Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on November 07, 2001, 02:26:00 PM
-
Some might say its a violation of the detainees rights to use 'truth serums'... a violation of constitutional rights.
On the other hand, we've all had our rights violated by the actions of the terrorists, the response of the government has in effect violated our right to privacy.
Whaddaya think, pump 'em fulla babble juice and get the info, or continue to ask politely thru their lawyers for the info?
-
I'm curious... what right's are being violated? The right to privacy?
If a truth serum is used, any information gathered can't be used against the person since the constitution protects against self-incrimination. I can't event venture a guess as to the legal ramifications of applying that information towards another arrest would go.
Seems like a pandora's box waiting to be opened.
I say we bring back painfull torture and frequent beatings. Nobody will expect that!
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
If a truth serum is used, any information gathered can't be used against the person since the constitution protects against self-incrimination. I can't event venture a guess as to the legal ramifications of applying that information towards another arrest would go.
The Constitution only applies to American citizens. Non-citizens do not share these rights unless explicitly granted them by an act of Congress. In most cases, the rights of citizens closely overlap the rights of non-citizens (and rightfully so). However, the recent anti-terrorism legislation demonstrates the rift between the two, often applying a very broad definition of "terrorism" to non-citizens and a more narrow definition to Americans.
And all that is perfectly legal without violating the Equal Protection Clause, since only Americans are guaranteed the right to equal protection. They're also the only ones constitutionally guaranteed the right to avoid self-incrimination. If Congress desired, it could make using truth serums and detaining foreign suspects indefinitely completely legal. Not that I support its doing that of course, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Hmmmm... I don't believe we have a means to not apply the constitution to non-US citizens. There is no clear set of behaviors defined.
I think that trying to do so would be disastrous to a way of life founded on imigration.
Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does? I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does? I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.
AKDejaVu
I don't believe it's acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit either. However, the fact remains that any rights granted to non-citizens are done so by acts of Congress and are not explicit in the Constitution itself. What we currently have, thankfully, is a great deal of overlap between rights enjoyed by Americans and rights enjoyed by foreign visitors to America. I firmly believe that that's as it should be.
However, Congress could choose to revoke those rights immediately if it desired. As a case in point, AG Ashcroft pushed for a provision of the anti-terrorism bill that would have enabled the United States to detain suspect foreigners indefinitely without officially charging them with a crime. Congress balked at this proposal and instead voted to allow the US Government to detain suspect foreign nationals for no longer than seven days without being charged. In addition, they instituted a sunset clause on this provision that would eliminate it after three or four years. It seems unlikely that we'd ever have that sort of debate over legislation affecting American citizens, who are guaranteed due process and a timely trial. A bill applying these standards to Americans would never make it out of committee.
So yes, Congress has the power to eliminate any parity between rights shared by citizens and non-citizens. However, they've also demonstrated a respectable level of pragmatism here. I think they fear the Pandora's Box as much as you do, DejaVu.
-- Todd/Leviathn
[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]
-
save the juice and call in the Sopranos .. after a finger or two, you'll get the truth.
-
With physical torture we become what we are trying to catch.
With 'chemical' means we are simply allowing the government to do to the detainees what the government is already doing to us... invading privacy.
If it's decided that inerrogations using babble juice are illegal in this country, lets put the detainees on a plane to some place it ain't and ask the questions there.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does? I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.
Lot of things going on in US are based on the concept of "reasonable". No one is going to round up all non-citizens and use them for fertiliser anytime soon.
If we do stop being reasonable, constitution would not help. People who were subject to genoside in germany or those sterilized in US in 1930s were all citizens...
miko
-
some people use drugs like Sodium Pentothal recreationally (not like i would know of course)
they only really work on people who don't get high much if you are trying to get to the truth.
it's like getting a nondrinker drunk - you can ask em anything you want. to an old alch-y it wouldnt matter. so i think we should all develop tolerances to narcotics as defense against terrorists!
:D
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
I don't believe it's acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit either. However, the fact remains that any rights granted to non-citizens are done so by acts of Congress and are not explicit in the Constitution itself. What we currently have, thankfully, is a great deal of overlap between rights enjoyed by Americans and rights enjoyed by foreign visitors to America. I firmly believe that that's as it should be.
