administration changed US policies about inhumane treatment and torture.

I find it dishartening that you're willing to defend those that have allready taken from you many of the freedoms that your ancestors, if not by blood than by politics, fought and died for.

The methods we are using are a long way from sleep deprivation and music. We're using electroshock, we're wrenching people's joints to the point of breaking and then shackling them to the ground like that. We're turning attack dogs loose on people.

That you're willing to trivialize that isn't actually what sets me off. I'm reading your posts, and I see you saying that you disapprove of torture. There's just no sincerity there. You say you disapprove of torture the same way I say I disapprove of wine in a box.

No - this is what tells me everything I need to know.

This diatribe and unthoughtful attack is nothing more than hateful political rhetoric. And besides, I see no law violating wine in a box.

If a hundred hijackers were to run a hundred planes into the sky scrapers of this country, if a thousand suicide bombers were to attack the gatherings of friends and family around the country in these next few months... if all that were to happen, our vaunted freedom would be not be damaged one iota.

This statement demonstrates the essential ignorance of the people who do not understand the enemy the world faces.

The enemies of freedom are those that would take the freedoms from innocents (and many who we have tortured are innocents). In the name freedom we have invaded your rights of privacy. We have imprisoned American Citizens for having the wrong color skin or worshiping God by the wrong name. We have eliminated the right to a jury trial, eliminated the right to confront the accuser, eliminated the right to due process and equal protection.

Again, this is hateful political diatribe that is not true and is not happening.

Terrorists are not enemies of freedom. Terrorists are enemies of the state. No bomb or box cutter can take your freedom from you quite like the stroke of a pen.

Yes, terrorists are the enemies of freedom. They want all of us to live under fundamentalist Islamic law, which would eliminate all of our rights completely.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the PATRIOT act, which stole from you your right to privacy and your right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, became law.

My rights have not been violated. I am still a free man. This also demonstrates the lunacy of the Liberal Left. No rights have been taken away. That notion is simply conjecture and made up nonsense.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the Bush administration circumvented the checks and balances in the Constitution and created a system of military tribunals free from judicial oversight.

Military tribunals have been around long before the Bush administration. Foreign terrorists who have been detained in combat do not have the same rights as US citizens, therefore, they are not eligible to be prosecuted under the Constitution in federal or state court.

It was with the stroke of a pen that the Bush administration changed US policies about inhumane treatment and torture.

From your source it seems that the inhumane treatment and torture began in the 1960s, when Bush was but a lad.

I find it dishartening that you're willing to defend those that have allready taken from you many of the freedoms that your ancestors, if not by blood than by politics, fought and died for.

I still have those freedoms. I'm not in jail or imprisoned without habeas corpus rights, so freedoms in this country are not being taken away.

It's not hatefull political diatribe. It's legitimate criticism. You seem remarkably unconcerned about the crimes the United States is prepetuating against your fellow man. Someone points out that the US military under an administration you favor is torturing people and your responce is either "Well they did it too" or "But look what they did to us." It's the kind of rational I'd expect from a 3rd grader getting caught fighting.

You seem all to willing to casually dismiss my assertions as "poltical rhetoric" so I'll cite sources (something I find that those sympathetic to your argument are remis in doing). Lets make this an argument about facts.

The EFF has obtained documents demonstrating that, even with the expanded powers of the PATRIOT act, which violate many constituional protections, the FBI still can't manage to reign itself in [source]

People like Cyrus Kar, a 44-year-old part time college professor who had been in Iraq filming a historical documentary - and a US Citizen - have been arrested in Iraq and held indefinately by US troops. This is a violation of the US constitution and a violation of your freedoms.[source]

"There are credible complaints that Arab and Muslim immigrants were beaten in federal detention...Over the six-month period that ended in June [2003], the Justice Department's inspector general found 34 complaints of rights violations that appeared credible.... Some of the charges have yet to be fully investigated. Not all the complaints concerned physical abuse." This is a violation of protections against cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of your freedoms. [source]

