55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:52 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
How many terrorists do they think can get VISAs to come to the US


How many illegal immigrants have VISA's to come to the US?

While I am NOT saying that those here illegally are terrorists, they are a good example of how porous our borders are.
What would stop them from going to Mexico and then just walking across our border?


The conservative estimate is between 12 million and 20 million. Anybody who thinks there aren't some really bad eggs included in all those millions needs to have their head examined.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nice try but no cupie doll for you! It's against "our" laws which supercedes Geneva Convention laws.

What USA laws say the kind of war prisoner torture practiced by interrogators of prisoners of war at Quantanamo--prisoners of war captured while not wearing uniforms and/or while killing or attempting to kill civilians--during Bush's 8 year term, is unlawful. I know for a fact that the justice department decided that kind of torture under those circumstances was not against the laws of the USA.

In fact the Constitution of the USA says:
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 9.
...
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.
...
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:43 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war, applies only to those prisoners of war who were captured while in uniform, AND who did not intentionally kill or try to kill civilians (e.g., non-murderers).

The torture of prisoners of war, who were captured while not wearing a uniform OR who were captured while killing or attempting to kill civilians, are not protected from torture by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the torture of such prisoners is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.


You are wrong. The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict. The purpose of the uniform/non-uniform dichotomy is to distinguish between those who kill on the battlefield vs. those who infiltrate enemy lines to commit unlawful acts of espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The first category of persons cannot be tried as war criminals and the other category can. The language of the Convention does not require the combatants to be wearing uniforms in order for the protections to apply. All captured combatants, regardless of what they are wearing, must be treated like prisoners of war. It is a violation of the convention to subject any prisoner to cruel or inhumane treatment.

Quote:
Torturing prisoners of war , who killed or attempted to kill civilians, in order to get information from such prisoners to save civilian lives, is not only lawful, moral, and ethical. It is also humane.


You're wrong. Given the existence of several federal and international laws that prohibit torture, it is not lawful, moral, or ethical, to torture prisoners. Our country has not only condemned and outlawed torture, it has condemned and outlawed any kind of abuse of a detainee. It is the policy of our country to investigate all allegations of torture or abuse and to prosecute all persons who engage in acts of torture or abuse of detainees. Please go to the link provided (above) and read the relevant sections starting at page 258.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:46 pm
@ican711nm,
From Amnesty International USA:

Quote:
xcerpts from the Report

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a "state of public emergency") or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. [p. 5]

11. .... Although there is no federal law criminalizing torture per se, any act falling within the Convention's definition of torture is clearly illegal and prosecutable everywhere in the country, for example as an assault or battery, murder or manslaughter, kidnapping or abduction, false arrest or imprisonment, sexual abuse, or violation of civil rights. [p. 6]

49. Torture has always been proscribed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." This Amendment is directly applicable to actions of the Federal Government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to those of the constituent states.... While the constitutional and statutory law of the individual states in some cases offers more extensive or more specific protections, the protections of the right to life and liberty, personal freedom and physical integrity found in the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide a nationwide standard of treatment beneath which no governmental entity may fall. The constitutional nature of this protection means that it applies to the actions of officials throughout the United States at all levels of government; all individuals enjoy protection under the Constitution, regardless of nationality or citizenship. [p. 13]

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
The Bush administration prosecuted a number of soldiers, CIA contractors, et al., in connection with torture. So please tell me why the Bush people should be exempt from prosecution if they were the brains behind the torture?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:56 pm
@Advocate,
I remember when a woman general was ousted from abu Garaib because they performed torture there, and only the low ranking people were charged with crimes. We know now that Bush and his hench-men/women approved of torture, and Bush even said "we do not torture." (Another Bush lie.)

I hope they hang from the highest tree.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:31 pm
Speaking about the UK's latest abandoment of MACean principles, Andrew Lloyd Webber explains the MACean principle that the UK needs the rich and any attempt to hurt them will undoubtedly hurt everybody else more. It is a lesson some need to relearn here too:

Quote:
ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER: The last thing this country needs is a pirate raid on the wealth creators who still dare navigate our stormy waters(...And don't lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for his own cause - I really fear an exodus of talent)By Andrew Lloyd Webber

The opinion polls have uttered. The country loves the new 50 per cent top rate of income tax. Soak the rich. Smash the bankers. So Government spin doctors are in second heaven. The Conservatives' silence redefines a tomb. And I suppose there'd be quite a turnout for the public flogging of Sir Fred the Shred.

But before you book your tickets, hold hard. And before you lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for my own cause, let me beg you to believe that I am not.

I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc.

I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.

Despite a rumour put around some years back, I have never contemplated leaving Britain for tax reasons. But in the 40-plus years I have been lucky enough to work here, I've seen a bit. So I must draw your attention to what is really proposed in this Budget.

Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.

I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

I give you this example. I have altered the details of the family I write about for obvious reasons. But the essentials are true.

Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what's left.

This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.

His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.

He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.
So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime - plus NI and everything else - but... Come on, I don't need to explain the knock-on effect. It's obviously huge and immensely damaging - that's why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion.

The extraordinary thing is that, back in 1974, even Denis 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeak' Healey realised that you can't crush these talented people - who work much of the year abroad and away from their families - like specimen butterflies.

He introduced a reduction in tax of 25 per cent for any work performed by a UK resident overseas. This, amazingly, rose to 100 per cent if the work took the individual out of the UK for a year. These reductions were scrapped by the Tories when they introduced the 40 per cent top rate.

In the Healey days, there was no open-ended national insurance tax. Then national insurance was supposed to be just that, not the gigantic Ponzi scheme financed through direct taxation that it has become.

Of course there are thousands of people like my friend - some employing themselves through their own companies, some self-employed, some employed by others. But all are part of the wealth-creation engine that has helped power Britain's economy.

There is another dangerous aspect to the proposed tax climate. I am grateful to the distinguished crossbench peer who pointed it out to me. That is the wide disparity between the capital gains tax (CGT) rate at 18 per cent and the new top rate of income tax, which is effectively three times as much.
So it's far more rewarding to keep 82 per cent of that clever speculation you did in the property market than bust your guts creating real wealth.

Yes, it's laudable to have a CGT rate that encourages the creation of new enterprises. But it does not help Britain if the top rate of income tax is so high that the system actively encourages speculation, and therefore the repetition of the mess that we find ourselves in today.

So I ask the Government to reconsider what it is doing. More than ever before we need to keep high-flying professionals in the UK. We can't, as we have done in the past, dump on them through penal personal taxation.
Of course we know that there have been some shocking excesses in the City of London. But for years we have also had drummed into us that the City of London proudly took over from manufacturing as the UK's main source of income.

New Labour rejoiced in the fruits of the excesses of the bankers.
Of course, with hindsight, their bonuses were obscene. But New Labour gratefully taxed them.

So, I beg readers not to confuse overpaid bankers with the rest of Britain's entrepreneurs.

The next few years are going to be horrendous in the UK. The last thing we need is a Somali pirate-style raid on the few wealth creators who still dare to navigate Britain's gale-force waters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1173545/ANDREW-LLOYD-WEBBER-The-thing-country-needs-pirate-raid-wealthy-dont-lynch-Im-rich-b---d.html
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I really don't want to debate whatever merits or lack thereof there are for torture, however it is described, and for whatever reason it might be authorized on this thread. That has been done ad nauseum on several other threads.

I am interested that our President does not set an ugly precedent regarding investigating policy of the previous administration that will almost certainly come back to haunt his and all future administrations. So far it appears that he will not despite the caterwauling from some of the leftwing extremists. And he deserves high praise for that.


Those Republicans who called for an investigation and impeachment of Clinton did not worry about setting an "ugly precedent." They invoked our core values concerning the rule of law and and the pursuit of justice. Did you post any diatribes to condemn the investigation and prosecution of Clinton? I haven't been able to find any, but in your defense of Bush, you wrote, "Some of us find a man who does not cheat on his wife to be rather attractive."

You claim that you don't want to talk about the subject of torture. You want to sweep the facts that it is a crime and that Bush authorized its commission under the rug. You tuck those UGLY facts out of sight because their existence makes your argument ridiculous. Then you claim the only compelling issue is preventing our current government adminstration from setting an "ugly precedent" by investigating and prosecuting members of the former administration for crimes. You fail to acknowledge that the "ugly precedent" you allege concern about was established long ago because NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

If our great nation does not sweep perjury under the rug, why should it sweep war crimes under the rug? Why are the Republicans who called for the investigation and prosecution of Clinton honored as persons who respect the rule of law, but the Democrats who call for the investigation and prosecution of Bush are labled as extremists? When did respecting the rule of law and calling for the investigation and prosecution of law breakers become a leftwing extremist activity?



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:54 pm
@Debra Law,
The longer Foxie discusses an issue, it turns around and bites her in the behind, because she has myopic vision. She just can't help herself from so many contradictions of her MAC party.

It's strange though, that not many conservatives have even mentioned Clinton's impeachment proceedings lately. I wonder why?

Conservatives, the party of "high" morals. Not okay to get a blow-job, but it's okay to break the laws of our country against torture.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:12 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
You are wrong. The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict. The purpose of the uniform/non-uniform dichotomy is to distinguish between those who kill on the battlefield vs. those who infiltrate enemy lines to commit unlawful acts of espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The first category of persons cannot be tried as war criminals and the other category can. The language of the Convention does not require the combatants to be wearing uniforms in order for the protections to apply. All captured combatants, regardless of what they are wearing, must be treated like prisoners of war. It is a violation of the convention to subject any prisoner to cruel or inhumane treatment.