However, Congress could choose to revoke those rights immediately if it desired. As a case in point, AG Ashcroft pushed for a provision of the anti-terrorism bill that would have enabled the United States to detain suspect foreigners indefinitely without officially charging them with a crime. Congress balked at this proposal and instead voted to allow the US Government to detain suspect foreign nationals for no longer than seven days without being charged. In addition, they instituted a sunset clause on this provision that would eliminate it after three or four years. It seems unlikely that we'd ever have that sort of debate over legislation affecting American citizens, who are guaranteed due process and a timely trial. A bill applying these standards to Americans would never make it out of committee.
So yes, Congress has the power to eliminate any parity between rights shared by citizens and non-citizens. However, they've also demonstrated a respectable level of pragmatism here. I think they fear the Pandora's Box as much as you do, DejaVu.
-- Todd/Leviathn
[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]
Heya DM,
I hate to bust your bubble but the constitutional rights DO extend to foriegners under arrest in the U.S.. Think of it this way. The courts that have jurisdiction in this country all play by the same rules, the constitution. If you are going to try anyone in this country then all civil / criminal rights apply irregardless of nationality or citizenship. This is for criminal prosecutions of violations of the criminal codes, State and Federal. The courts will not allow an exception for the constitutional rights of a foriegn national being ignored.
Happens that illegal aliens have rights same as citizens under the law. There are exceptions given excacerbating circumstances and laws dealing with being an illeagle alien only. In other words, no other criminal conduct other than lack of visa etc. for the offender.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Happens that illegal aliens have rights same as citizens under the law. There are exceptions given excacerbating circumstances and laws dealing with being an illeagle alien only. In other words, no other criminal conduct other than lack of visa etc. for the offender.
The distinction you've made is equality in the court rooms. This doesn't necessarily correspond to equality of standards (e.g. the various definitions of terrorism) or of non-trial rights (interrogation, due process). I think the big distinction in the anti-terrorism bill was detention without arrest.
On all other points I defer to the experts. :) However, a strict constitutional reading provides no prima facie evidence that constitutional rights extend to foreign nationals. Congress possesses nearly total power over the administration, formation, and organization of federal courts other than the Supreme Court (and even then they have great control over the non-explicit jurisdiction of the SC). It therefore seems to me that Congress ultimately controls whether or not constitutional rights extend to foreign nationals. If there's no explicit law providing for this, there must be a Supreme Court decision that codifies it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
In Vietnam, just the suggestion that we might turn POW's over to the South Vietnamese for interrogation had a very favorable effect on the enemies willingness to talk.
If I were Saudi, and it was suggested that I would be returned to my countrymen for questioning. I would have to rethink my position :)
-
i see nothing wrong with using 'truth serum' on prisoners of war, that is what they are, right?
-
Guess Capt. Apathy never heard of the Geneva convention...
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
And
Article 99
No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.
No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
If it's decided that inerrogations using babble juice are illegal in this country, lets put the detainees on a plane to some place it ain't and ask the questions there.
There you go, dangle em out the door until we get the answers we are looking for.
then cut the cord and send them to Allah and their pile of virgins...
show them as much mercy as they showed the ppl in the WTC.
Fight Fire with Fire .. not more PC BS
-
13
truth serum is not really experamental anymore so the 'medical experiments or mutalation' clause don't really aply.
17
while you are only bound to give certain info there is no rule i know of against trying to get more detailed info.
99
if the info is used strictly for inteligence purposes and not for war crimes conviction or the like i don't see where this aplys
-
BTW, I'm all for using the truth serum to gather information here. But I say that in a manner that implies I'm willing to look the other way for it.
If this is used, it will set precident. That precident is not a good one to have in the books.
AKDejaVu
-
Well Sodium Pentathol is basically a short acting barbituate - used as an anaesthetic and with all the attendent side effects and contraindications these drugs have. Thus giving a prisoner an anaesthetic he does not need is hardly "justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest." It's usually injected - which at a push could be considered pyhsical mutilation, and the Geneva Convention does stipulate that the benefit of the doubt always goes to the prisoner's benefit, not the Captor.
I apologize for not quoting Article 17 in full - pay particular attention to the italicized bit:
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
There that should clear up the whole Article 17 confusion. Pretty much emphatically against the old truth serum.
Article 99 stops countries from using the line of "he's guilty of <insert crime here> so we have to inject him with drugs to get information."
-
Juice 'em I say. Wring 'em out like rags, toss the quilty ones out without a chute over their nasty lil countries (deportation; ARVN style) and restore the innocent ones to their gas stations and convienience stores.
(note: I'm sick, and am feeling a mite cranky today.)
-
In Holland we get information out of people by threatening to have them watch "The Sound of Music" all week long. Really breaks the strongest wills....
