Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jedi Knight, Jun 13, 2009.
The world has gone mad. Reason has left the planet. :tear:
That judge should be impeached and removed from office.
Lawyers know where to find these kinds of judges. This case will go nowhere.
But... the lawyer will have to pay to defend himself.
peace to youraying:
Without knowing more of the content of the policy document.... the snippet included in this report seems to give considerable latitude for interrogation behaviors which exceed the parameters of human civility..... regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't establish that these limits were reached in the course of interrogation: That would be for investigation of actual procedures carried out.
I think the ruling is appropriate under the circumstances of checks and balances.
There is something inherently dangerous in allowing policy to be established and power to be exercised without answering to questions of examination, and the consequences of decisions and injustice.
What we might think as being appropriate treatment for an enemy combatant or terrorist suspect..... may be turned upon any person, citizen or not, in a different time and under different circumstances.
It is our own duty in preserving our freedoms and rights under our constitution, to exercise a conservative or restrictive voice regarding the coercion limits allowed to government.
Not sure how much you guys know about the story but the "terrorist" turned out to be a US citizen and was found to have nothing to do with terrorism. IOW, his constitutional rights were violated. I don't think the judge could have ruled any other way.
The story says the person bringing the lawsuit was convicted of planning with Al Queda to deliver a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.
That sounds like your statement that he was "found to have nothing to do with terrorism" may be inaccurate.
peace to youraying:
I know enough to know that you did not even bother to read the article in the OP.
The very first sentence proves it.
"A convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture, ruled a federal judge has ruled who said he was trying to balance a clash between war and the defense of personal freedoms."
That he is a terrorist is a tried fact.
That his constitutional rights were violated in merely alleged at this point.
Do you ever tire of looking silly by popping off without the facts?
How long can it be before convicted pedophiles are allowed to sue their victims?
I should have been more clear but I thought you guys read more than Fox or WND.
The charges for which he was imprisoned while tortured were dropped. He is not in jail for the dirty bomb. He later went to jail in 1/2008 but these were different charges.
The Fox article doesn't make that part clear as usual...
Nope, I don't tire of making you look silly with facts. It would do you good to look beyond the twisted facts circulated by the right.
So I take it, your understanding here is that a person who is consciously and knowingly supplying/providing support for terrorists is not actaully a terrorist himself. Is that your really your logic here? Are they not 'both' tried in and for the same crime?
If a person provided support for another to gain access to and rape/kill another. Is not that supporter guilty of the same crime as the one who perpitrated it even if it is to a lesser degree (per-say)?
NOTE: there reasons the charges were dropped and it was not because he had nothing to do it, which is why they charged him with lesser charges for which the evidence was compelling.
What silly facts would those be?
A - He is a convicted terrorist.
B - There has been no trial as yet to prove that his constitutional rights were violated.
You are now free to disprove these facts.
Was he tortured? If so then as an American his rights were violated.
What I am saying is he was arrested and tortured for one thing and later was prosecuted on lesser things they felt could be proved.
Listen, I am not saying this guy was a Sunday School teacher but in our country, even a prisoner has rights. If the constitution comes into play when we buy private companies why not when others rights are violated? Either we have a constitution or we don't.
The man who is suing is an American citizen. According to this article.
His lawsuit alleges he was illegally detained and was subjected to sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, painful stress positions, and extended periods of bright lights and total darkness. Padilla also alleges he endured threats that he would be killed, that his family would be harmed, and that he would be transferred to another country to be tortured.
American citizens used to have the right to be charged with a crime, given access to an attorney, and not to be tortured. At least in the America I used to know........
The America you used to know disappeared with the election of Marxist "bo" and the disappearance of JC!
Revisionist history. These "terrorists" were thrown into prision during the Bush administration.
I know you were being tongue N cheek but if I'm not mistaken OR, America returned with the election of President Obama since the violations and the ignoring of his rights occurred under the previous administration.