Where in the Constitution does it say "this only applies to who we says it applies to"? "All men are created equal" is in there (men meaning humans). The Constitution doesn't apply to French citizens living in Japan. But it does applies to the US Governement dealing with any person. Torture is not an acceptable option, either Constitutionally or in the view of the American public.

Torture?, what about no person can be compelled to give testimony against themself. 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

I'm curious where it is written in the Constitution or US Code that non-citizens are not afforded such rights.  Even now as I look for it, I can't find it.  If anybody has such a link...please post it.  I'd be most interested.

I'm of the thought that regardless of the crime committed or who did it, the criminal is afforded a host of "rights" that they could very easily twist to their advantage.

30-40 years of liberal laws didn't anticipate things such as this. Even today people are out there talking about just singing Kumbaya and holding hands with the terrorists.  Did anyone hear or read what Richard Gere was saying at Saturday Night's concert in New York City?

If we can't prove that they broke the law, then release them...

...on the corner of Church and Liberty St. in New York City and let em' run for it!

Who cares, we're supposed to be the model of democracy for the "free" world.  Looking pretty grim, isn't it?

Check out this story:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/21/magazine/21MUSLIM.html?pagewanted=1[/url]

Favorite quote:
"At the end I said to myself, These guys are clueless," Hazmi said later. "How can they figure out who is behind this thing? I would suggest that Americans don't rely on the F.B.I. I say, God must protect America instead."

NH2112, I agree with you completely.  Non-citizens are still human beings.

However, minor nitpick:  The section of the Constitution that you quote is Amendment 14, not 13.  One day, we will use Amendment 14 to extend the protections of the Second Amendment to all the states.

To those who advocate torture, I will point out that leaving the constitutional issues aside for a moment, there are many practical reasons to forbid torture:

With enough torture, almost anybody can be made to say almost anything, no matter how bogus.  Torture is unfortunately practised in most countries of the world, and incorrect convictions are rampant.  When this happens, innocent people are convicted, and guilty people remain free.

Torture destroys the trust that needs to exist between the police and the people.

Finally, torture amounts to punishment outside the law.  The recipients of torture are often physically disabled and psychologically scarred for life.

Only a few months ago, we feared that one day, we would become the victims of a domestic war on guns and their owners.  While this fortunately now appears remote, times may yet change.  I do not want to set a precedent to use torture now, and get to be the target of it ten or twenty years down the road.

Yes, the Israeli's use torture. And who is a "ticking bomb?" Anyone they say.

I think I'll stick with hielo, garheadjr and  OLY-M4gery on this one.

Well...derrr [:I]

Alright, I've changed my opinion.

I agree, even if convicted, they should not be tourtured. -For the resons others have stated by many above. I have no problem w/ drugging them, etc, as long as it has no perminant side effects, and is not extreamly painful in the interm.

I also agree, truth from torture is not allways real truth. IMO, there are 2 times you get the honest truth, when someone WANTS to tell you, and when you have a gun at thier head w/the intent to use it, and you are not asking any questions.

Later,
Justin

Use the phone book, it doesn't leave any marks.

The drug is called Versid (I spoke with a doctor who’s a friend)

No, it's not time for a constitutional amendment. It's time to let the Constitution stand as written, regardless of the crimes committed. Every one of us on this site would be screaming bloody murder if one of the usual liberal Congressmen called for an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment, yet now that it's not gun-related it's perfectly OK to amend away someone's rights. Never mind that the rights you want to take away from a certain person or class of persons will be the rights taken away from you tomorrow, by a government acting under the authority of the amendment you cried for. Or do you actually think the gov't will stick to only torturing suspected Arab terrorists?

In slightly over 200 years we've seen 27 amendments to the Constitution and only [b]one[/b] of them (the 18th amendment) took away a right of the people - and that was repealed 14 years later by the 21st. [b]Every[/b] other one either affirmed a right of the people (1st, 2nd, 4th amendments), widened the scope of a right that was already affirmed in writing (13th, 15th, & 19th), or didn't deal with rights at all (16th, 17th, 27th amendments.)