Broes
-
Hey -dead- - why didn't you include a definition of a POW as well? Something about a soldier, wearing a uniform and following orders springs to mind. Surely you wouldn't apply that to a terrorist. During the last war spies (as in "no regular soldiers") were routinely shot after interrogation. No Geneva convention, no rights, no mess...
-
dead,
point taken. that would definitely apply.
-
When my dad was a POW. He was beaten, and tortured by the North Koreans, and the Chinese for weeks. We are about the only country that even pays lip service to the Geneva convention anyway.
-
LOL Broes!
I was always afraid your text lines in Tv (when movie is english) contains hidden messages to screw us up...lol :D
Andreas JV44
-
Lynx: Absolutely - but I should point out that I was just commenting on Capt Apathy's statement that there was nothing wrong with using truth serum on POWs.
Easymo - Exactly why I reckon every country should abide by the Geneva Convention.
However on the jingoistic last sentence:
The US twice vetoed the application of the Geneva Convention to the messy Israel/Palastine conflict in the UN Security council in 97, and boycotted the meeting of signatories in 99 to investigate violations, and consider enforcement, of the Convention's provisions by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem. It was the first time the signatories had ever gathered to implement its terms.
Does that really sound like the US is "about the only country that even pays lip service to the Geneva convention"? Sounds to me like the US is actively undermining it.
-
Get the truth from 'em whatever it takes. Who cares about legal prosecution. Heck, after they confess just turn 'em loose, in NYC ;)
-
"No Geneva convention, no rights, no mess"
Yeah, except for a few things called "Law", "Human Rights" and similar subjects.
Daff
-
Daff, next time you want to coment on something don't take it out of context, OK? Simple enough, right? Anyone who has no respect for human life, especially that of defenseless and totally innocent civilians ceases to be a human IMHO. And with that go rights and any other liberal stuff. Turn the other cheek? No thanks.
-
Heheheh you Americans should never have called it a war against terrorists.
Now the Geneva convention is working against you.
Go right ahead with the truth serum. When that doesn't work, I am sure torture will. :D
-
Based on your response, it seems that it wasnt taken out of context, but spot on!
Daff
-
Terrorists are not soldiers. They are spies, traitors and or saboteurs. They should be treated in a highly uncivilized manner. I dont remember Osama ever signing the Geneva convention.
And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember.
-
"And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember."
You really are completly off your trolley.
I'm surprised you can remember your own name.
-
And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember.
when the day comes that we are not free to criticize this country, there will be nothing about this country worth defending.
-
Times they are a changeing.
This discussion shows that the meaning of the word "War" is now open for discussion.
The perps of this attack would never in a million years consider themselves bound by the rules of the Geneva convention.
So they are not protected by it.
The geneva convention is not a decleration of inaliable human rights..It is a "convention" aggreed to by signitures as to how they will wage war on each other.
It is also just as clear I believe as to what constitutes a soldier and what doensnt.
Maybe someone can dig that up.
-
The Geneva Convention certainly doesn't apply to terrorists.
Here's the articles defining POWs in full - the italics show the "terrorists aren't covered" bits.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
However before we pump all the suspects full of truth serum, a quick look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be advisable:
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2 No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
And we should probably take into account 2 more things:
1. Truth serums aren't very good - you have no guarantee they're telling the truth. Likewise with torture - you can get them to say anything you like, but it doesn't make it true.
2. Allowing truth serums, torture & imprisonment without a trial for one type of criminal is a quick way of getting rid of everyone's rights. It makes it very easy for a government to get rid of anyone they don't like: simply accuse the person of being a terrorist (remember - for an interrogation you don't need to have any real evidence whatsoever: you're gathering the evidence), torture/dope them until they confess & then execute them. Or just keep them in prison indefinitely, and avoid a messy trial.
Sure, that's a worse case scenario - but it would all be above board & legal. So spare a thought for yourselves before you clamour for terrorists to be tortured and truth serumed - because it might be you who's in the interrogation room next.
-
There is no problem with torturing terrorist suspects for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law.
-
I read of one instance where an Islamic terrorist was being leaned on pretty hard to divulge information. I forget which country this was in. They did some pretty bad toejam to him but he wouldn't crack. One tough nut.
However when they brought him to the airport and informed him they were sending him to Israel for further "enquiries" he shat himself and babbled nonstop, telling them everything they wanted to know.
I say let the Russians or the Israelis have a crack at 'em. Americans just don't seem scary enough when it comes to torture.