"In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and a convert to Islam, was arrested in connection with the March 11, 2004, Madrid bombings that left 191 people dead. He was held for two weeks as a "material witness." ... Mayfield was released after the FBI admitted his fingerprint had been mistakenly matched with one found at the scene of the Madrid attacks... the government has admitted to Mayfield that his home was searched secretly under a special court order authorized for intelligence purposes" Secret searches and racial profiling are a vioaltion of the US constitution's protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the right of habeus corpus. They are illegal under the US constitution and a violation of your freedoms. [Source]


Now then, I have explained in small words why a terrorist attack does not deprive me of my freedoms, but Bush's willingness to take rights away form anyone he deems a danger does. Your responce to this (and I'm paraphrasing) is "Nuh uh!" I bow to your superior analitical skills.

Terrorists don't want the US to live under fundamentalist islamic law. They didn't want that when Regan funded Al Queda in the 1980s and they don't want it now. They want us to leave them alone and stop sending troops to occupy their countries. Al Queda's biggest beef with the US is that we've had and CONTINUE to have troops in Saudi Arabia.

My rights have not been violated. I am still a free man.

Today you are. But the liberal left, unlike the conservitive right, understands what liberty really means. Freedom isn't just being free yourself, but making sure that others in your country are also free.

Read these words, and remember them. God willing, if the left you so dislike is victorious, they will never apply to you.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller

You're living in fantasy land if you think that anyone has had their constitutional rights violated.

And yes, it is diatribe when you compare conservatism to the Nazis as in your last quote. You're living in a dream world. You act as if people were being rounded up and thrown in jails because of the color of their skin, religion, or race. You're throwing out hyperboles to get people riled up by saying, "George Bush is violating your constitutional rights!" Again, that is a lie and a baseless invection.

I think, actually I know, you don't know what freedom is. If you had your way Saddam Hussein would still be burying thousands of Iraqi citizens in the sand of Iraq. Those people who no longer have to live under Saddam know what freedom is. You simply want social freedom where anything and everything is tolerated. That is not base for a structured and viable society.

Thank God we have a President who understands the nature of the enemy we face. I think an important fact that people often forget is that THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US. They cannot be talked to, They cannot be reasoned with. They have to be fought. If you had your way you would gut the military, and leave us more vulnerable to attack.

And this is why liberals cannot be trusted to defend our national security. Look back the Clinton and Carter years and see what miserable failures they were in defending America from attack and humiliation. In Mogadishu and Tehran we were humiliated and defeated, and those actions emboldened those who wished to do us harm. If they continue to run on a policy of weakness on national security, they will continue to lose election after election.

and bush defend us americans from 9/11? dude, bush is an idiot. have you heard some of the shit hes said on tv?

furthermore, if u read the article, this torture was done to normal citizens. they even fucked w/ the family of canadian parlament. now tell me that it wont happen to another normal citizen?

*Ahem*

Please note this is purely anecdotal.

You can no longer take pictures of hospitals from public streets (friends had their film confiscated/asked to delete the pictures by security, PATRIOT Act was cited).

You cannot take pictures of oil refineries (friend was questioned by security/police and currently has an anonymous(?) FBI record thanks to it).

You cannot take pictures of bridges (critical infrastructure, protected under PATRIOT Act).


What I find amusing about this whole debate is how you use the word "liberal." According to the dictionary, it's someone who is tolerant, progressive, open-minded, &c. Plus it shares the same root word as "liberty." So, if you're using the word "liberal" with such hate, does that mean you aren't tolerant, progressive, and open-minded and hate freedom?

This is completely off-topic (but may incite flames, so it's ok), but I have completely resigned myself to the fact that the U.S. cannot be a sane nation under its current president, nor as long as the current generation of americans which actually re-elected him still live.

lol so true. he was the only president to ever have to skip the parade to the white house the first time he was elected cos of riots. however then ppl welcomed him bak w/ open arms

ucrzymofo87 wrote:You're living in fantasy land if you think that anyone has had their constitutional rights violated.

