Student Expelled for Tweet

[Egbert]

Whatever "torture" is happening at Guantanamo bay, what we know is that it's quite mild, it's been very effective at getting information, and it is used on illegal enemy combatants. Again, not something anyone should be worried about.

Am I to understand that the desirability of torture depends upon the geographic location of the torturing facility? Could you expand on this please? Please let us know where torture is desirable and where it is not desirable.

"Extraordinary rendition" sends people to other countries. Any torture that happens there is really out of our hands, and again, we don't do it to our citizens unless it's because they've committed a crime in another country, in which case it's called extradition. Not something to be worried about.

I gather from this that "do it yourself" torture is unacceptable but it is perfectly satisfactory to have somebody else do the torturing on your behalf?

Not something to be worried about.

If I were being tortured I would be quite worried, regardless of geographic location and nationality of my torturers.

[kentonio]

Whatever "torture" is happening at Guantanamo bay, what we know is that it's quite mild, it's been very effective at getting information, and it is used on illegal enemy combatants. Again, not something anyone should be worried about.

Wow..

[BlackCat]

This is a troll, right?

Don't think so - reg just have a fantasy of american supremacy when it comes to morality and constitution.

[Lorizael]

Whatever "torture" is happening at Guantanamo bay, what we know is that it's quite mild, it's been very effective at getting information, and it is used on illegal enemy combatants. Again, not something anyone should be worried about.

"Extraordinary rendition" sends people to other countries. Any torture that happens there is really out of our hands, and again, we don't do it to our citizens unless it's because they've committed a crime in another country, in which case it's called extradition. Not something to be worried about.

This is a troll, right?

[BlackCat]

I'm a bit curious - what is the best for a country ? A healthy population or a wealthy health industry ?

[Aeson]

In short ... torture ... no worries ... detention without right to trial ... no worries... but create an amendment to the Constitution that tells the government what to do ... OMG OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

[regexcellent]

If indeed the NDAA does allow the detaining of our citizens without charge (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't) and the federal government actually does that, the courts will stop it. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

Everything else only applies overseas, not domestically. The NSA observes foreign signals. That doesn't bother me nor should it bother any other American.

Whatever "torture" is happening at Guantanamo bay, what we know is that it's quite mild, it's been very effective at getting information, and it is used on illegal enemy combatants. Again, not something anyone should be worried about.

"Extraordinary rendition" sends people to other countries. Any torture that happens there is really out of our hands, and again, we don't do it to our citizens unless it's because they've committed a crime in another country, in which case it's called extradition. Not something to be worried about.

[BlackCat]

You will have to be more specific.

Educate me - what is not specific in this :

warrentless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, state sponsored torture and of course the NDAA allowing the detaining of US citizens without charge.

[The Mad Monk]

You will have to be more specific.

[BlackCat]

I'm glad you agree that we shouldn't assrape our constitution.

But why then are you so busy doing exactly that

[Aeson]

That's not at all what he said.

It's the clear motivator for and hypocrisy of his statements. First he was arguing that "government do" shouldn't be in the Constitution. When presented with examples of "government do" in the Constitution he narrowed his claim to the Amendments. When presented with a "government do" in the Amendments he then claimed it was ok in that case because he supports that specific "do this". Moving goalposts and partisan hypocrisy. That's all his argument is.

It is very clear that he does not actually believe in an ideal that "government do" should not be in the Amendments as he was claiming. He just means there shouldn't be any "government do" that he disagrees with in the Amendments.

You are too partisan to be able to see it, that's all.

[The Mad Monk]

Sure, and it was done by assraping (and a couple of other sexual activities of utter perversion) the Zimbabwean constitution.

I'm glad you agree that we shouldn't assrape our constitution.

[Hauldren Collider]

Translation: "It's ok for the constitution to force government to do things I like, but not ok for the constitution to force government to do things I don't like"

You are ****ing stupid. That's not at all what he said.

[notyoueither]

With a high unemployment rate Microsoft could have people apply for jobs which don´t even barely cover their basic needs (that is, have people work for them and, despite working 50 hours/week still be forced to use a soup kitchen in order to get enough food to survive).
That´s where basic rights (for example the right to be paid a certain minimum wage) come in handy ...
I wouldn´t trust large corporations even a little bit that (without regulations) they wouldn´t try to screw me, if the situation (as the high unemplyoment rate in my example) allows it

Many things are better left to statute which can be abolished or amended relatively easily, and can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as local needs may warrant.

Having a federally set minimum wage for the private sector wouldn't be a very good idea in large, diverse countries.

[BlackCat]

Proteus, I agree fully with this