DeletedUser30834
nope, not a doctor. Don't need to be either- check out the definition when used as an adjective. 
- Status
DeletedUser
Umm, Sumdum, patients is plural for the noun, patient. What you are looking for is patience. Anyway, in all your many ramblings, u failed to dispute the evidence I earlier provided. Just a lot of wind and doubletalk, but no substance and no supporting evidence. Given enough time, anyone can bury the condemning evidence, and that's essentially what you've been doing with all this rhetoric, attempting to bury your embarrassment by filling up these pages with diatribe, ad hominems, and nonsense.
You have yet to dispute what I earlier presented. ta ta
You have yet to dispute what I earlier presented. ta ta
DeletedUser30834
Do you seriously think I do not know that? The phone's spell check threw that in and I even made a joke about it to Eli when he humorously pointed it out. As I said, the adjective definition conveys the meaning sufficient enough that even you should be able to understand what was attempted to be said. Of course it looks like you did because we went on a pedantic trip over it.
Actually, I posted a reply to your comment and addressed your ramblings. The fact that you haven't been here since then and someone else started discussing things I brought up when addressing your failing fallacies is irrelevant and shows more of a problem with you then me. But I'm sure you will look in the mirror and proclaim yourself the king once more and ignore the reality we live in so what is your point?
DeletedUser
Where's the adjective in the sentence:
"Perhaps someone who speaks your language could translate it or someone with more patients then me could draw you a picture or something."?
Apart from "more" there isn't one.
DeletedUser
lol, Sumdum, which part of, "you failed to dispute the evidence I earlier provided" didn't you understand?
I saw your reply and it didn't cut it. In fact it didn't cut anything, except perhaps a nice stinky. What I thought most laughable was your comment about how torture & war crimes are not violations of civil rights. A close second laugh was claiming the CIA is above the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Conventions Against Torture, and the Constitution itself, and the CIA mandate, make it abundantly clear they are not.
You are also repeatedly trying to obfuscate the issue by arguing an abstraction when referring to laws, as if the Bill of Rights is not somehow in the mix when it comes to penalties for violating said rights. It's also yet another long stretch of bull to blow off the Conventions Against Torture, which the U.S. signed and ratified well before the Bush Jr. era, particularly when those conventions, those international agreements, were tied by the U.S. to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, thereby including everyone to the rights associated therein.
And finally, a firm scoff is issued for your efforts to minimize the descriptive actions that constitute waterboarding, when committed to other human beings, are presented to be criminal acts, war crimes, and violations of Constitutional rights, which we hold for ALL persons in the U.S., or in controlled territories, citizens or otherwise.
No Sumdum, you're just trolling. I provided ample evidence, even included statements and declarations from the highest ranked Generals in the U.S., of the past 22 years, all of which indicated the actions were criminal, and included professional reviews, from some of the most knowledgeable constitutional law and international law attorneys in the U.S., as well as documented cases in which persons, both citizen and non, were convicted (and in some cases they were hung) for the commission of waterboarding.
No doubt some of them committed other acts as well, but it is disingenuous to try and marginalize waterboarding, as they were specifically noted, in graphic detail, as to the crimes, the violation of civil rights imposed. Cheney is not above the U.S. Constitution and not above international agreements. He is not above the Nation's laws. This is firmly indicated in case after case, and firmly dictated in the U.S. Constitution.
So, anyway, with all the evidence, all the professional declarations and analyses I posed, what is it you brought to the table?
Oh right, rhetoric...
Not one bit of supporting evidence, not one document that substantiates your ridiculous assertions. Nothing... nothing except rhetoric.
Like a politician at a town hall, you say a lot and nothing at all. You are repeating yourself, saying the same line of crap over and over again, hoping by repetition and pages of rhetoric, someone will fall for your fallacious arguments, your flawed logic.
But see, that's where you demonstrate just how much you fail. You're playong to the audience, not arguing the facts or evidence. Just as in previous debates, you close your eyes to the facts and keep repeating the mantra.