We should kill one of the MFers in front of the rest, then mutilate the body and leave it to rot for the buzzards. No burial before sundown = no ticket to Allah Land for those idiots.
As a firefighter I take what these people have done very seriously. Now is the time for limp wristed sissy liberals to put away their toys and go home to mama!.

HEY MUZLBLAST

       DITTO! all of those psycho-babble fundlmentalists just need to DIE!  locate close with and destroy the by fire and manuevers!

[marines]

You mean what is about American society that inhibits us from taking someone, no matter who they are, behind a court house with no judge, no jury, and only an executioner?  Does this really have to be explained?  If it does my guess is going to be that the rule of law is imbedded very deeply in American society and trial w/o jury, especially with the end being execution, is alien to Americans to say the least.  I would want to know for sure we are executing the right people, as execution is one of those permanent things.  I would be very afraid to live in a society where people can disappear as a result of suspicion.

I don't know if you've seen the footage on the news, but what you have described above is [b]exactly[/b] what the Taliban does.

What part of “They are not citizens” don’t you understand? They are the enemy


I Guarn fuckin tee this sniveling shit quits when it’s your mom jumping out of that 105th floor window with her hair on fire.

Okay!  So we can't torture them, and we can't shoot them (legally).  So how about this?

We give them all a sex change operation, put them in long robes and veils and and send them back to the Taliban. The way those a--h---s treat women, they should get their due in their own land.

So what do you think?  [sex]

Interesting that there has been little talk here about the fact America has used torture in the past.  WWII we brought POWs here and most certainly DID torture them!!  (Sat them naked on steam radiators and cooked their nuts among other things.)  Ask the VN vets about the one way helicopter rides and how much VC had to say hanging out the door of  Huey after 1st guy was thrown out.

I hate the moslem vermin that did these acts in NY, Wash, PA (and the bugs) as much as anyone does.  I have zero compassion for them.  None.

All that being said, I DO value our rule of law, our constitution.  By all means drug them.  Deport them - to a country that will treat them badly.  Send them home, branded as rats.  Whatever.  But do them no harm, give them whatever rights our law affords them.  Torture, I think is going too far.  The ATF and FBI has done quite enough of that already at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

MickeyMouse, where can I get a published reference on the torture of POWs or spied in WWII?  I have been looking for a reference.

Thanks,

GunLvr

Well, what about the 16th?  It reads, "...Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..."  We lost the right to keep what we earn.  In the 22nd, we lost, under certain conditions, the right to elect our choice of person for President or VP that we would have otherwise had the right to elect.  In the 27th, we lost the right to let our representatives control their compensation.  Aside: if we don't trust them to pay themselves appropriately, why would we trust them to vote on much more important issues?

Of course, I will agree with your general sentiment.  In over 200 years, amendments to the Constitution have generally given us rights rather than taking them away.  Thank you for pointing that out, because I now feel a little more optimistic about the future.z

No_Reflex_Zone wrote:



What sort of liberal are you?  Right and wrong changes depending on the situtation?  So, if someone is caught dealing drugs, they have the right to due process, but if they hurt your mother, it's fine to "take them out back."  No, right and wrong doesn't change, just because you become emotionally involved.z

In all of the arguments posted here (the REASONABLE ones!) I like the idea of better living through chemistry best...

The nice thing about Pentothal, Scope, Versed, anh the like is that they induce a state of extreme relaxation while temporarily disrupting higher cognitive function (they make you feel good and less able to lie.)  Slowly dose them until they reach the very edge of consciousness, hold them there, and question thoroly.  Make sure to reference your notes and don't be afraid to verify details a minimum of three times.  Also, record the interrogation in both audio and video media.  Make the video record on 16mm film, and have witnesses seal the reel and camera.

When the interrogation is finished, there are now two options...

1) Subject is innocent.  Seal records and release subject to airport to go back home.  Subject may be eligible for US re-entry after current emergency is passed.

2) Subject is guilty.  Develop and copy all records.  Case goes to trial.  Anyone from the ACLU who should feel that the subject has a "right" to commit acts of terrorism can join him at the Defendant's table.

DO NOT INCARCERATE OR EXECUTE the subject.  In the event of Afghan/Taliban convicts, gender assignment surgery and a prefrontal lobotomy would be effective.  Punishment for other subjects can be altered for maximum effect.

It is important that terrorism subjects are not incarcerated or executed for their actions.  They MUST be allowed to live free, if altered.  Why?  

In the event of an execution, you create a martyr.  You cannot silence a martyr, and the 'cause' will carry on all the stronger.

If you incarcerate your convict, you create the impetus for more terror/hostage situations in an effort to release the prisoner.  Think about this.

The best thing to do is to reduce the convited person to a state worse than nothing, yet free and mobile (within the strictures of their society, of course.)  One must apply thought to the problem - if we are to truly solve it.  I think that life as nothing (or less!) would be far more effective than the loss of personal liberty or life...

FFZ

This Is [b]AMERICA[/b], We Don't Torture People Here.

That IS the Reason for The Constitution.

I would hook them up to a Lie Detector and monitor their reaction to questions.

Liberty And Justice For All.

^
[size=1]Allege handgun control master plan for TOTAL
Gun Confiscation Dis-Armament.[/size=1][url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]
[size=1]Revelation 13:18  ID-GPS-MONEY  Implant Micro-chip[/size=1][url]http://www.DigitalAngel.net/da/tech.htm[/url]  

Never Again, Never Forget
Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind
We Are At WAR

FIXED BAYONETS

VX

The only problem with that (legal and ethical) suggestion is that they have the right to remain silent, which would make a lie detector useless.  We're back to where we started.  How do you make them talk?z

Sex Change Operations for all, then back to the Taliban.

I've already demonstrated, by posting the appropriate text from the 14th amendment (incorrectly attributed to the 13th amenemdnet by me) that it doesn't matter whether they're citizens or not, they enjoy the same rights while they're in America as you and I do. Your apparent choice to disregard that proof doesn't mean it's not true.




Just like a liberal, using emotion instead of reason. If it was my mother, brother, wife, girlfriend, whoever, I'd want the Constitution to be followed, just like I do with the current suspects. I wouldn't want one more innocent person (i.e., the tortured suspects) to die as a result of this.

We shouldn't be so naive.  The company & other "outsourced firms" has been "extracting" information from enemies of the State for a very long time. Its business as usual.  We do whatever it takes and don't talk about it.    Freedom must sometimes be protected from itself.

g

Well, I know what you always hear in movies is Sodium Pentathol... but my expert in residence says that is too difficult to control, the guy will fall asleep on you.  

The real ticket is Sodium Amatol, you can keep them spilling their guts for hours.

Hey, where the hell is the dude who started this melee?

Seriously, we did not come all this way to now discard the Constitution.  Either it is, or it ain't.

We cannot pick and choose those parts of it that we happen to agree with, discarding the rest... that is what the anti-gun people do.

So, we take it all, or we burn it... no middle road here.

No, I will not condone torture.  If we do that, we have lost, and they have won.  We become the barbarians they are.

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259

You could also look at several spies caught within our borders during WWII.

They were afforded rights to an attorney just long enough for the AG to declare them a “agents of a foreign power” and therefore subject to military justice. – Later appealed ruling held

I don’t plan on debating this with you. There is really no reason.

whatever it takes!

This is laughable in its naivete, you think these people care about socail stigma? You don't think that these people want to die for their cause?

You don't think that once you release these people to live their lives as outcasts, they won't put on their TNT vest and blow up your kids school?

Stop thinking like an (soft) American, who values his time infront of his TV, watching his favortie sitcoms and who beleives that all is fine as long as his beer is in the Cold section of the supermarket.

These peo0ple want to kill us, not just some of us, but all of us, including our women(z) and kid(z).

There is one thing to do for a rabid dog that somehow got into your home while your family was sleeping, torturing it isn't the answer, making it look bad infront of it's friends doesn't cut it either, putting a bullet through it's head is about all that will work.

This is a war, we better start friggin acting like it.

No more taking wednesdays off because Libya asks us to, or dropping frigging food packets instead of bombs, no more getting teary eyed over the old age home our bombs destroyed, no more giving them a frigging MONTH to regroup over ramaddaan,  go in and start killing them, it is a WAR for gods sake.

How the hell would we ever have won WWII, giving the enemy food, giving them time off for prayers, treating their populations as sacrosanct.

One of us has to die, us or them, I choose them.

