Now that we have established waterboarding is torture we should ask ourselves some hard questions. Are there situations where torture is reasonable? For example, you have in custody a person who is part of terror cell and has freely volunteered the fact that he and his team are here to destroy America and that all Americans should die the most miserable death possible and that he and his team are in possession of a weapon of mass destruction to do just that.
Terrorists, some call them freedom fighters (this is a tricky twist of the tongue because historically freedom fighters did not target civilian populations), are a different breed. They are unconventional fighters and as a general rule they seek to destroy the rule of law, create chaos and destruction, and inflict as much pain and misery as possible on entire populations.
One might even apply the Rabid dog rationale here because in dealing with terrorists and those who support and fund them you are dealing with the preservation of civilization itself.
So the questions that need to be asked and the solutions that need to be found involve dealing with necessary evil. Is it sometimes necessary to do inhumane things to people who have developed mad, "Rabid," conduct and have the will, intent and means to inflict mass destruction on civilization?
Friday, July 31, 2009
WATERBOARDING. IT'S TORTURE STUPID!!!
To the best of my knowledge, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Mark Levine (who I believe is a constitutional lawyer) all maintain the position that Waterboarding is not torture and is therefore constitutional. None of the above persons has been waterboarded and the only person I know who claims to have been waterboarded and maintains it wasn't torture was a female caller on a radio talk show who claimed to have been water boaded during Navy Survival Training. Given the fact that the Navy has pretty much banned hazing one can only wonder what kind of strict restrictions they would impose on training courses designed to simulate enhanced interrogation techniques.
If you came off the waterboard thinking: ...it wasn't bad..., then it wasn't. It also means the interrogators who waterboarded you didn't do it right because waterboarding is suppose to be torture...it is the point of the whole thing...it is an end unto itself.
Yeah, yeah I know there is the official rule book of waterboarding that specifies how much water, how fast, how long, blah, blah, blah. In an enhanced interrogation scenario you are operating out the box because you are dealing with special circumstances to begin with. So what really happens? Well you can pretty much bet that the observers who ensure that the waterboarding proceedure is done by the "book" have to step out of the room for something and as soon as they are out of the room a soaking towel or T-Shirt is slapped over the face and nose of the subject and a running water hose is jammed downed the subjects throat.
Hey what about when a subject A is being waterboarded while another subject B is being interrogated while subject B is being forced to watch the waterboarding of subject A. Is the waterboarding of subject A considered torture under those circumstances since the waterboarding isn't being used to ellicit any information at all from subject A. Wouldn't that be considered general purpose abuse at the least?
The process continues until the desired results are achieved and about that time the observer makes their way back into the room so that they can attest that nothing beyond the bounds of rules and regulations occured during the interrogation.
Finally, to end the debate on the lawfullness of waterboarding I submit, to any half-witted languaged twisting attorney or general purpose blow hards in general, that regardless of whether waterboarding meets your definition of torture or not, waterboarding was, is and always will be a form of duress and is therefore constitutionally prohibited and barred by the Geneva Convention.
Enough said!!!
If you came off the waterboard thinking: ...it wasn't bad..., then it wasn't. It also means the interrogators who waterboarded you didn't do it right because waterboarding is suppose to be torture...it is the point of the whole thing...it is an end unto itself.
Yeah, yeah I know there is the official rule book of waterboarding that specifies how much water, how fast, how long, blah, blah, blah. In an enhanced interrogation scenario you are operating out the box because you are dealing with special circumstances to begin with. So what really happens? Well you can pretty much bet that the observers who ensure that the waterboarding proceedure is done by the "book" have to step out of the room for something and as soon as they are out of the room a soaking towel or T-Shirt is slapped over the face and nose of the subject and a running water hose is jammed downed the subjects throat.
Hey what about when a subject A is being waterboarded while another subject B is being interrogated while subject B is being forced to watch the waterboarding of subject A. Is the waterboarding of subject A considered torture under those circumstances since the waterboarding isn't being used to ellicit any information at all from subject A. Wouldn't that be considered general purpose abuse at the least?
The process continues until the desired results are achieved and about that time the observer makes their way back into the room so that they can attest that nothing beyond the bounds of rules and regulations occured during the interrogation.
Finally, to end the debate on the lawfullness of waterboarding I submit, to any half-witted languaged twisting attorney or general purpose blow hards in general, that regardless of whether waterboarding meets your definition of torture or not, waterboarding was, is and always will be a form of duress and is therefore constitutionally prohibited and barred by the Geneva Convention.
Enough said!!!
OBAMACARE FOR SENIORS
In my opinion the End of Life counseling program the Democratic minions propose in the Obamacare plan include the following end of life choices in place of medicare:
Obamacare Senior Plan 1
They can take part in a extermination ceremony called "Carousel" where they are promised of being reborn.