Ok, it's time for Professor Killfile to get to work on your undereducated self so that you can understand how real research in the real world is done. Sit down and try to pay attention and you just might learn something.

When you want to make a point you do it with facts. You provide information, sources and data from reputable experts and news sources. You cite those sources, idealy with a link where possible, but at least with a name, so that those of us who might want to question your conclusions can verify the authenticity of your data.

I understand that this is hard for an ideologue to grasp.

When responding to something you disagree with, you should look first at whatever sources were cited and point out whatever flaws may exist in those sources. Then you should construct your own argument, pulling from the afforementioned reputable sources in an attempt to show that disagreement exists about a point of logic.

This sort of argument will render the counterpoints of most blithering idiots irrelevant, and they will respond with (and I'm just going to use a hypothetical example of what such an intelectual midget might say) "You're living in fantasy land."

ucrzymofo87 wrote: And yes, it is diatribe when you compare conservatism to the Nazis as in your last quote.

I'm not suggesting that people are being hauled off to death camps, but that the idea of objecting to civil infringement only when it directly affects you is short sighted. I'm comparing your point of view to that of the complacent German people who got screwed by the Nazis in the long run. No one is calling anyone a Nazi. You're not going to Godwin your way out of this.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: You're living in a dream world. You act as if people were being rounded up and thrown in jails because of the color of their skin, religion, or race.

You mean like this?
Polk County deputy was targeting Hispanics
Racial Profiling and Poor Police Work in Rhode Island
nonwhite drivers still were more than twice as likely to be searched as white drivers.
Racial profiling argument rings true
More Giants fans claim racial profiling

You're throwing out hyperboles to get people riled up by saying, "George Bush is violating your constitutional rights!" Again, that is a lie and a baseless invection.

Federal Judges have already ruled key provisions of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. This is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of "violating constitutional rights." When we say something is unconstitutional, it means that a court could (and in this case DID) overturn it for violating the US constitutional. [source]

I think, actually I know, you don't know what freedom is.

Oh, I don't know - maybe freedom includes, but is not limited to, the freedoms laid out for me in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights - many of which have been trampled upon by the Bush administration? It's a good thing I don't have a degree in history. That would mean that I've studied in great detail the evolution of the modern democratic state.... oh wait.... I -=do=- have that degree.

If you had your way Saddam Hussein would still be burying thousands of Iraqi citizens in the sand of Iraq.

Like he did when the Reagan administration was in power. Never dare accuse me of wanting to see people suffer and die just to advance your pathetic political points. The value of a human life is beyond measure. I will not abuse my power as an admin on this board, but I will not stand by and let you accuse me of complacency in crimes against humanity either.

Those people who no longer have to live under Saddam know what freedom is. You simply want social freedom where anything and everything is tolerated. That is not base for a structured and viable society.

Wow, I'm stunned. Where did that come from? Oh right, I think you called it "diatribe." Kindly take the time to find out what it is I think before putting words in my mouth. Smearing me on the basis of my personal morals which you have no knowledge of is unacceptable. To give you a taste of your own medicine, I'll begin telling lies about you. This is an example lie (remember, this is a lie): ucrzymofo87 is racist. He hates black people and wants to reinstate Jim Crowe laws. What a bastard. What kind of jerk thinks that segregation was a good idea? (Remember, that was a lie).

Thank God we have a President who understands the nature of the enemy we face.

You mean like Clinton did when he launched air strikes against Bin Laden and the right accused him of trying to distract the country from the Lewinski scandal? That kind of president?

I think an important fact that people often forget is that THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US. They cannot be talked to, They cannot be reasoned with. They have to be fought.

Textbook definition of an enemy. It's good that you're hear to tell us these things. It's not like the United States has ever fought a freaking war before.

If you had your way you would gut the military, and leave us more vulnerable to attack.