Sumdum, you stated there needed to be precedence, and I provided precedence. All you're left with is to claim the precedence is invalid, by claiming it doesn't apply to the CIA.
Well, it does apply to the CIA. But, more important, it applies to the President and the Vice President, as they are both subject to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, to Federal law, and yes, even to the UCMJ.
So, for the final time, are you going to present "evidence" to support your assertions or are you just going to b.s. your way out of this yet again?
I saw your reply and it didn't cut it. In fact it didn't cut anything, except perhaps a nice stinky. What I thought most laughable was your comment about how torture & war crimes are not violations of civil rights. A close second laugh was claiming the CIA is above the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Conventions Against Torture, and the Constitution itself, and the CIA mandate, make it abundantly clear they are not.
You are also repeatedly trying to obfuscate the issue by arguing an abstraction when referring to laws, as if the Bill of Rights is not somehow in the mix when it comes to penalties for violating said rights. It's also yet another long stretch of bull to blow off the Conventions Against Torture, which the U.S. signed and ratified well before the Bush Jr. era, particularly when those conventions, those international agreements, were tied by the U.S. to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, thereby including everyone to the rights associated therein.
And finally, a firm scoff is issued for your efforts to minimize the descriptive actions that constitute waterboarding, when committed to other human beings, are presented to be criminal acts, war crimes, and violations of Constitutional rights, which we hold for ALL persons in the U.S., or in controlled territories, citizens or otherwise.
No Sumdum, you're just trolling. I provided ample evidence, even included statements and declarations from the highest ranked Generals in the U.S., of the past 22 years, all of which indicated the actions were criminal, and included professional reviews, from some of the most knowledgeable constitutional law and international law attorneys in the U.S., as well as documented cases in which persons, both citizen and non, were convicted (and in some cases they were hung) for the commission of waterboarding.
No doubt some of them committed other acts as well, but it is disingenuous to try and marginalize waterboarding, as they were specifically noted, in graphic detail, as to the crimes, the violation of civil rights imposed. Cheney is not above the U.S. Constitution and not above international agreements. He is not above the Nation's laws. This is firmly indicated in case after case, and firmly dictated in the U.S. Constitution.
So, anyway, with all the evidence, all the professional declarations and analyses I posed, what is it you brought to the table?
Oh right, rhetoric...
Not one bit of supporting evidence, not one document that substantiates your ridiculous assertions. Nothing... nothing except rhetoric.
Like a politician at a town hall, you say a lot and nothing at all. You are repeating yourself, saying the same line of crap over and over again, hoping by repetition and pages of rhetoric, someone will fall for your fallacious arguments, your flawed logic.
But see, that's where you demonstrate just how much you fail. You're playong to the audience, not arguing the facts or evidence. Just as in previous debates, you close your eyes to the facts and keep repeating the mantra.
Sumdum, you stated there needed to be precedence, and I provided precedence. All you're left with is to claim the precedence is invalid, by claiming it doesn't apply to the CIA.
Well, it does apply to the CIA. But, more important, it applies to the President and the Vice President, as they are both subject to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, to Federal law, and yes, even to the UCMJ.
So, for the final time, are you going to present "evidence" to support your assertions or are you just going to b.s. your way out of this yet again?
DeletedUser30834
The part where you read things and pretend like it was never posted.
See what I mean, in one post, even part of this one, you make the wild accusation that I didn't address your points, then you all the sudden decide I did but they weren't good enough for you. This is getting a bit silly isn't it?
Do you even know what civil rights are? I will give you a hint, it is composed of two words that have distinct meanings when placed together. Let's look into it before you claim elephants and Giraffes have civil rights.
Civil: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil
adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2.of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3.of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
4.of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty.
5.befitting a citizen: a civil duty.
Right:
1.in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
When we put them together, we get something that concerns citizens and people within a political jurisdiction. As we can see also, there are a few exceptions for when in the custody of the military or CIA which is exempt by definition. There are some that are exempt from the common civil rights understood in the US's by treaty too. The US supreme court has held for more then 100 years that the US constitutional protections only apply to non citizens if they enter the country or US territory legally and to some extent to ones who entered illegally except the government's power to regulate immigration supersedes some of them.
