US torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Will you shed a tear?

[MikeG]

[tinanator]

1. are we animals?

we deserve terror if we inflict terror.

[MikeG]

3. I can make exceptions for animals like this.

Sorry if that bothers you.

[amber dog democrat]

9. Is it oK to execute prisoners taken on a battlefield too?

It would save a lot of time otherwise wasted on sorting out the really bad ones.

[MikeG]

10. Different. He's not a POW.

[amber dog democrat]

21. But you know this happens.

Soldiers on all sides in all wars have acted as judge, jury and executioner - sometimes even when officers were present - and the US is no exception.

I don't care if you are Charles Manson, this is not the Spanish Inquisition.

Torture is not OK - especially if it only serves to extract a form of revenge.

Do you just get off on the idea of seeing some drawn and quartered ?

I believe we have rules governing this kind thing. i also believe it is primarily Republicans who think the ends jusify the means.

[Dhalgren]

57. I thought this was a "war" on "terror".

Wouldn't that make terrorists combatants in this "war". If we are no better than they are, then why fight at all? We could just join them and there would be no "war"...

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Do you extend the exception to his little boys?

They were only 7 and 9 when they were seized. Not likely they were able to stand up to much "interrogation."

It may be another year or so before the videos are leaked. Baby steps, keep takin'em.
<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871928.html">We have your <B>sons</B>: CIA - theage.com.au</a>

[bowens43]

14. That attitude is a BIG part of the problem.

No wonder the world sees America as a nation of arrogant hypocrites.

There e are no exceptions. Evil is evil.

[wtmusic]

47. If we had an 'Evil-Meter" we could just be just a little less evil

than KSM, and it would be 'kay, right?

[tinanator]

17. thats between you and God and those who would torture you in return

A very bad choice on a number of planes.

[flowomo]

5. exacrtly, my tears would not be for Khalid....

but for ourselves

[NewYorkerfromMass]

41. Let's just cut to the chase and behead him on TV

so everyone's happy.

[MikeG]

44. OK.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

54. Good. You do it. eom

[rooboy]

2. It's not about 'shedding a tear'...

it's ineffective and a violation of human rights. Is there some kind of "post-9/11" ideal now that only the popular should have human rights?

[MikeG]

6. They can torture Osama too.

[tinanator]

29. not if Bush has anything to say about it

best vote carefully

[bowens43]

4. Yes, I would shed a tear

for our decency, our honor, our integirty , our humanity and our Constitution.

[amber dog democrat]

7. I voted "yes" because

becuase we have laws regarding the treatment of suspects, or combatants or terrorists, .... or we don't.

Hypocracy only serves to make things worse. This is about ethical and moral principles.

[MikeG]

8. I am focusing on the evil people. There is a limit to it.

[amber dog democrat]

13. Torture is not an effective use of force.

and what is worse is that it degrades the ones who do it.
Why stoop to that level? You are better than they are already.
There are laws, courts and consequences.
I can not justify or sanction torture under any circumstances.

[bowens43]

16. Do YOU get to decide who isand isn't evil?

[MikeG]

18. Osama and KSM are a slam dunk

[wtmusic]

52. And you're what, a layup? n/t

[amber dog democrat]

25. No , Evil is evil.

We are known by our actions, choices. In fact I think all of us have a dark side.
The moral challenge lies in how much of the dark side is in control.

[ibegurpard]

88. The POINT that people are trying to make here

is that some of you are deciding who is or who isn't evil based upon who the government says is guilty of something without the benefit of a trial. Now, I happen to think that these people probably are guilty of what they are accused of however we can NEVER allow the right of presumed innocence to be diluted because it protects US.

[tinanator]

20. judge not

as hard as it is for me not to judge your judgement as at the very least unwise, but more profoundly, evil.

[MikeG]

22. Read more of the Bible.

[tinanator]

24. I dont read

well except for your posts. If you wish to choose an eye for an eye and interpret that any manner you see fit, I think there is a religious fundamentalist out there happy to enlist you in their organization.

[amber dog democrat]

28. I am not a Christian

but let me ask you who would Jesus torture ?

[nickinSTL]

12. Other

I wouldn't shed a tear for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, but for the supposedly morally superior United States of America, yes.