Okay Heilo.  On page one, you said don't torture the suspects because it will be used on us next.  Then you turn around here and seem to call soft those that don't want to outright kill the enemy and you say we are at war.  Huh?  If we are at war, as you say, then those suspects are enemy soldiers, who are NOT protected by the Constitution and makes moot all those points about Constitutional protection.  Enemy soldiers do not fall under it's protection.  If we were actually invaded by an army of a foreign nation, do you think that any captured soldiers are protected by our Constitution?  If there is a provision of the Constitution regarding captured soldiers, I would like to see it.  As for the Geneva convention, most countries totally ignore that, as we have seen in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam relating to our GI's who became POW's.

I am talking about people outside of our borders (Who I could not really care less about). Once they are nside our borders, we have to have proof, legally obtained.  Just as I would want it obtained and used against you, or me.

War is one thing, and when you are fighting a war, there are no stops to be pulled.  You need to fight to win, not as holding actions or to spare peoples feelings.

Might I suggest a beer bong and a gallon of hot bacon grease?

Maybe it's just me, but is anyone else dismayed by the "FBI considers harsher measures" statement?

Me, I figured they would have the prime suspects pumped full of "babble juice" before the dust settled.  If this is not the case, I think we're f*cked.

The idea of torturing terrorists sounds fine and dandy to me, except... what happens when a liberal, anti-gun administration takes office? I could bethe one getting zapped, stretched and beaten on account of my gun collection.

You'd think after WW2,we'd learn somethin...[V]

Or, under our control outside of our borders.  The limits applied to the government don't end at the borders.



The government is not required to have proof to hold them, or one of us, indefinitely.  The Constitution states:

[i]the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.[/i]

That is one of the scariest sentences in the Constitution.  It gives "the man" the power to decide, in the interest of "public safety," whether or not you have the right to freedom.  I've seen this used against (black) gun owners in the 60's, and I've heard it argued that gun owners should be held "in the interest of public safety" using the above statement as a justification.  This power to suspend due process is given to all three branches of the government (including the BATF!).  Think about that.  The BATF has the right to hold you without cause, if they can show that it's in the interest of public safety.  Even a president once ordered the suspension of the right to due process in several states: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Washington(? I think that list is correct).  While in this particular circumstance, I appreciate the fact that we can hold any terrorist suspect as long as needed, the past abuse and potential for future abuse, especially against gun owners, is something to be concerned about.

It worries me to read how many posters on ar15.com are from "sunshine patriots."  I'm using the term from Thomas Paine's "The American Crisis" that means those who support freedom, our country, and the Constitution only when it is easy.  It was taken from the phrase "sunshine soldier," that literally means the soldiers who are only willing to fight when the weather is comfortable (e.g. not in the middle of winter).  I named my son Thomas, because I could not think of a person I more admire than the man who helped write the Declaration of Independence (some say he wrote the entire first draft) and the man who first used the phrase "The United States of America."  It's not easy to protect the rights of those we do not agree with, especially when they are willing to harm the ones we love, but doing so shows that we love our country more than we love personal revenge.  I'm not saying we should give-up the right to self-defense, because the right to protect ourselves is more sacred than all others.  Without this right, no other right matters.  Instead, I'm saying that when we have someone in our custody, harming them is not self-defense.  It is a cowardly act.  I am not willing sacrifice the country, that I fought for, in an attempt to extract information, that they may or may not have, from someone.  The benefit is not worth the cost.

PS:  Someone used (not mentioning their name because I'm not specifically picking on that person) the word "soft" to describe those of us who want to see freedom and the Constitution protected.  I disagree with that.  We are the strong ones.  We are the ones who fight for our country because we believe in it.  How many people do you think go into the army for reasons of personal revenge?  I'm sure there's some, but I doubt it's many.  I am not soft.  I want to shove pig entrails down the throats of anyone responsible for this horror.  I want to hold my fist down their throat while they suffocate.  Have you ever seen someone die of suffocation?  It's more violent than being shot or stabbed.  I saw someone I loved, like a brother, have his throat crushed after falling down a hill after getting shot.  I heard his joints cracking as he convulsed violently.  I saw the terror on his face.  That is what I want to happen to these people.  I just want to protect the Constitution more than that.z