TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Because of Democrats, now everyone knows about the details of once-secret CIA interrogation methods.
I can't make up my mind if the left are traitors or just plain stupid.
Because of Democrats, now everyone knows about the details of once-secret CIA interrogation methods.
I can't make up my mind if the left are traitors or just plain stupid.
I can't make up my mind if the left are traitors or just plain stupid.
Obviously I'm referring to two definitions. One by the UN, and one by Merriam-Webster. In the case of terrorists, the CIA used the dictionary definition and did not cross that line.
Traitors first, stupid second.I can't make up my mind if the left are traitors or just plain stupid.
As stated earlier, I am comfortable with making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save the lives of US soldiers and innocent people.in other words, you're comfortable with modifying a definition of anything to suit your agenda. that works for anyone, right?
As stated earlier, I am comfortable with making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save the lives of US soldiers and innocent people.
As stated earlier, I am comfortable with making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save the lives of US soldiers and innocent people.
Foreign terrorists don't have US Constitutional rights.so, lets make your statement perfectly clear. You feel perfectly fine with denying constitutional rights to anyone the government declares a terrorist.
The problem is that we (as in the United States of America) signed a treaty saying we would not use waterboarding.
And then we use waterboarding.
Foreign terrorists don't have US Constitutional rights.
what treaty specifically said waterboarding
The definition used in the UN Resolution that we signed fits waterboarding very well.
I answered your irrelevant question in the best way possible: by clarifying my position accurately.where in the US Constitution does it specify that non US citizens are not afforded rights?
and you dodged the question.
lets try it again:
You feel perfectly fine with denying constitutional rights to anyone the government declares a terrorist?
iow....no treaty has specifically said waterboarding...i thought you were saying a treaty specifically said waterboarding
actually, no you didn't. I understand you need to be elusive now though.I answered your irrelevant question in the best way possible: by clarifying my position accurately.
Are you asserting that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens of the US?![]()
did we or did we not condemn waterboarding as torture when the Japanese used it?
did we or did we not prosecute Japanese officers who used waterboarding?
Are you trying to make a comparison betwixt the CIA's recent use of the technique on foreign terrorists with the Japanese technique on lawful soldiers during WW2?did we or did we not condemn waterboarding as torture when the Japanese used it?
did we or did we not prosecute Japanese officers who used waterboarding?
Are you trying to make a comparison betwixt the CIA's recent use of the technique on foreign terrorists with the Japanese technique on lawful soldiers during WW2?
Please tell me what, if anything, these two scenarios have in common.![]()
Are you trying to make a comparison betwixt the CIA's recent use of the technique on foreign terrorists with the Japanese technique on lawful soldiers during WW2?
Please tell me what, if anything, these two scenarios have in common.![]()