If we torture, even terrorists, we become less as a society.

That is a society none of us should tolerate.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Question is - is the information we are getting from KSM

(assuming that he HAS talked) worth anything?

People will make up stories to avoid torture and interrogations.

You need psychological trickery to interrogate people. Torture doesn't do it here.


:smoke:

[MikeG]

19. Don't care.

[tinanator]

23. wow, i think this attitude prevails elsewhere

Sounds like a Bush vote to me.

[ret5hd]

27. so it is just a revenge thing...

well, i'm sure others in the world have revenge on their mids also. reap what you sow, etc etc etc

[MikeG]

33. Yep. And Kerry is for executing terrorists too.

[amber dog democrat]

"Let them hate so long as they fear"

Roman Emperor Caligula -

I don't honestly think Kerry will sanction torture. If they are identified in the field, go ahead and kill them if you can. Onct they are caputerd - that's a different matter entirely.

Torture is wrong. We are not the GESTAPO. We are better than that.

[Vickers]

26. Nope, and I won't shed a tear when they behead a few more folks

in the M/E either.

Everybody keeps upping the ante with their disregard for international law, this is what you get.

The time for tears is long gone. Time to act.

[gratuitous]

30. Well, we've certainly seen

How effective bombing people who can't fight back and can't get away has been. Might as well torture a few "bad uns" and lop off a few heads. It's that whole war of all against all thing, isn't it? No sense being a victim until you can victimize a whole bunch of other people, "deserving" or not first, is there?

This thread is revolting. If you're planning on revenge, as the saying goes, start by digging two graves.

[Vickers]

32. You misinterpreted my post

We are the ones who first abandoned international law.

[gratuitous]

35. Apparently I have; my apologies

I thought by "they" you meant "us" "over there".

[Ravenseye]

31. What happened to taking the high ground.

How can the U.S. be considered moral leaders if we do horrible things. A true test of our character as a nation, is how we react to the people who attack us.

The Japanese tortured and killed our POW's during WW2. Were we half as bad? I'm sure it wasn't perfect, but I bet you that the Japanese prisoners weren't forced to go on death marches.

Heck the German POW's were allowed to walk around freely in places in the south. Go to restaurants and movies, and do their farm work.

The Geneva Convention is important for us to respect, even if our enemy doesn't. Otherwise what the hell do we stand for.

[not systems]

34. Torture is a crime. It is sad to live in a county of willful criminals.

[GreenArrow]

36. if we've gotten to the point in this country

where we condone torture, then Bush might as well win. This nation will have become a nation of half educated, spoiled, self centered, barbarians. Torture should never be an option in a civilized nation.

[amber dog democrat]

37. Exactly, this was the kind of thing condemend at the Nuremburg trials.

People were hanged for it.

Are we no better than totolitarian states?

I don't care who does it. Torture is wrong. Period

[Blue_Tires]

38. Warning: very unpopular opinion coming up

I personally think he should be beheaded...flame on

[parkening]

39. Imagine with me, if you will

some rat-bastard has kidnapped your family and has plans in motion to kill them, or worse. You better believe that if I found the guy, I would torture him up and down until he told me where they were/called off the plan or whatever. And it would not be wrong or evil, I would be protecting your innocent family. There would be no moral equivalence or "stooping to their level" or anything like that. Sometimes protecting the innocent is ugly business, carried out by dirty men.

KSM has demonstrated his evil intentions against our citizens and if it takes torture to get him to give up his henchmen/boss/plans, I will not lose any sleep, and will thank those dirty men that stand in the gap to protect my family.

[not systems]

40. You make a good goose stepper.

Where if anywhere was anything about KSM's "evil intentions"
demonstrated?

I missed the coverage of the trial.

Can you point to any real information about this or
are you just parroting some fox news talking points?

[parkening]

49. I don't have it with me

but I believe computers confiscated with him had all kinds of evidence. Being the brains behind an outfit that had attacked us already and had expressed, repeatedly, a desire to do it again (we remember the Osama videos, yes?) gives us pause to think that, hey, maybe this guy has some info that it is imperative that we know.

