Time: Bush Approved Use of Insects in al-Qaeda Interrogations

[NavyDave]

Heck there are some Liberals want international law to trump the US Constitution in the US.

[zoony]

Heck there are some Liberals want international law to trump the US Constitution in the US.

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

__________

(as I put hot dogs on the grill...)

ND: "ya know, some liberals would have us stop eating hot dogs"

zoony: "umm... so, can I get you something to drink"

ND: "dam liberals"

zoony: "never heard of it"

ND: "oh, that- I'll have a beer"

zoony: "cool- here you go"

ND: "You know, liberals would have us stop drinking beer"

zoony: "okay...."

ND: "dam liberals"

and so forth...

[ACW]

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

__________

(as I put hot dogs on the grill...)

ND: "ya know, some liberals would have us stop eating hot dogs"

zoony: "umm... so, can I get you something to drink"

ND: "dam liberals"

zoony: "never heard of it"

ND: "oh, that- I'll have a beer"

zoony: "cool- here you go"

ND: "You know, liberals would have us stop drinking beer"

zoony: "okay...."

ND: "dam liberals"

and so forth...

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[PleaseBlitz]

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

__________

(as I put hot dogs on the grill...)

ND: "ya know, some liberals would have us stop eating hot dogs"

zoony: "umm... so, can I get you something to drink"

ND: "dam liberals"

zoony: "never heard of it"

ND: "oh, that- I'll have a beer"

zoony: "cool- here you go"

ND: "You know, liberals would have us stop drinking beer"

zoony: "okay...."

ND: "dam liberals"

and so forth...

:rotflmao:

Dont even talk about what happens when you pull out the German potato salad or god forbid :paranoid: FRENCH fries.

[Larry]

And the result of airing this probably lead to changing a mission of capturing three terrorist leaders to sending in armed drones to bomb them. . .

He said, based on nothing more than his loyalty to a political party.

[zoony]

:rotflmao:

Dont even talk about what happens when you pull out the German potato salad or god forbid :paranoid: FRENCH fries.

:hysterical::hysterical:

ND: "I hope those are freedom fries, damit!"

[Larry]

And the problem is, doing nothing means potentially getting innocent Americans murdered. I don't know about you, but I tend to side with caution.

See, that's the problem with making policy based on maybe. Maybe means "whatever I want it to mean".

As for the Constitution... Cruel and unusual punishment? I take it you know the full extent of what that means? As open-ended as it is (and literally impossible to comprehend what precisely is covered by it), it is also the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens at all costs. Please don't act like the Constitution is "worldly law" or that it has never been bent or even broken entirely before. Our leaders take national security very seriously. Every election candidate, and every subsequent elected president, takes plenty of time to assure us, the citizens, that we are protected, and further go on to say that the government will continually protect us while threats to us in the world still exist.

I know that the Consitution wasn't meant to be broken, and if we break it once, when will it end? But to fit the changing times, the consitution has been modified over and over again, has it not? Perhaps this is just another reason that it should be looked at again and decide what falls under the tree of the 8th.

See? I knew you had created some nice reasons why the Constitution wasn't important.

[#98QBKiller]

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

__________

(as I put hot dogs on the grill...)

ND: "ya know, some liberals would have us stop eating hot dogs"

zoony: "umm... so, can I get you something to drink"

ND: "dam liberals"

zoony: "never heard of it"

ND: "oh, that- I'll have a beer"

zoony: "cool- here you go"

ND: "You know, liberals would have us stop drinking beer"

zoony: "okay...."

ND: "dam liberals"

and so forth...

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

It's the opposite of having a conversation with Big Mike...you try to talk politics and he keeps answering with "beer" and "whiskey" and this and that.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm with Larry on this.

My follow up would be.

If we had American's caught, and heard stories like this done to our guys. Would the U.S. make a thing about how they were tortured?

[ACW]

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

It's the opposite of having a conversation with Big Mike...you try to talk politics and he keeps answering with "beer" and "whiskey" and this and that.

:hysterical:

Have I ever mentioned how much I like your sig?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'm with Larry on this.

My follow up would be.

If we had American's caught, and heard stories like this done to our guys. Would the U.S. make a thing about how they were tortured?

I think we'd have a hard time getting riled up if we heard that the Taliban thought about putting a caterpillar in a room with one of our insect-fearing members of the armed services, but made sure first to not make him think that he would either die or even have a lot of pain from the insect as a result...then changed their minds and said "Eh, skip it".

Actually we'd probably be making fun of their torture tactics on late night television lol...

