Red Cross: Torture at Gitmo

[Ramo]

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.

Own goal.

And that it isn't taken literally without context in no way makes it a bad law.

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.

Again, own goal. Congress can't possibly come up with every extenuating circumstance regarding a law (as with this anti-torture law). So when there's a dispute, it goes through the court system. That's how the system works.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The funniest thing is that the when ratifying the UN Covention Against Torture, the US EXPANDED the definition to including using truth serum as torture under US law.

[MrFun]

A lot of things that United States does, is "funny."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

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.

Own goal.

And that it isn't taken literally without context in no way makes it a bad law.

That it must be "interpreted" (what it really means is the Justices make **** up that's clearly not there) makes it a pretty awful law.

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.

Again, own goal. Congress can't possibly come up with every extenuating circumstance regarding a law (as with this anti-torture law). So when there's a dispute, it goes through the court system. That's how the system works.

No, the idea is that the legislating body is supposed to make the law, not the judiciary. As it is, the judiciary makes **** up because the legislature can't get it's stuff together and right stuff that isn't completely ambiguous or insane.

[Master Zen]

Wow, it's been a long time since I saw the torture-loving right get so soundly whipped in an argument

[notyoueither]

Yeah, it's usually the torture loving left that gets pwned.

[Ramo]

That it must be "interpreted" (what it really means is the Justices make **** up that's clearly not there) makes it a pretty awful law.

Not really. In the case of the 1st Amendment, most of the exceptions (i.e. slander) have its origins clearly in common law.

No, the idea is that the legislating body is supposed to make the law, not the judiciary. As it is, the judiciary makes **** up because the legislature can't get it's stuff together and right stuff that isn't completely ambiguous or insane.

Why do you keep repeating the same things? What you suggest simply isn't a practical idea. Writing in every single exception to a law isn't going to work. Ever. Period.

Anyways, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Anti-Torture Statute.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Wow, it's been a long time since I saw the torture-loving right get so soundly whipped in an argument

To be fair, I don't think any right-wingers here has shown themselves to be a fan of torture. Instead, almost inevitably, some have shown that they don't think the US ever tortures people, and if anyone provides evidence that it has been going on, will decide that the evidence is definitely wrong, or that what it shows isn't really torture. Quite why people find it so hard to accept that the US may be torturing a bunch of possibly the most hated people they've faced in decades, when they've done it before with similar captives, and when the government does its damned best to keep the captives in a legal limbo where they could be "legally" tortured, is a bit of a mystery to me.