Suppose after we caught him that he had some information about another attack. We don't torture that info out of him and the attack happens (say another Bali type attack, I think today is the first anniversary of that attack, by the way). 250 innocent people die while we hold the guy who masterminded it. We can reassure ourselves that, yeah it's too bad about all those innocent people dying that we may have been able to prevent, but at least we didn't torture the evil mastermind. Tell that to the families of the victims. I'm sure they'll be comforted by your moral superiority.

You missed the trial? It's ugly business when you're dealing with the fringe of civilization.

Watch the ad hominem there, ezmojason, it's the lamest form of fallacious argumentation. Engage the argument and leave out the trash talk.

[wtmusic]

51. No ad hominem at all

ezmojason is right, that's 100% fascist mentality. We can suspend the rule of law, because we're right, dammit.

Vigilante justice, call it whatever you will. That's a downward spiral that is the root of the problem.

[not systems]

55. I remember the ...

fat Osama and the skinny Osama which one are you believing in?

I believe that no evidence has be presented making the case
that this guy is a "evil master mind" and it is very unlikely
that real evidence will be found through torture.

I think the "fringe of civilization" is where people who
justify the crime of torture dwell.

I will still believe that morality matters and the end do
not justify the means even if a whole nation of sadists
lust for blood.

Why only use "250 innocent people" to justify your support
of torture you should just say millions and really take the
high ground.

[parkening]

63. I remember

al-Zawahiri, too.

The evidence that he was the brains behind al-Quaeda was already established. The torture is not because he is an "evil mastermind" but for him to give up info to save innocent lives.

The end does not justify the means, but the acceptable means must change with the situation. We agree that lying is wrong, but is it wrong to lie to save an innocent person's life? Of course it is, the liar would not be culpable for anything in this case. The acceptable means changes with circumstances.

I used 250 people in my example to compare it with the Bali bombing. Just so we're clear, you'd prefer that over 200 innocent vacationers be blown to bits than the one who could prevent it be tortured. You'd be able to tell that to the victims families?

It's dirty, ugly business to be the guardian of the fringe of civilization, but it's naive to think that we don't need them.

[not systems]

69. Where?

Where is the evidence?

Has it been made public?

The Bali bombing unfortunately was not prevented but there is
no evidence that torture would have helped do so.

These criminal killers that are your "guardian of the fringe of civilization"
are often the seeds of criminal and antidemocratic operations.

Drug smuggling and assassination of the fruits of the creation
of a class of extra judicial killers by the state.

Do we need them?

No we need a society and culture of law that respects human rights.

Everywhere.

[parkening]

78. Over here

in the real world, all the evidence doesn't become public. Tipping off the bad guys isn't an effective way to catch them.

We're going a little far afield with the drug smuggler thing.


You write: "...we need a society and culture of law that respects human rights. Everywhere."

Yes, that would be great! Unfortunately, there's a non-trivial segment of society that does not agree with you, and wants you dead! We need to retain all effective means to thwart their designs.

[amber dog democrat]

76. You are guarding the "fringe" but it is not civilized.

and your arguements don' t hold up.

Landsers in the Wehrmacht fighting on the Eastern Front felt they were on the fringe of civilization too, even as the Einsatz units were cleansing the occupied Soviet teritory of Juden.

Even the SS believed they were the guardans of race AND civilization.

Arbiet Macht Frei, dude.

[parkening]

90. You're

making moral equivalence where there is none. See post #68.

[amber dog democrat]

93. so by your logic -

"The end does not justify the means, but the acceptable means must change with the situation. "

Not unlike " all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others "

No, there can be no exceptions - or you have no system of law.


Torture is illegal. It is not justified and we must respectfully agree to dis agree here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. Unfortunately...

the professionals disagree with you -- they say that torture is ineffectual for getting solid intel from prisoners. Seems that only really works in the movies. Kind of like Bush's "Texas" accent.

[amber dog democrat]

43. If I were captured under other circumstances

I would say what ever I thought the inquisitors wanted to hear -

This is the kind of thing the NKVD or GESTAPO did.

My core belief is the ends do not justify the means, otherwise I would be a Repug.

[Bridget Burke]

45. Sieg Heil!

You really learn very well. This exact argument has been used several times.

Torture is not an efficient way to gain information. The person being tortured is all too likely to say anything at all to make it stop.

And what about torture applied against our captured troops? Is that OK with you?