-
The real question is this.
A nuke is in the US somewhere.
The CIA is holding 3 guys that have a strong chance of knowing where...
Do they ask nice or not.....
I think I know what would happen. I think I aggree with it.
I dont think there is a piece of paper any where in the world that could stop it from happening.
-
Point accepted Pongo, and it no doubt happens, and I don't want any nukes going off anywhere.
However, it still seems a rather tougher ethical question for me, because life usually isn't as easy and clear cut as your scenario - it would actually be more likely that they don't know for certain there's a nuclear bomb at all, they don't know for certain the 3 guys know where it is (if it exists), or even they don't know for certain the 3 guys have done anything wrong.
And even if they do - how do we know they know this? How do we know that suspect #3 really is a terrorist at all and not just someone Agent #2 found in bed with his wife? Or a journalist who was about to expose the CIA for selling drugs to buy arms for some South American guerilla army?
The whole human rights thing is unfortunately a whole heap trickier than your scenario suggests, and made even more tricky by the secrecy needed to provide good counter-terrorist intel - because if you torture the wrong guy, what recourse does he have? Who is accountable? It is far easier for the CIA to deny all knowledge and dismiss the guy as a nutter or just kill him (he had a heart condition - we didn't know) -any files will not be released for decades, if ever [classified for reasons of National Security].
Which brings us to Gunthr's comment
There is no problem with torturing terrorist suspects for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law.
Gunthr - I have to ask this: who would you exempt from being suspected of terrorism? How, and who decides who is a terrorist or a suspected terrorist and who isn't?
As far as I see it, any law enforcemnet agency trying to stop terrorism has to be able to consider any- and everybody as a terrorist suspect in order to be effective, and so you might as well say:
"There is no problem with torturing US citizens or foreign nationals for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law."
Sounds like a very scary country to live in to me. :eek:
Indeed a good test for how totalitarian these sorts of statements sound is to replace the word "terrorist" with the words "enemies of the Communist party" and "US" with "China", and then see if you can still back it as justifiable.
"There is no problem with torturing enemies of the Communist party for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a Chinese court of law."
Still sound OK? Sounds like a front page shock-horror story to me: "Evil commies violate human rights again" :D
-
Sorry Dead, I shouldn't have used the word "suspect". I meant known terrorists.
And remember, there is a war going on. I'll give an illustration:
Lets say that a subject is pulled over while driving a van containing part of a crude nuclear device, headed to NYC. The subject is middle eastern, in the country illegally, and already suspected to be involved in previous terrorist acts. He could be subject to torture if he refuses to give information as to his organization, the whereabouts of the other componants of the nuclear device, etc.
If anyone is overly concerned about being tortured, maybe they should refrain from transporting a nuclear device, or other weapons of mass destruction. We have a responsibility here, to innocent men, women and children in this country.
Again, I don't believe that mere "suspects" should be subject to torture.
I believe that in war, known terrorists who target innocent civilians should be subject to drugs/torture to develope information.
In my original post, I am saying that, as far as I know, use of torture and/drugs under these specific circumstances do not violate the laws and constitution of the USA, unless the attempt is made to use such information in a US court of law.
I hope I've made myself clear. I'm as horrified as anyone by the harsh realities brought about by terrorist's willingness to attack and kill innocent people en masse.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Gunthr ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Some might say its a violation of the detainees rights to use 'truth serums'... a violation of constitutional rights.
On the other hand, we've all had our rights violated by the actions of the terrorists, the response of the government has in effect violated our right to privacy.
Whaddaya think, pump 'em fulla babble juice and get the info, or continue to ask politely thru their lawyers for the info?
Take them on a curise with the CIA funded by donations of US citizens. I'm sure Dizzney would supply the ship :)
At 12 miles pump them with the babble juice. No Constitution at 12 miles and they can gamble too.
Now, who is going to start this quality 501c3??? I have my check book open and a pen filled with ink :)
-
No Constitution at 12 miles and they can gamble too.
LOL, that cracks me up... :)
-
Dead
very good reply.
I dont want to live in a country that uses torture to achieve its means. But really my scenario while not exaustive is realistic. You can put up scenarios that are not so clear cut if you like. But my point is made by the clear cut one.
Yes or no. Do we condone the torture or serume use on these three known terrorists to find out where they have hidden a nuke.
I deliberatly made it a black and white issue. Because I assume that there are people who would not preasure or coerce the info from our three heros no matter the cost.
-
Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
What we need is some "Stan" remover. :mad: