It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Torture? I went through worse in basic training

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You're probably one of those who only reads certain words of the Constitution, and ignores the others.

You had earlier referred to Amendment 8 of the Constitution that prohibits a soldier from using cruel or unusual punishment.

You selected only one phrase of a sentence, and missed the entire section that followed within the same sentence.

I've seen you do this before, to skewer an argument, and if you are compelled to resort to those dishonest tactics, then I know you aren't very certain of your position.

A soldier, during the conduct of warfare, does not fall under the Amendment 8, as a soldier is not a court, or a state, and this same soldier is not punishing an illegal act during the course of conducting warfare. Amendment 8 applies to civil law.

That's why we can't force pedophiles to shave their heads, wear turpentine rags around their ankles, and wear purple hats.

Get it???

That's just outright dishonest to isolate a portion of a sentence, and then make such a comparison.

The duty of a soldier in war is to find his enemy, and then kill him. The interrogation portion has to do with finding his enemy. Believe it or not, it's not a mere recreational exercise.

I think that the way things are going, it would be great if our military members let their enlistments expire, and all quit.

So that when the bad guys come to your hometown, you could handle it. After all, you have such a clear idea of how things should be done.



[edit on 23-4-2009 by dooper]




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


no really its not the people who are responisable for the econmy need to be punished, if you do not see that maybe this nation is truly done for and I should move to Ireland or Aussie.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 




I do still sleep very well at night knowing that my nation is semi safe. the bad guys are on the run and troopers are still out there whipping some arse. (now if we could start waterboarding everyone responsible for this economic mess Id be one happy camper-)


Another example of a "soldier" advocating the trashing of our Constitution.

Be afraid people. Be very afraid.



Okay where in here did I advocate the trashing of a constitution. But you are right people should be afraid, because people like you want the america to belly up to terriost, and serve the internationail comunity. WHo should they be afraid of?

Wow. Jus wow. You really dont understand how much you are contradicting yourself, do you? Read through the quote of your post. Go on, I'll wait.

They should be afraid of an armed service that has so vehemently recruited the lower third of our graduating class so that they are as easily brainwashed as someone like you. That you honestly and openly DONT UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD is a VERY SCARY thought.

That you think the american military has ANYTHING to do with the international community is A VERY SCARY THOUGHT

That you openly advocate the torture of not only (non-existant) enemy combatants, but also of american citizens, is down right disgusting.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


no really its not the people who are responisable for the econmy need to be punished, if you do not see that maybe this nation is truly done for and I should move to Ireland or Aussie.


Wow. wow. Wow.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by truttseeker
 


Once again, and I dont know how many times i have to say this. Those detained are NOT, i repeat are NOT held under the protection of the Geneva Convention, I dont care how much you try to twist and distort, the convention does NOT apply to the.

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, fulfill 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.

THEY DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS THERE FOR ARE NOT PROTECTED BY IT



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   




Are you serious, There are very real terriost out there( enemy combatant is a word I dont understand) who do wish to do you harm. I very much do understand the constition I read it all the time.

And how dare you you pompus ASS refer to me as a lower class, you know damn well you wouldnt say that to my face you keyboard warrior. I am a "third of the lower class" who just happens to be educate from the university of maryland (3.4GPA) lower class loser. you talk about how I get personal, jeez.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


no really its not the people who are responisable for the econmy need to be punished, if you do not see that maybe this nation is truly done for and I should move to Ireland or Aussie.


Wow. wow. Wow.



Wow, wow, wow. you truly know how to take things out of context. A true [SNIP]


Edit- I hope people who are reading these post with an open mind understand what I am saying. If you have made up your mind that it is wrong regardless of what they can, will, and have done to us then that is your opinion and nothing will change it. But remeber they are out there and would love to see the west brought to its knees. And if you wish for the miltary and other para-military organzation to behave themselfs and return to our own borders, what will you say when they bring the fight to our land I wonder?

[edit on 23-4-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]
Mod edit: Removed insult

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

Thank Mann for this reply.

This is a non-argument, and I have no idea where the confusion lies. It's like they don't like it, so it must be wrong.

The part I don't like is those who would deny us every tool to prevent innocent deaths. Or the deaths of our fellow soldiers.

No. They rather bury the innocent, than allow one of these guys to get his face washed in a creative manner.


[edit on 23-4-2009 by dooper]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You're probably one of those who only reads certain words of the Constitution, and ignores the others.

You had earlier referred to Amendment 8 of the Constitution that prohibits a soldier from using cruel or unusual punishment.

You selected only one phrase of a sentence, and missed the entire section that followed within the same sentence.

I've seen you do this before, to skewer an argument, and if you are compelled to resort to those dishonest tactics, then I know you aren't very certain of your position.

A soldier, during the conduct of warfare, does not fall under the Amendment 8, as a soldier is not a court, or a state, and this same soldier is not punishing an illegal act during the course of conducting warfare. Amendment 8 applies to civil law.

That's why we can't force pedophiles to shave their heads, wear turpentine rags around their ankles, and wear purple hats.

Get it???

That's just outright dishonest to isolate a portion of a sentence, and then make such a comparison.

The duty of a soldier in war is to find his enemy, and then kill him. The interrogation portion has to do with finding his enemy. Believe it or not, it's not a mere recreational exercise.

I think that the way things are going, it would be great if our military members let their enlistments expire, and all quit.

So that when the bad guys come to your hometown, you could handle it. After all, you have such a clear idea of how things should be done.



[edit on 23-4-2009 by dooper]


So which is it. I'm probably one of those people or you have seen me do it?

I am not even going to bother arguing constitutonal law with someone who hasnt read the document. All I will say is there is nothing dishonest about quoting the constitution, and to imply otherwise, especially from someone who doesnt even acknowledge it, is pretty sad.

So, as I posed before: EXPLAIN WHY, AS YOU CLAIM, A SOLDIER IS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS NOT HELD TO IT'S RULES. GO ON, EXPLAIN.

Then explain how any other set of rules is legal in this country, when the constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and all treaties and laws are secondary to it.

Then explain why, even though you are completely lying about it, why the rules of warfare would apply in a time when we ARE NOT IN A DECLARED WAR?

It is downright DISGUSTING that you people are so apt to spit on our constitution.

When the bad guys come? You alll really do lack the capacity to have a logical conversation. You wall want to make it personal(still), want to fear monger, want to spread propaganda. Unfortunately, that doesnt work on those of us who are well educated on the subject.

Once again, if you all want to debate this topic, with logic, great. But seriously, quit trying to pull me into your immature, illogical, emotional arguments. I'm not biting.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Dont take it personal bud. You will see that a lot from people on the far left, they try to manipulate facts and distort. Then when you provide the facts they dont like, they start attacking you personally.

I have stated in a few posts on here the hard facts both in the geneva convention and, the fact that the UDHR is not a law binding document, its set as a guideline, so.......infact, no laws have been broken. They dont like that so they start in on other things, insulting intelligence etc.

If you like, people, i can post AGAIN. Just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean they are anything less



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


No I its not personal to me-) when I know deep down inside they want to be like us-) but cant for whatever reason.

And no I am not repub or a far right loon. I am a center-right.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Are you serious, There are very real terriost out there( enemy combatant is a word I dont understand) who do wish to do you harm. I very much do understand the constition I read it all the time.

And how dare you you pompus ASS refer to me as a lower class, you know damn well you wouldnt say that to my face you keyboard warrior. I am a "third of the lower class" who just happens to be educate from the university of maryland (3.4GPA) lower class loser. you talk about how I get personal, jeez.


Yes, there are real terrorists out there. Have you considered that our soldiers, that are illegally occupying a country (more than one, actually) fit that description as well as the brown people you are so eager to kill?

You obviously do not read the constitution, or you would understand that you are in violation of it.

I have no issue calling anyone what I think they are. You are the one acting like an internet tough guy. Telling me I wouldnt say that to your face....yeah, another hypocrisy from you.

I didnt actually call you lower class though, I said the armed forces recruit the LOWER THIRD OF OUR GRADUATING CLASS, which is fact. Sorry you cant handle that.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 

In the first place, we swore an oath to DEFEND the Constitution of the United States. We're not law enforcement officers. Working in the territorial United States. Conducting lawful pursuits here in the United States.

My accusation of you was simple. You only quoted part of one of my sentences, and then went bat**** off on a tangent accusing me of everything you can think of.

Let's stick to the topic at hand and the thread. You personal attacks aren't going to work this time.

The Eighth Amendment has nothing to do with a soldier in combat, in a combat arena, under combat conditions.

For God's sake! Read the Constitution! Take a class for God's sake, and you won't be misapplying it.

For example, you do know that slavery is still Constitutional, don't you?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Dont take it personal bud. You will see that a lot from people on the far left, they try to manipulate facts and distort. Then when you provide the facts they dont like, they start attacking you personally.

I have stated in a few posts on here the hard facts both in the geneva convention and, the fact that the UDHR is not a law binding document, its set as a guideline, so.......infact, no laws have been broken. They dont like that so they start in on other things, insulting intelligence etc.

If you like, people, i can post AGAIN. Just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean they are anything less


I love this. Let's just ignore the fact that the Geneva Convention is secondary to constitutional law. Typical.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Are you serious, There are very real terriost out there( enemy combatant is a word I dont understand) who do wish to do you harm. I very much do understand the constition I read it all the time.

And how dare you you pompus ASS refer to me as a lower class, you know damn well you wouldnt say that to my face you keyboard warrior. I am a "third of the lower class" who just happens to be educate from the university of maryland (3.4GPA) lower class loser. you talk about how I get personal, jeez.


Yes, there are real terrorists out there. Have you considered that our soldiers, that are illegally occupying a country (more than one, actually) fit that description as well as the brown people you are so eager to kill?

You obviously do not read the constitution, or you would understand that you are in violation of it.

I have no issue calling anyone what I think they are. You are the one acting like an internet tough guy. Telling me I wouldnt say that to your face....yeah, another hypocrisy from you.

I didnt actually call you lower class though, I said the armed forces recruit the LOWER THIRD OF OUR GRADUATING CLASS, which is fact. Sorry you cant handle that.



oh so now Im a racist? you really have to be serious, Ill give my address and you can come here and visit me if you would so like to? I just dont understand people like you.


edit- Indeed the military is fighting two wars in two different countrys, guess what... In Iraq They have been dealt a hard blow there and Barry will be bringing us home soon and afgan the taliban will soon be brought to there knees as well. But to call a soldier a terriost is in fact ignorant. But you wouldnt understand (prolly hold a grudge against your recruiter cause he wouldnt let you in)

[edit on 23-4-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 



For example, you do know that slavery is still Constitutional, don't you?


Sorry bud, go read the constitution which you claim to know so well. Outside of those convicted of a crime, slavery or forced servitude was abolished by the 13th amendment:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Try again.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 

And you continue to ignore that soldiers conducting war, in a warzone, against warring factions, don't even get close to conflicting with our Constitution.

It's like speaking to a post.

The Eighth Amendment does not apply to soldiers in a warzone conducting warfare.

The Eighth Amendment is to prevent States from passing foolish, overly creative punishments for CRIMES.

Dang! Can we get any slower?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


oh so now Im a racist? you really have to be serious, Ill give my address and you can come here and visit me if you would so like to? I just dont understand people like you.


Ya, and I'm the internet tough guy


You dont understand a lot, it seems.......I never called you a racist, I said you seem to only think of terrorists as those in the middle east. And all I said was that U.S. troops occupying a foreign country easily fall into the same category, but you refuse to even look at that.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Dont take it personal bud. You will see that a lot from people on the far left, they try to manipulate facts and distort. Then when you provide the facts they dont like, they start attacking you personally.

I have stated in a few posts on here the hard facts both in the geneva convention and, the fact that the UDHR is not a law binding document, its set as a guideline, so.......infact, no laws have been broken. They dont like that so they start in on other things, insulting intelligence etc.

If you like, people, i can post AGAIN. Just because you dont like the facts, doesnt mean they are anything less


I love this. Let's just ignore the fact that the Geneva Convention is secondary to constitutional law. Typical.


What does the geneva convention have to do with the constitution?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 

And you continue to ignore that soldiers conducting war, in a warzone, against warring factions, don't even get close to conflicting with our Constitution.

It's like speaking to a post.

The Eighth Amendment does not apply to soldiers in a warzone conducting warfare.

The Eighth Amendment is to prevent States from passing foolish, overly creative punishments for CRIMES.

Dang! Can we get any slower?


Whatever you need to tell yourself, whatever you need to use to try and attack me, go right ahead. You are still lying.
The 8th amendmend speaks of those convicted of a criminal offense. Now, if these people are being held by america, under american law, how can you honestly argue that they are not subject to this?

You'd like to force american beliefs on others, yet not give them the same freedoms. Pathetic.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join