Obamacare Senior Plan 2
Seniors may choose to become a guest star on the National TV series "Runner" where they constantly evade enforcement officers known as "Sandman." The consequences of being caught by the Sandman is termination with extreme prejudice.
**Note: There is no such thing as Sanctuary!!! Runners merely get to run until caught**
Both plans feature the aforementioned Soylent post-life processing conditioning therapy.
Senior citizens and other undesirables will have the satifaction of knowing they died to keep the planet green and for the entertainment of younger citizens both of which server the greater common good.
Obamacare Senior Plan 1
They can take part in a extermination ceremony called "Carousel" where they are promised of being reborn.
Obamacare Senior Plan 2
Seniors may choose to become a guest star on the National TV series "Runner" where they constantly evade enforcement officers known as "Sandman." The consequences of being caught by the Sandman is termination with extreme prejudice.
**Note: There is no such thing as Sanctuary!!! Runners merely get to run until caught**
Both plans feature the aforementioned Soylent post-life processing conditioning therapy.
Senior citizens and other undesirables will have the satifaction of knowing they died to keep the planet green and for the entertainment of younger citizens both of which server the greater common good.
DEMOCRATS CUT MEDICARE AND OFFER SENIORS END OF LIFE CHOICES
What the Democrats are really offering Seniors is their choice to become Soylent Green, Blue or Yellow.
SO WHAT ABOUT SOTOMAYOR?
If the pen is mightier than the sword then a complacent, incompetent, and bigoted judge is the mightiest of tyrants because the pen is the instrument by which they grant or deny justice. The courtroom is where the law becomes more than words on a page and those words give you liberty or take it away. It is where the power of governments and the acts of those that govern confront individual liberties. It is where the rubber meets the road.
Before you support the confirmation of judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice I would like you to reflect upon her decision in the Ricci case and more importantly consider what that decision represents and what example Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation would set.
I submit, that judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case clearly demonstrates that she does not have a clear understanding of the concept of equal protection embodied in the spirit and letter of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Nor does she have a clear understanding of Congressional intent contained in the spirit and letter of the Civil rights Act of 1866 which provides a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 generally applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal laws through action under color of law.
In addition, Judge Sotomayor clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of Congressional intent contained within the spirit and letter of Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21
Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, sex, and national origin. Retaliation is also prohibited by Title VII against any person for opposing any practice forbidden by statute, or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under the statute. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available to Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to jury trial.
There was nothing complicated about the Ricci case. The plaintiffs were clearly the victim of racial discrimination because they had passed an objective test which was blind to race and that all candidates had an equal opportunity to excel on. The City and State contended that the promotions were void because the test must have been prejudicial to minorities simply because of the racial demographics of the test results. Yet the city and state failed to demonstrate exactly how the test was not an objective qualifier. Were minority candidates given a different test than white candidates? Exactly what questions were prejudicial to minorities? Did minorities have the same training and access to test study materials as white candidates?
Judge Sotomayor would not make a good Supreme Court Justice because the Ricci decision demonstrates that she allows her own racial prejudices to color her judicial decisions and her definition of Equal Opportunity is one of racial preference. The written decision itself is an imperious act of both ignorance and contempt of the law specifically because it does not address the facts concerning the objectivity of the test. The written decision is no more than a straw man built on racial prejudice and preference.
The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts are elementary concepts in our system of social justice and the Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case demonstrates she does not get the big picture.
Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case but if she is put on the bench of the highest court there will be no protection from the harm she will do. Since, Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case was wrong you should also consider if her decision was due to incompetence or willful disobedience of the law. Either way you decide, Judge Sotomayor’s decision itself was beyond the pale and if it weren’t for her immunity as a Judge she should be prosecuted for the depriving Ricci his rights under the color of law.
Yet in spite of the fact that Judge Sotomayor’s decision was blatantly racist and was completely in violation of state and federal law member’s on the Judiciary Committee had the temerity to sing her praises.
I strongly encourage you to contact your senators and strongly encourage them NOT to support the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor because her conduct on and off the bench is not consistent with the law requires and the duties of the office demand. After all the law and our Justices should encourage and pursue racially harmony and not incite racial discord.
To find your Senator click: http://www.senate.gov/
Before you support the confirmation of judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice I would like you to reflect upon her decision in the Ricci case and more importantly consider what that decision represents and what example Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation would set.
I submit, that judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case clearly demonstrates that she does not have a clear understanding of the concept of equal protection embodied in the spirit and letter of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Nor does she have a clear understanding of Congressional intent contained in the spirit and letter of the Civil rights Act of 1866 which provides a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 generally applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal laws through action under color of law.
In addition, Judge Sotomayor clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of Congressional intent contained within the spirit and letter of Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21
Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, sex, and national origin. Retaliation is also prohibited by Title VII against any person for opposing any practice forbidden by statute, or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under the statute. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available to Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to jury trial.