Once again, you're telling lies about me. Here's one about you. Ucrzymofo87 is a cross dressing necrophiliac. He just loves to put on his slinky red dress and four inch spike heals before heading over to the grave yard to dig up tonight’s "date" (remember, that's a lie).

And this is why liberals cannot be trusted to defend our national security. Look back the Clinton and Carter years and see what miserable failures they were in defending America from attack and humiliation.

Yea, that Clinton -- never mind that it was the smaller, quicker, faster Clinton military that allowed Rhumsfeld to deploy on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never mind that under Clinton many aspects of our military that were outmoded or no longer needed were cut away to make a more streamlined machine.

In Mogadishu and Tehran we were humiliated and defeated, and those actions emboldened those who wished to do us harm. If they continue to run on a policy of weakness on national security, they will continue to lose election after election.

I'm sure that it was Tehran and not the part where we trained and equipped Al Qaeda under Reagan that emboldened "those who wish to do us harm".

Start citing sources and get a clue. If you want to make this about Iraq we can do that and I'll continue to school you on that too. And never, ever, ever suggest that I am complacent to human death and suffering. You want to argue? That's fine. But I will not tolerate disgusting accusations like that from anyone.

Whoa, i had to log in for this one... I can't believe some of the bullshit appearing before my very eyes.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: Thank God we have a President who understands the nature of the enemy we face. I think an important fact that people often forget is that THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US. They cannot be talked to, They cannot be reasoned with. They have to be fought. If you had your way you would gut the military, and leave us more vulnerable to attack.

When is the last time you have talked to one of "these people?" When is the last time these people attempted to kill you? Can you define who "these people are?" If you are so strong in your beliefs, perhaps you should join the war effort. Sign up your siblings too.

How can you protect YOUR freedoms in someone ElSES country? I guess there is no point in speaking to those who don't have ears.

Here's a good article which demonstrates your utter ignorance and infantile revisionism A History Lesson for Killfile

Killfile wrote:I'm not suggesting that people are being hauled off to death camps, but that the idea of objecting to civil infringement only when it directly affects you is short sighted. I'm comparing your point of view to that of the complacent German people who got screwed by the Nazis in the long run. No one is calling anyone a Nazi. You're not going to Godwin your way out of this.

This is a quote from the article about detention during wartime, " The Supreme Court later held, in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), that "executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security." The high court added: "The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a 'declared war' exists." So the power to intern or deport comes into effect only when war has been declared."

Federal Judges have already ruled key provisions of the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. This is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of "violating constitutional rights." When we say something is unconstitutional, it means that a court could (and in this case DID) overturn it for violating the US constitutional. [source]

Here is more historical fact that the President has been given special powers during wartime and this country has still been able to remain free and retain her liberty...
" Prior to America's entry into the war, Congress passed laws that, collectively, authorized President Franklin D. Roosevelt to instruct the FBI to investigate suspected subversive activity.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, the Smith Act of 1940 and the Voorhis Act of 1941 were the grounds for Roosevelt's wartime domestic surveillance of American citizens whose political activity might lead them to serve the interests of opposing nations.
Attorney General Robert Jackson described the targets and responsibility of the FBI's domestic intelligence activities as involving "steady surveillance over individuals and groups within the United States ... which [are] ready to give assistance or encouragement in any form to invading or opposing ideologies." Roosevelt authorized the FBI to use wiretaps (without a warrant), surreptitious entries and "champering" (secretly intercepting and reading private mail without consent).
Between 1941 and 1943, the Justice Department's Special War Policies Unit took extensive action on the internal security front by interning thousands of enemy aliens, denaturalizing and deporting members of the German-American Bund, an American Nazi organization formed in the 1930s. The government prosecuted individuals for sedition and prohibited the mailing of some publications."