Quote:

http://lawofwar.org/geneva_prisoner_war_convention.htm
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.

...

In Article 4, WHEN the prisoners of war are NOT "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", THEN Article 4 - 2 applies. Article 4-2, and NOT Article 4-1, applies to the prisoners of war held at Quantanamo.

The words: "provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:" means that each and every one of the four conditions, (a), (b), (c), and (d) must be fulfilled for the Geneva Conventions to apply to the prisoners of war held at Quantanamo.

The prisoners of war held at Quantanamo did not and do not meet Article 4-2 conditions (b), (c), and (d). THEREFORE the Geneva Conventions DO NOT apply to the prisoners of war held at Quantanamo. They are terrorists. They did not having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; they did not
carry their arms openly; they did not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war by intentionally attacking civilians whose deaths did not enhance the terrorists chances of conquering their opponents.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:20 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, When are you going to get it through your brain that torture is against US laws. It doesn't matter who the "prisoner" is. It includes all people whether they are criminals, terrorists, soldiers, or the Bush gang. It's against the law to torture them.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
From Amnesty International USA:
xcerpts from the Report

Quote:
6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. ...


(1) Quantanamo is not part of that which is "throughout the United States."
(2) Amnesty International is not an organization which is a part of our federal government.
(3) I believe Amnesty International is not an organization to which the United States is bound to obey by virtue of a United States treaty with Amnesty International. Perhaps I'm wrong on this point.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:38 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy.


Official proclamation by President George W. Bush, June 26, 2003
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:43 pm
@old europe,
Another lie perpetrated by GW Bush.

ican will swim around this one too! ROFL
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=torture&x=22&y=11
Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: trchr, -()ch(r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura act of twisting, torture, from Latin tortus (past participle of torqure to twist, wind, torture) + -ura -ure; akin to Old High German drhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle, Sanskrit tarku
1 a : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding) to punish or coerce someone : torment or agony induced to penalize religious or political dissent or nonconformity, to extort a confession or a money contribution, or to give sadistic pleasure to the torturer <no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment -- U.N. Declaration of Human Rights> b obsolete : an implement of torture
2 a : anguish of body or mind : excruciating agony : extremity of suffering <long torture with Parkinson's disease -- John Mason Brown> <she shrank in her convulsed, coiled torture from the thought of such a thing -- D.H.Lawrence> b : an extreme annoyance or severe irritation : an intense strain : something pernicious or baneful : PLAGUE <plays ... would be torn line from line for the torture of high school boys and girls -- J.D.Adams> <many of their sidehill and downhill lies would have been torture to a golfer with 20-20 vision -- Tom Siler>
3 : distortion, overrefinement, or perversion of a meaning, an argument, or a line of thought or reasoning : STRAINING <no torture in interpretation would be required -- E.W.Knight>
4 : the subjecting of material or equipment to extreme strain or abuse as a test of strength, endurance, or quality <cars are put through thousands of miles of torture -- Visit to the Proving Grounds>

Therefore, you think I should agree that water boarding, sleep deprivation, and putting bugs in someone's bed or room, is the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding) to coerce someone to reveal terrorist plans to mass murder civilians, AND is therefore the kind of torture it is unlawful for our armed forces to perform.???

I don't think so!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 05:16 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Waterboarding is already determined legally to be torture. What's your problem? You can obfuscate the laws all you want, but torture is torture, and waterboarding has been determined to be torture by the laws of this land. It has also been determined by all the Advocate Generals of all of the branches of our military services to be torture.

The only people who don't see it as torture are you, Foxie, Sean Hannity, and Limbaugh. What don't four of you have a party and waterboard each other for the fun of it - like two minutes for each of you? It should be "fun."
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 06:03 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Those Republicans who called for an investigation and impeachment of Clinton did not worry about setting an "ugly precedent."


You forget, those were all members of Congress.
And Congress is legally empowered by the Constitution to conduct an investigation and impeachment of the President for almost any reason they want to.

BUT, there was not one single time after Bush was elected when him or his admin ever pushed for the prosecution of Clinton.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 06:08 pm
@mysteryman,
Not to worry, mm, the Attorney General is investigating the torture issue by the Bush gang. That is the "correct" federal department to investigate laws broken by the previous administration or any government department.

We don't need congress to set in motion the impeachment processes when the Bush gang is already out of office.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 06:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm not worried about it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 06:20 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Those Republicans who called for an investigation and impeachment of Clinton did not worry about setting an "ugly precedent."

You forget, those were all members of Congress.


All the Republicans who called for the impeachment of Clinton were members of Congress?

I very much doubt that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/05/2025 at 02:14:57