[wtmusic]

46. You would torture him to protect your family, huh?

You're one sick puppy. Good luck in life. :eyes:

[parkening]

58. Are you telling me

that you'd let the innocent die to protect the guilty?

[mike_c]

62. are you telling me...

...that you or I or anyone else has the right to decide who is guilty or innocent without due process? Are you telling me that ANYONE held in custody without a trial, but perhaps with a "confession" obtained under torture is guilty until proven innocent? If so, you have a bright future writing legal opinions for any number of dictators throughout the world (including right here in Amerika, it would seem).

[parkening]

66. all i'm saying is

that there are certain, very extreme circumstances that would warrant torture. I don't like it, don't prefer it, but I realize that it takes barbaric tactics sometimes when you're dealing with barbarians.

So would you just let your family die if you had to get rough with somebody? Or would you wait for the trial (which would occur after your family was long dead)?

[mike_c]

72. it's human nature to seek revenge....

That's why we have institutions to protect us from our own dark sides.

So would you just let your family die if you had to get rough with somebody? Or would you wait for the trial (which would occur after your family was long dead)?

In the first place, would I know beyond all doubt that "somebody" was responsible for harming my family? Does "somebody" deserve to suffer because I have suspicions?

If there was no doubt that "somebody" had kidnapped my family as you propose, then yes, I might be angry and fearful enough to act badly-- that's why one of law enforcement's jobs is supposed to be to protect the rights of the accused, even from the victims. The alternative is vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and barbarism.

[parkening]

75. In certain cases it is known

beyond doubt that someone is guilty. These are the cases I'm talking about. I'm not endorsing carte-blanche use of torture. My point is that in these cases it is reasonable to use extreme means to protect the innocent.

You're kind of hinting that you'd let your family die, but you haven't come right out with it.

[mike_c]

77. "beyond doubt that someone is guilty."

Do you have any idea how many people have been released from death row in recent years because evidence has turned up to exonerate them? After a concerted and prolonged effort to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they turned up innocent after all. In the absence of that effort, what do you think is the likelihood that innocents will be accused of crimes and regarded as guilty beyond doubt? Without protections, why should prosecutors even care whether someone is guilty or innocent-- simply torture them until they confess, or torture them until they die and declare them guilty anyway! Is that the America you want?

[wtmusic]

84. pointless, rhetorical question

If you knew for a fact that KSM was going to kill your family you would kill him first and be justified in doing so.

You would *never* know whether torture would give you information that would save your family, or false information which may kill them. As a preventative measure torture is useless. As revenge torture is cruel, inhumane, and animalistic, and further demonstrates to the world that the US is hypocritically 'spreading democracy' and ignoring it themselves.

You would probably agreed with Tommy Franks that the Constitution should be suspended in times of national emergency. This is the short-sighted mindset which perpetuates the cycle of revenge and despair.

[parkening]

89. How could you knoooow

without a doubt that he really wants to kill your family? Maybe he just wrote those threatening letters, and killed your neighbors family, and is waving that gun at your husband/wife for some other reason and doesn't really want to kill your family at all? You would never know for sure if he really meant to do it. What, no jury trial? That's just cruel, inhumane and animalistic.

I hope you're getting my point.

[wtmusic]

92. gimme a break

now you sound like W justifying the war in Iraq. Look where that got us...we were so damned sure Saddam was ready to destroy the world, and now all that 'democracy' we're spreading is biting our ass bigtime.

If I really have to spell it out, I will: self-defense of an unmistakable, imminent threat is always justified. Torture *never* fits into that equation. Ever.

[parkening]

94. in our case

demonstrate how torture and self-defense is different. You said you'd kill someone to protect your family from imminent danger. How is that different than torturing someone to protect your family? Is it somehow worse to leave the guy alive?

[wtmusic]

96. Demonstrate how torture can protect you

from a truly imminent threat. It can't.

[parkening]

98. It won't protect me

but it can protect other innocent parties.

[wtmusic]

102. "It can blah blah blah..."

You must be a very frightened individual.

[amber dog democrat]

86. The Ends Don't Justify the Means

If you thought that way, you'd vote Republican.

