Why is it every time we talk about "torture" down at Club Gitmo (see links 1 and 2) Democrats reference the Constitution?
Has someone yet to tell them that the Constitution is for United States citizens and not terrorists?
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062805/gitmo.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675677/posts
2006-10-08 14:20:32 · 15 answers · asked by John 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When Joe Lieberman was pretty much thrown out of the democratic party for uttering a few positive results he had seen on his visit to Iraq, I knew for sure where the democrats stood on the war on terror.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Before you can expect human rights, you must first act human. That's a very reasonable request, don't you think?
The "rights" of an Islamic terrorist vs. the potential death of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
There's no debate, discussion or dilemma there.
2006-10-08 14:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really? When I read the Bill of Rights, it says "the People", not "U.S. citizens".
The reason the terror SUSPECTS (not the convicted terrorists, mind. Innocent until proven guilty?) are being held abroad is because the Bill of Rights covers anyone on U. S. soil. By holding them on a base in a foriegn country, they are just scraping by on the right side of the letter of the Law.
What the Democrats (among others) are upset about is that, while obeying the strict letter of the Law, they are certainly abusing the spirit of the Law, which is to say that we are supposed to be the "good guys", and not do what the "bad guys" do. Terrorists do not care about anyone's rights. See, we are supposed to be better than they are. They should be afforded due process, and equal protection under our laws. If we intend to punish them under our laws, we should be willing to extend them the protections of our laws. Otherwise, we become hypocrites.
2006-10-08 14:38:07 · answer #2 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there is not any data that this style of torture replaced into ever utilized by making use of the chinese language. the popularity of the term "chinese language water torture" would have arisen from Harry Houdini's chinese language Water Torture cellular presented in 1912; the invention Channel sequence MythBusters investigated chinese language water torture in the season 3 episode "Brown be conscious, Water Torture", and found that dripping water on the brow, by making use of itself, replaced into not somewhat annoying. Immobilizing the problem alongside with a variable water drop time table proved the main annoying of the strategies they tried, and chilly water intensified the effect. the biggest component to this is that the water drop replaced into made to be randomly timed. consequently, the sufferer does not understand whilst the subsequent drop might come.
2016-10-19 01:24:48 · answer #3 · answered by wiechmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats and the Communist Founded ACLU are very creative at redefining things to suit their political purposes. They are aware that 80% of the population will go along with what it's told, so they can simply say whatever is convenient.
The only parts of the Constitution that apply to prisoners of war are those parts that deal with prisoners of war. For example, a foreigner does not have a 'right' to keep and bear arms in the US.
The Geneva Conventions also do not apply to 'spies or saboteurs'. Democrats can't seem to grasp that either. Not the sharpest rocks in the creekbed.
2006-10-08 14:23:56 · answer #4 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
This torture at Gitmo has resulted in the deaths of many of those you think were pampered.
If you think things are so rosey there why don't you ask to be imprisoned in those kennel-like torture chamber prisons and have electric prods connected to your private parts, be starved, and then fed your friend's puke. Be paraded naked with nothing but black hoods over your face, be urinated on, and be forced to stand in stress positions for days and deprived of sleep, not to mention having your Bible flushed down the commode.
I bet you'd admit to being a terrosrist within 2 hours.
No, on second thought why not enlist into the Army and ask to go fight in Iraq, then you'll see the results of George Walker Bush's approval of turture.
Get a life and get real instead of asking totally absurd questions on Yahoo.
LeAnne,
Leiberman was not thrown out of the Democratic party. He was voted out of office. It was his decision to run for office under the Libertarian ticket.
Where you been getting your facts from girl? Pat Robertson's 700 Nazi club?
2006-10-08 14:27:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
The Constitution of the United States of America does not and should NEVER cover foreigners, only American Citizens and definitely should not even cover these Islamo-Fascist terrorists!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-08 14:30:30 · answer #6 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Geneva Convention moron...Ask any POW what that means coz it looks like this whole adminstration went to the same school as you
2006-10-08 14:42:27 · answer #7 · answered by Maggie L 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
has anyone told the president that his interpretation of the rules of the Geneva Convention can also be determined by other leaders of the world, and their own conscience, in respect to US military forces in this war and future wars
2006-10-08 14:36:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the dems had there way our constitution would apply to the world. They want to give Criminals the right to vote and Illegals. Why? Apparently Dems seem to think there party appeals to Terrorist and criminals.
2006-10-08 14:26:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
How about for cab drivers turned in for $10.000, a life's wages in Pakistan?
The constitution covers treatment of foreign nationals.
D**b ***. Were you home schooled? Were you schooled at all?
2006-10-08 14:23:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