There was nothing complicated about the Ricci case. The plaintiffs were clearly the victim of racial discrimination because they had passed an objective test which was blind to race and that all candidates had an equal opportunity to excel on. The City and State contended that the promotions were void because the test must have been prejudicial to minorities simply because of the racial demographics of the test results. Yet the city and state failed to demonstrate exactly how the test was not an objective qualifier. Were minority candidates given a different test than white candidates? Exactly what questions were prejudicial to minorities? Did minorities have the same training and access to test study materials as white candidates?
Judge Sotomayor would not make a good Supreme Court Justice because the Ricci decision demonstrates that she allows her own racial prejudices to color her judicial decisions and her definition of Equal Opportunity is one of racial preference. The written decision itself is an imperious act of both ignorance and contempt of the law specifically because it does not address the facts concerning the objectivity of the test. The written decision is no more than a straw man built on racial prejudice and preference.
The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts are elementary concepts in our system of social justice and the Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case demonstrates she does not get the big picture.
Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case but if she is put on the bench of the highest court there will be no protection from the harm she will do. Since, Judge Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case was wrong you should also consider if her decision was due to incompetence or willful disobedience of the law. Either way you decide, Judge Sotomayor’s decision itself was beyond the pale and if it weren’t for her immunity as a Judge she should be prosecuted for the depriving Ricci his rights under the color of law.
Yet in spite of the fact that Judge Sotomayor’s decision was blatantly racist and was completely in violation of state and federal law member’s on the Judiciary Committee had the temerity to sing her praises.
I strongly encourage you to contact your senators and strongly encourage them NOT to support the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor because her conduct on and off the bench is not consistent with the law requires and the duties of the office demand. After all the law and our Justices should encourage and pursue racially harmony and not incite racial discord.
To find your Senator click: http://www.senate.gov/
ABOUT THE BLOG NAME
In my humble opinion our elected officials in Washington and media personalities fall into one of three categories on any given issue:
Pirates are elected officials whose position, propoganda, and most importantly vote on an issue result in the loss of liberty and/or misappropriation of treasury funds. This is especially true when those elected officials find a way to funnel funds (beyond their normal federal pay) into their own pockets or to companies and agencies that in return provide those elected officials with some form of financial or political gain.
Parrots...a.k.a. zombieparrots... are elected officials and media personalities who squawk partyline propoganda on any issue without regard for its truth, justice or compliance with the American way. An elected official or media personality is not a parrot if they are informed and are expressing what may be a partisan partyline opinion that is supported by the facts.
Patriots are the rarest of elected offical and media personality because real patriots are guided by conscience and not mobs or ratings. Patriots exercise dilligence by reading proposed legislation and critically examining the qualifications and performance of those nominated to high office. They do not support legislation or nominees, that offend their conscience, and which would lead to acts or empower a person or persons to commit acts which are repugnate to the Constitution of the United States . Patriots stand on principle because principles are what seperate us from the facists, socialists, and communists. Our history clearly demonstrates that our principles act as our moral compass that can take us to higher ground while the good intentions facisim, socialism and communism have succumbed to the corruption wrought by the nature of man. Patriots respect the principles of checks, balances and limited government recognized by our founding fathers that hold that men and by virture of that fact governments are inheriently corrupt. Patriots recognize that the system is not broken but that the system is only as good as their character and their ability to withstand the influences of corruption inherrient in politics today.
Pirates are elected officials whose position, propoganda, and most importantly vote on an issue result in the loss of liberty and/or misappropriation of treasury funds. This is especially true when those elected officials find a way to funnel funds (beyond their normal federal pay) into their own pockets or to companies and agencies that in return provide those elected officials with some form of financial or political gain.
Parrots...a.k.a. zombieparrots... are elected officials and media personalities who squawk partyline propoganda on any issue without regard for its truth, justice or compliance with the American way. An elected official or media personality is not a parrot if they are informed and are expressing what may be a partisan partyline opinion that is supported by the facts.
Patriots are the rarest of elected offical and media personality because real patriots are guided by conscience and not mobs or ratings. Patriots exercise dilligence by reading proposed legislation and critically examining the qualifications and performance of those nominated to high office. They do not support legislation or nominees, that offend their conscience, and which would lead to acts or empower a person or persons to commit acts which are repugnate to the Constitution of the United States . Patriots stand on principle because principles are what seperate us from the facists, socialists, and communists. Our history clearly demonstrates that our principles act as our moral compass that can take us to higher ground while the good intentions facisim, socialism and communism have succumbed to the corruption wrought by the nature of man. Patriots respect the principles of checks, balances and limited government recognized by our founding fathers that hold that men and by virture of that fact governments are inheriently corrupt. Patriots recognize that the system is not broken but that the system is only as good as their character and their ability to withstand the influences of corruption inherrient in politics today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)