Tweet
People who believe that detainees ought to be beaten are brave. 
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
I disagree, but you're free to your opinion.KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
Traitor.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I'm at a loss for words over this.To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
If I'm threatening to kill a person if they're escaping, am I trying to use mental anguish to prevent them from escaping?Originally posted by General Ludd
If it's gaining information by method of causing mental anguish, the goal is still to cause mental anguish.Comment
-
YES
THERE! I SAID IT
now for the love of god please please stopQue l’Univers n’est qu’un défaut dans la pureté de Non-être.
- Paul ValeryComment
-
Then you're absurd.Comment
-
I told myself; "Take it easy Mario"Que l’Univers n’est qu’un défaut dans la pureté de Non-être.
- Paul ValeryComment
-
In fact, the federal government is currently inflicting mental anguish upon all Americans, with the death penalty for murder.Comment
-
Because any bastardization of the law that you pull out of your arse is definitely legitimate.
Not only do your examples clearly not follow from the text of the law, there is far more to laws than their text; common law, court decisions, etc. flesh out exactly what laws mean. The First Amendment, for instance, doesn't mean that laws against slander, shouting fire in a theatre, etc. are prohibited."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
If a law's rational enforcement is dependent on interpretation by the courts, it's a ****ty law.Comment
-
Who said it's dependent on the courts? You're just making **** up about it.
Is the First Amendment a ****ty law? Having the courts and common law as a basis for new law is necessary, otherwise laws would be insanely long."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Who said it's dependent on the courts?
You. A literal interpretation of the law supports me.
Is the First Amendment a ****ty law?
Very much so. It's so vague and ambiguous that basically all of our constitutional rights that supposedly derive from it have been pretty much made up by the courts.Comment
-
You.
I said that where? I offered the possibility. I said that I'm no expert on the terror laws, so can't offer a definitive answer.
A literal interpretation of the law supports me.
No, it doesn't. As I said, you're ignoring the pre-condition.
Very much so. It's so vague and ambiguous that basically all of our constitutional rights that supposedly derive from it have been pretty much made up by the courts.
No, the 1st Amendment is literally clear-cut.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And again:
"Having the courts and common law as a basis for new law is necessary, otherwise laws would be insanely long."Last edited by Ramo; December 9, 2004, 00:23."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
No, the 1st Amendment is literally clear-cut.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice how none of that is actually true? Congress has made plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, and the Courts have signed off on them. Almost none of the Constitution is taken literally; if it were, the government would be virtually nonfunctional.
And our laws are insanely long - but it's hidden by the fact that all of that length is in the court interpretations of law.Comment
Comment