You mean like this?
Polk County deputy was targeting Hispanics
Racial Profiling and Poor Police Work in Rhode Island
nonwhite drivers still were more than twice as likely to be searched as white drivers.
Racial profiling argument rings true
More Giants fans claim racial profiling

Here is more evidence that "racial profiling" has worked in the past:
" This is true regardless of the personal innocence of particular individuals. The term we would use today is "ethnic profiling," and 200 years of American law and practice during wartime permits ethnic profiling for the common defense.
The Supreme Court upheld internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry as well as curfews and other conditions under the principle of military necessity.
The war power "extends to every matter and activity so related to war as substantially to affect its conduct and progress," Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote in the majority opinion.
The court specifically rejected the argument that if a curfew were necessary, every American citizen not just those of Japanese ancestry should have to comply. The court responded that it was not necessary to "inflict obviously needless hardship on the many."
Compare that reasoning to the practice in airport searches since September 11, where our government's policy is precisely to impose obviously needless hardship on the many. Security personnel search 80-year-old grandmothers equally with, or instead of, 23-year-old Arab men.
In essence, the court found that if there was rational support for discriminating on the basis of race, such discrimination was justified under the circumstances of a war menace."

Here is how the article closes: It is absolute gold
"Wrongly decided cases wouldn't merely expose the justices to rude comments in fashionable newspapers and magazines. Wrongly decided cases might expose the United States to disunity, sabotage, revolution or conquest.
Under such circumstances, the justices were more than prepared to let Congress give the president of the United States broad powers to defend our country. And they were unlikely to interfere with the president carrying out such powers or to second-guess the military's decisions.
The court would draw lines and preserve the essence of our freedoms. But the justices were practical men.
They understood that the broadest enforcement of every last theoretical right and privilege might well be purchased at the price of losing our most basic right: the right to effectively defend ourselves. "

Kêthêrîc wrote:Whoa, i had to log in for this one... I can't believe some of the bullshit appearing before my very eyes.



When is the last time you have talked to one of "these people?" When is the last time these people attempted to kill you? Can you define who "these people are?" If you are so strong in your beliefs, perhaps you should join the war effort. Sign up your siblings too.

How can you protect YOUR freedoms in someone ElSES country? I guess there is no point in speaking to those who don't have ears.

A great post to log in for.

I coulndt agree more there really isnt a point talking to people who dont have ears....

"These people" i wonder who these people are ? everyone that doesnt agree with the US....

ucrzymofo87 wrote:Here's a good article which demonstrates your utter ignorance and infantile revisionism A History Lesson for Killfile

You're going to cite the WASHINGTON TIMES as an example of MY revisionism? Why not the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer? Seriously, the Times is widely regarded as too far to the right to even pretend to be an impartial. Moreover, the article in question belongs in the editorial section rather than any news section. Oh wait, the author is the Editorial Page editor of the Times. Shocker. Nevertheless... if you want to raise these points I'll knock them down too.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: This is a quote from the article about detention during wartime... [snip] ... So the power to intern or deport comes into effect only when war has been declared."

ucrzymofo87 wrote: Here is more historical fact that the President has been given special powers during wartime

ucrzymofo87 wrote: The Supreme Court upheld internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry as well as curfews and other conditions under the principle of military necessity.

Seeing a pattern here? Every example you give is of the behavior of the executive DURING A DECLARED WAR. A declaration of war is a very specific and very strongly defined constitutional process. It requires that the Senate vote on such a declaration and pass it. Every example you give hinges upon the importance of the executive as the commander and chief of the US military during time of war.

Now here's the kicker. We're not at war.

Oh we're bombing people... our troops are over seas, and we've been in this state more of less constantly for the last 50 years. In order for anything you reference to have any relevance to the topic at hand, the US Senate must declare war.

And they haven't done it.

More to the point, if the Senate HAD declared war, Bush could not, under international law, categorize the people we are torturing as "enemy combatants." If the Senate had declared war, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere would be prisoners of war -- and as such would be accorded specific an inarguable protections under the Geneva convention.