[Reaganaut]

My wife is ex-military and had to go through advanced anti-Terrorist training. What she went through is worse than anything the Bush Administration did to these human insects. It's classified, but since she's my wife I got to hear about it. I lost my composure thinking about some of the "training" she was put through to keep her alive in enemy hands. They had to hospitalize her because she had a complete breakdown. She loathes the trainers to this day and wouldn't cry if they fell off a cliff.

Oh, and by the way, that list they gave of the Guantanamo treatment is standard training for our military. I haven't seen the actual list, but if what is mentioned in the OP is complete my wife has been there done that on the entire list. It SUCKS for sure, but these are hardened Terrorists and general tough guy rugpilots. Are they crying about something that we put a large number of OUR OWN TROOPS through in training?

This list is common knowledge. Come on. There are way worse things they are doing in other countries. Watch a bad Steven Segal movie and use your imagination.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This list is common knowledge. Come on. There are way worse things they are doing in other countries. Watch a bad Steven Segal movie and use your imagination.

Are there good Steven Segal movies out there? lol...

[Zguy28]

My wife is ex-military and had to go through advanced anti-Terrorist training. What she went through is worse than anything the Bush Administration did to these human insects. It's classified, but since she's my wife I got to hear about it. I lost my composure thinking about some of the "training" she was put through to keep her alive in enemy hands. They had to hospitalize her because she had a complete breakdown. She loathes the trainers to this day and wouldn't cry if they fell off a cliff.

Oh, and by the way, that list they gave of the Guantanamo treatment is standard training for our military. I haven't seen the actual list, but if what is mentioned in the OP is complete my wife has been there done that on the entire list. It SUCKS for sure, but these are hardened Terrorists and general tough guy rugpilots. Are they crying about something that we put a large number of OUR OWN TROOPS through in training?

This list is common knowledge. Come on. There are way worse things they are doing in other countries. Watch a bad Steven Segal movie and use your imagination.

You're wife is Demi Moore?

[NavyDave]

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

You do realise that liberals Supreme Court Justices like Ruth B Ginsburg have used international law to trump the US Constitution in cases involving the Death Penalty and Sodomy Rulings

[NavyDave]

:hysterical::hysterical:

ND: "I hope those are freedom fries, damit!"

I lost total respect for the French back in Bosnia in the 1990's when they leaked info to the Serbs when we (The Brits and the US) were going to round up the war criminals. The next time we were supposed to give the French intel in Mostar it accidentally arrived moments after the operation began.

[zoony]

You do realise that liberals Supreme Court Justices like Ruth B Ginsburg have used international law to trump the US Constitution in cases involving the Death Penalty and Sodomy Rulings

well no, but you can tell me about it sometime over hot dogs and beer

[NavyDave]

40 secs of waterboarding with a doctor and shrink nearby on a total of 3 hardcore cases and the threat of sharing a box with a caterpillar? The horror.

Now eating generic food that will make the lunch lady or stereotypical English cook proud might be crossing the line

[ACW]

Dave, you would be a blast to hang out with at a party or backyard BBQ. Anytime you're in TN, give me a call.

You do realise that liberals Supreme Court Justices like Ruth B Ginsburg have used international law to trump the US Constitution in cases involving the Death Penalty and Sodomy Rulings

The Constitution doesn't prohibit sodomy.

And Reaganaut, I think your wife broke the law by telling you about the training :cop:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

my sig equals navy dave

[Reaganaut]

The Constitution doesn't prohibit sodomy.

And Reaganaut, I think your wife broke the law by telling you about the training :cop:

What if I am lying to you? I'm not under oath. I tend to exaggerate and completely make things up just to appear cool on football forums. :laugh:

[Stew]

Are there good Steven Segal movies out there? lol...

This was my first thought as well, then I pictured that fat Italian running open handed, wrist's swinging gingerly with that stoic facial expression on. Worst actor ever.

[NavyDave]

The Constitution doesn't prohibit sodomy.

And Reaganaut, I think your wife broke the law by telling you about the training :cop:

Dude there is a mistake in your quote by making it appear that I said those things.

There are/were State laws that viewed sodomy as a criminal and or morally corrupt act.

Left leaning Members of the Supreme court did reach beyond the State and US Constitutions in Sodomy and Death penalty rulings interpreting International law on several cases.

http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Courses/ComparativeLaw/CourseReadings/Assign01-Lawrence-v-Texas.htm

People hide away from stories, images or videos on shock websites showing the aftermath of our troops being beheaded, torched or gutted.