[amber dog democrat]

67. How do you determine guilt?

What happened to due process ? What happened to " presumed innocent until found guilty "? What happened to habeus corpus ? What happened to the burden of proof lies with the prosecution AND the right against self incrimination ?

If you want to live in system that does not protect your basic civil rights, that's fine.
Only don't change this one to reflect what the Neocons are tyring to do.

Read up on constitutional law and get back to me.

[parkening]

73. Did KSM suddenly get

US citizenship? Does our Constitution confer rights on non-Americans? Did I miss that day in Civics class?

I am not advocating torture as a matter of course. Just that extreme cases demand extreme measures to protect the innocent.

[mike_c]

74. yes, you did miss that in civics class....

The Bill of Rights is based upon the notion that the rights it enumerates are inalienable human rights conveyed by god, not by the state. The founding fathers recognized those rights-- they didn't simply give them to U.S. citizens. They pledged that the duty of government was to respect and protect those rights.

[parkening]

79. The bill of Rights only

applies to US citizens and those in the US legally.

[mike_c]

81. see #64 below for the opinion of the founding fathers....

on edit: The Bill of Rights is both a philosophy and a legal foundation. You are essentially correct that as a practical matter the legal document applies directly only to persons under U.S. jurisdiction. However you are dead wrong about its intent. Look up the word "inalienable." It means "not constrained by citizenship or nationality."

It is our duty to recognize and protect everyones rights insofar as we are capable. Those rights are "owned" as benefits of humanity, not citizenship. I'm sorry, my friend, but you did indeed miss something in civics class....

[parkening]

97. Just one point re Thomas Paine

he was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence nor a member of the Constitutional Convention.

"Inalienable" does not appear in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. It does show up in the D of I (which is in no way legally binding on anyone, by the way)

Does everyone have the inalienable right to liberty, for instance? Should we just open the prisons and let all those folks out? Their inalienable right to liberty is being violated after all.

I don't advocate unchecked use of torture as many of you are suggesting. My only point is that at the extreme, ugly end of civilization, extreme, ugly measures are sometimes needed.

I'm sure I won't convince you today, but maybe made somebody think about it a little. Thanks for all your input.

[amber dog democrat]

82. It does not matter.

Then this person is covered under international law, or the Geneva Convention or Human Rights laws that all nations suscribe to.

Torture is illegal. Period.

[mike_c]

61. then you have become just like him....

Welcome to the wolf pack.

[parkening]

68. Not just like him

He: kills or tortures my innocent family.

Me: tortures guilty guy to save innocent family.

I don't see where we're the same.

[amber dog democrat]

71. But you are JUST like them.

There is no justification for torture.
You'd be one of the first to ride with the vigilantes all set to string up the suspects rather than letting them have their day in court.

This is the sort of menality that get together with the torches and pitchforks.

[parkening]

85. So

you would let your family die, too?

[amber dog democrat]

87. Is that the best you can do?

This is about ethical and moral principles.

Torture is wrong and hypothetical arguements about improbable sceneros won't sway my convictions.

My family would want me to do the right thing. They have principles too.

It does not matter. Torture is never justified.

[parkening]

103. We've agreed that

Killing is okay to protect innocent parties.

Lying is okay to protect innocent parties.

A case can be made for stealing, fraud (sting operations), kidnapping and about any other crime/sin in order to protect innocent parties. But not torture, by thunder, not torture!!

All these other cases (killing, lying, etc) are based on moral/ethical principles, too. How can you justify some without justifying the others. You and others are just picking a purely arbitrary spot and saying that's where the limit is.

Just to ward off this potential pushback: I don't think you could ever justify rape in order to protect an innocent party.

[realFedUp]

48. Are you the FBI agent the Lounge is talking about?

[MikeG]

50. No. But I'm watching you. Don't do anything suspicious.

[fob]

53. Rhetorical tears yes, if not real tears. Especially if the torture makes

him either give up false info or steels him to not reveal real info that could save lives in the future. It's wrong, period. This is tantamount to signing on to bush*s "Bring em on" comment that resulted in, surprise!, them bringing it on our troops.

[RobinA]

56. In My Book

the rightness or wrongness of torture and execution is not determined by the relative evilness of the bad guy. They are wrong in every circumstance based on the acts themselves. Osama believes that he is justified in what he does. Some here believe that we would be justified in torturing KSM. Every torturer believes that he is doing the right thing. Torture must be just as wrong when we do it as when they do it. If it isn't, we are them.