The ambiguity that the Bush administration continues to capitalize on on the international stage requires that the US be at peace, while at the same time, the arguments made here at home require that the US be at war.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Either Bush and Co are war criminals, or the actions they've taken are in violation of the constitutional provisions clearly laid down in the very cases and examples you've cited.

On a historical note - the Courts tend to side with the President during a declared war. Which explains the Japanese Internment case. After the war, however, the Courts tend to try to reign in the executive, which accounts for the rulings against Lincoln after the Civil War (incidentally, also not a declared war -- but for other more complex reasons).

Killfile wrote: It requires that the Senate vote on such a declaration and pass it. Every example you give hinges upon the importance of the executive as the commander and chief of the US military during time of war.

The House of Representatives also has to declare war. I'm not sure if you didn't know that or forgot about that factor.

Seeing a pattern here? Every example you give is of the behavior of the executive DURING A DECLARED WAR

No, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, the Smith Act of 1940 and the Voorhis Act of 1941 were passed while we were NOT at war. All of these measures were passed by Congress while NO war was going on. There is no pattern as you state.

Now here's the kicker. We're not at war.

I think 150,000 American troops in Iraq might tell you otherwise.

More to the point, if the Senate HAD declared war, Bush could not, under international law, categorize the people we are torturing as "enemy combatants." If the Senate had declared war, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere would be prisoners of war -- and as such would be accorded specific an inarguable protections under the Geneva convention.

The Senate AND the House should have delcared war, but they passed the next closest thing to war delcaration: ar esolution authorizing the President to undertake military action in Iraq. source

Also, on September 14, 2001, Congress authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2011, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." source probably more credible for you Killfile

off topic, but how did bush shift the attention of going after bin laden to hussein?

Btw, I hate bush but share some beliefs with the republican party and the democratic party.

raziel wrote:off topic, but how did bush shift the attention of going after bin laden to hussein?

An excelent question - if you'd like to start a thread on the topic, please feel free and I'll try to respond (I'll even shift your post and this reply over to the topic to keep it all together).

Not to get in the way of quite an interesting arguement but I honestly want to believe Bush was voted back in simply to finish what he started. We all know he cheated the first time and perhaps the biggest opinion shared by a lot of people is that it's time for the soliders to come back which puts Bush in a no win situation either way.

I don't hate anyone but who knows? The guy probably doesn't have his own selfish agenda and is really trying hard. It's just that he's doing a terrible job.

Edit: I forgot to mention how sharp Killfire is. If I ever get into an arguement with him, I'll just have to strangle him or something before he makes me look stupid.

You're getting better at this. Good job.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: No, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, the Smith Act of 1940 and the Voorhis Act of 1941 were passed while we were NOT at war. All of these measures were passed by Congress while NO war was going on. There is no pattern as you state.

But there is - when where the acts upheld? Congress can pass a law today declaring that the official state religion of Kentucky is Shintoism... that doesn't make it constitutional.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:

Now here's the kicker. We're not at war.

I think 150,000 American troops in Iraq might tell you otherwise.

Please read my previous discussion of what is and is not "war" in the legal sense of the word. We're not at war legally, and thus the laxer restrictions on the power of the executive traditionally extended by the Court do not apply.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: The Senate AND the House should have delcared war, but they passed the next closest thing to war delcaration: a resolution authorizing the President to undertake military action in Iraq.

What you personally think the Senate and House should have done is literally of no consequence whatsoever. The inargueable fact remains that war was NOT declared.

ucrzymofo87 wrote: Also, on September 14, 2001, Congress authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2011, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Who cares? This is literally of no relevance whatsoever to any argument of any substance. All it does is waive the provisions of the War Powers Act. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act itself is questionable - so the Congress' resolution is quite literally irrelevant. It's posturing, pure and simple.

Yes, the washington post is a far more accecptable source to me - though it does have somewhat liberal leanings. Personally, I find that it bolsters my point to cite from publications that disagree with me ideologically.