But have a fit over loud music being played or a woman hating terrorist being humbled by a servicewoman.

[Larry]

What if I am lying to you? I'm not under oath. I tend to exaggerate and completely make things up just to appear cool on football forums. :laugh:

You'll have to do better than that. The competition's fierce, in here.

[Larry]

Left leaning Members of the Supreme court did reach beyond the State and US Constitutions in Sodomy and Death penalty rulings interpreting International law on several cases.

http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Courses/ComparativeLaw/CourseReadings/Assign01-Lawrence-v-Texas.htm

Uh, you feel like you could point that part out, to me?

I've only read about the first third of that really lengthy piece you linked, but what I've read so far is the court ruling that the Texas law they're considering differs from the laws which were considered in the previous (Burger) ruling, because the Texas law was specifically written to only apply to homosexuals, and pointing out that the previous (Burger) ruling's claim that homosexuality had always been criminalized throughout human history appears to have been a fabrication. That in fact, for example, there were no laws anywhere in the US prohibiting homosexuality prior to 1970. (There were laws prohibiting oral and anal sex, but those laws applied to all couples, not just gays. They also observe that those laws had mostly been repealed, and that the few states that hadn't repealed them, weren't enforcing them, except in cases of sex in public.)

People hide away from stories, images or videos on shock websites showing the aftermath of our troops being beheaded, torched or gutted.

But have a fit over loud music being played or a woman hating terrorist being humbled by a servicewoman.

We train children to drop fire from the sky on people. But their commanders won't allow them to paint **** on their airplanes, because it's obscene.

Apocalypse Now

Edit:

OK, now I've read the entire majority opinion.

Yes, the majority opinion mentions the ruling of a European court. Twice.

However, in both cases, they do so for the purpose of explaining why they're overturning a previous USSC ruling, which was based on an assertion that the world thought a certain way.

If I can summarize the majority opinion:

Texas police entered the home of a man, and observed the man having homosexual sex. Police arrested both men, changed both with sodomy. At least one of the men waived jury trial, and pled no contest, but did so while challenging the constitutionality of the law. He was fined $200.

The Texas court, and the appeals court, ruled that the Texas law was constitutional, based on a previous USSC ruling, "Bowers", in which the Burger court upheld the sodomy law in (Georgia?). In the majority opinion, Burger wrote that a tradition of the state intervening in a person's decision to engage in homosexual behavior has existed "throughout the history of Western civilization", and that condemnation of homosexual behavior is "firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian standards".

This Supreme Court gave several reasons why they felt that the Bowers ruling was wrong.

For one thing, they point out that the Bowers case involved a law that prohibited all sodomy, but the Texas law specifically only prohibited the behavior if done by homosexuals.

Regarding Burger's assertion, they observed several problems:

They point out that apparently, there wasn't a single law against homosexual behavior in the US until 1970.

They point out that laws against sodomy (for any couple) are being repealed across the country, and that of those 13 states which do still have such laws, many have policies of not enforcing them, and 4 have policies of only enforcing them against homosexuals.

And they pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that laws prohibiting homosexuality were illegal in Europe. (The court's ruling is binding on 42 countries in Europe.)

(

That

was the context in which they quoted a European Court's ruling: To show that Burger's claim that homosexual behavior was illegal in "every Western country" was no longer true.)

And they cited two USSC cases which had been ruled on, in between the Bowers case and this one:

They said that

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

had ruled that matters of sexuality and reproduction were matters very tightly tied to the foundation of personal liberty protected by the "Due Process clause", and that, therefore, the government was prohibited in exerting coercion on these fundamentally personal decisions without some overriding state concern that requires it. (And they observe that there is no such concern in this case.)

And they observe that the court, in

Romers v. Evans

, struck down a Colorado law that attempted to say that homosexuals weren't covered by the state's equal protection law.

And they observed that recently, several states, when considering matters involving their own State's Constitutions, had specifically chosen to not regard Bowers as precedent in their own rulings.

Based on these factors, the court basically ruled that the previous, Bowers, decision, was no longer valid, because it was based on assertions which were no longer true, (and to some extent, never were), and because intervening court rulings also had relevence on the issue.

And they sent the case back to the lower court, and told them to re-consider the Constitutionality of the Texas law, without considering Bowers as a binding precedent.

In short, no, the court didn't "reach beyond the State and US Constitutions in . . . rulings interpreting International law". They ruled that "The Bowers decision claimed that it ruled the way it did because of international law, and those claims aren't true."