[mike_c]

59. gee-- torture, imprisonment without due process, and...

...pissing on the Geneva Conventions. How perfectly Amerikan. MikeG-- shame on you for advocating this behavior. It is in direct opposition to the most fundamental protections accorded as human rights under our constitutional system of justice. Those protections MUST be extended to everyone, because once human rights are denied to anyone, there is justification for denying them for everyone. The rights to protection while in custody, due process, and a fair and open trial should be inalienable!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. I'll shed a tear, but it will be for all of the Americans who are...

...fair game for such treatment from whomever we're fighting now, and whomever we fight in the future. Use your head....there's a reason why we've never done this before except in very select cases that can be kept absolutely secret.

We've also killed innocent women and children by bombing neighborhoods while supposedly targeting "terrorists". IMHO, that is also going to result in pay-back if they ever get the resources to respond in kind.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

64. I'll let Thomas Paine speak for me....

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself....Thomas Paine

[mike_c]

80. thanks for the quote....

I'd forgotten that one-- it should be the standard reply to any suggestion that the ends always justify the means.

[Minstrel Boy]

65. Khalid Sheikh Mohammend was an asset of the Pakistani ISI

Robert Fisk: "Like the man accused of arranging the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, Mohammed was an ISI asset; indeed, anyone who is 'handed over' by the ISI these days is almost certainly a former (or present) employee of the Pakistani agency whose control of Taliban operatives amazed even the Pakistani government during the years before 2001."

Any doubt that the ISI was backing Mohammed can be removed by reports that in 1993, US investigators found photographs of Mohammed and his brother with close associates of Nawaz Sharif, a man who was prime minister of Pakistan twice in the 1990s (and an opponent of Bhutto). The Financial Times comments that Mohammed and his associates "must have felt confident that their ties to senior Pakistani Islamists, whose power had been cemented within the country's intelligence service, would prove invaluable."

...

Though not was not widely reported, Josef Bodansky, the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, recently claimed Mohammed still has ties to the ISI, and that they had acted to shield him in the past."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayksmcapture.html

The US has permitted alleged 9/11 conspirators to walk free in Germany because it refused to allow Shaikh Mohammed's testimony in open court. Why?

No one can even vouch that he is in custody - the circumstances of his capture(s) (and killings) are comically murky. Robert Fisk doubts he was ever captured. Read the above link for the bizarre details.

Yeah, he's not a nice guy, but there are worse guys behind him still in the shadows. Let's not go Jack Ruby on his ass. I think he has some tales to tell that may make some powerful people powerfully uncomfortable. Which is precisely why we'll probably never see him again.

[Orangeone]

70. I guess

Some people would have have agreed to torture or behead Yasser Hamdi, because he's evil right?

[DrWeird]

83. This is a disgusting thread.

Frankly, I don't see a difference between Khalid Mohammed, and some of the people in this thread.

Fuckers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Forkboy]

91. And here we were thinking that FR had a lock on the sick fuck department

Nice to know barbarism is universal :puke:

[amber dog democrat]

95. sad, isn't it ?

Surprised me too.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

99. Sick Thread

How in the hell can anyone sit there and say torture is okay under any circumstances? I bet these are the same people that get upset when an American is beheaded on TV. To the other side WE are as evil as those we perceive to be evil.

[RuleofLaw]

100. US Law.

Read youre constitution. Since the US is a signatory to the Un Convention against torture, torutre carried out against anybody is a violation of US law. Clear and simple.

US Constitution

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[sleipnir]

101. Torture is abhorrently wrong, no matter who you consider.

What next? Shall we authorize murder and rape? Why not, if we open the floodgates of humanity we risk losing our own.

I will shed a tear at anyone who is tortured regardless of their alleged crimes. Why sink to the level of base hatred and violence, that's where the terrorists dwell and we need not go to that dark despotic hole.

As a society, we must demand that torture be eradicated, else we risk slipping back into the dark ages of humanity, by invoking the ghosts of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi Germany.

[Skinner]

104. This is divisive crap.

Let's keep an eye on the ball here, people.