You should really know what you are talking about before laughing at a claim of someone else being wrong when in fact it is you who are wrong.
First, you do understand that the constitution and the bill of rights are the same documents right? Claiming they are separate is a lot missleading. I understand your desire to separate them in order to pad your response and appear more valid but that doesn't really trick anyone into believing it. Second, I never said any of that. It is all in your head. I said that a law has to be defined and be illegal before an act committed is criminal and not all people have the protections of the constitution with all acts. Point in fact, war is the intentional killing of people, sometimes even citizens, by the order of the government which is bound by the 5th amendment's prohibition on being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It further prohibits taking "for the public use" of private property without just compensation and that has happened in several wars the US has been involved in.
You are simply wrong here. Obfuscation exists if it does only because this is not a black and white issue. Water boarding in and of itself was not torture in the US until it was defined as torture by the congress. Until that point it was only one thing that could be used to demonstrate a pattern that would conclude torture and could make a set of acts prosecutable depending on the qualified merits to the definition of "severe" or more appropriately, severe mental pain or suffering. Congress has defined this specifically because the senate said the provisions in the CAT treaty are not self executing and domestic law already covered domestic cases where no law covered cases outside the US.
You seem to think the CAT treaty in an end all authority but it isn't. The US specifically limited to being non self executing which means a law specifically has to be made to cover it. So pointing to it and waiving your hands is in fact meaningless because as I already said, if it isn't a law in the US, a US citizen cannot be prosecuted for it.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about and are demonstrating that you probably have never investigated this outside of a chat room. Here is a hint, you are clueless to the law and application of the law. Until congress outlawed water boarding and a few other things specifically, the laws concerning them outside the US actually did not outlaw them if the actor did not have a "Specific intent" to inflict "severe mental pain or suffering" which is still defined by US law as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" and then it lists several conditions or acts which do not include water boarding (water boarding is specifically included in another section after the passage of a law in 2006). Notice the word Prolonged in there?
So here we are back to the definition of "severe" with the added caveat of "specific intent" which is not intent but a state of intent. Even if the definition of severe is met, the intent had to be met also in order to be illegal.
No, what you did is what you do a lot and that was provide information you do not understand and make wild accusations concerning it out of ignorance. You pointed to processes where Ex Post Facto laws were being created and enforced, I pointed to not only US supreme court justices objecting to it as such, but the US chief prosecutor complaining to President Truman about his uneasiness with prosecuting people for the very same things the allies did and in some cases were still doing during the trials.
Just because something that was wrong happened in the past, it does not mean it should be a legal basis for the future. Adulterous women in the middle east used to be stoned to death (looks like they are still being killed but more swiftly with guns now), if we applied your principles you are trying to exert here, then it would be a justification for western states to stone women if a treaty ever had an anti adultery provision in it. It is simply unimaginable that you would consider that to be valid but you are blinded by your hate for Bush and company and ignoring pertinent information making something like that seem possible if we followed your guidance.
No, the disengenuous act here is your insistance that Cheney admitted to torture and that water boarding is always torture regardless of what the law and the US's acceptance of treaties say. You keep going on about the constitution and civil rights yet are selectively refusing to extend the same to Cheney in your misguided attempts to convict him.
You brought nothing to the table. You keep pointing to a treaty that the US signed limiting it's application to how it implements it and ignore that as well as how it interacts with US law. You posted links to bloggs and statements by politicians who referenced bloggs or their own opinions over matters. You got all uppity a while back about Wikipedia being used, and seem to ignore those same concerns calling your same acts valid somehow. You brought up the USMCJ and somehow act like it applies to all government offices when it does not. You brought up domestic acts as if they apply to acts outside the US which they do not. When congress implemented the CAT treaty, it made no changes to domestic law concerning torture and added only a section concerning acts outside the US. It seems out lawmakers have a completely differen't idea of what applies then you do.
DeletedUser34315
DeletedUser16008
As you are all way off topic now and just bickering and baiting each other this thread has well passed its sell by date... Locked
- Status