From: Adam 

George J. Sherwood wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
>> However those of a less partisan nature made some good points:
>>
>> "Justice Ginsburg said the underlying issues are "of
profound importance
>> to the nation," and that it was high time the court ruled on the
>> executive branch's power to hold a United States citizen after declaring
>> him an "enemy combatant."
>
> LMAO.  You believe Justice Ginsburg is of a less partisan nature? I don't
> need to read any more.
>

Of course you don't it's not like the SC is some sort of neutral arbiter
above party politics is it?


>> You do in the GWOT. Old Delay & his ilk have been fully in favour of it
>> so not to use it on him would be a pity when it could save the state so
>> much time & expense wrt the trial & lawyers & law
enforcement having to
>> ask tricky questions with Delay's lawyer there seeking to block anything
>> which might help to convict his client etc.etc.
>>
>> Now in other states which agree with snatching folk off the street,
>> imprisoning people w/o proof, charge, trial etc & often in secret the
>> above is part of the package so I'm curious what your problem is with
>> doing it to someone who clearly agrees with it. It's a bit like
>> subjecting OBL to the Sharia.
>
> Because it is a silly argument.  You are throwing something out that isn't
> involved in the subject at hand.  Why did Delay resign and will he actually
> be found guilty.
>


Nope I am saying what's OK is OK. He is OK with prisoners being subjected
to the methods described below by officials of the US gov so where's the
problem?

>> You clearly do use the waterboard in prisons run by at least one branch
>> of the US gov. So why not extend it to all? Think of the savings in
>> terms of police time etc.
>>
>
> You have definite proof of this?
>

Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

"The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a
dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on
military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the
sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to
use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of
the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to
cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against
using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most
effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet
shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and
sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near
50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with
cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised
and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's
face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and
a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the
treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the
water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.
They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the
admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and
two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess. "


>
>
>> This is why the "court" of congress can hold inquiries
where one has to
>> tell them the truth & why they can appoint investigators who carry the
>> weight of the law in order to bring back information etc to the court.
>>
>> I am surprised that you are unaware of this.
>
> I am completely aware of that fact that if you testify under oath and lie it
> is perjury.  It doesn't matter if it is in court or in the "court" of
> congress.  You said all politicians commit perjury and I said you are
> wrong.  Nothing you said changes that.  You are saying all politicians lie
> under oath as Clinton did?
>

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.""

& yet time after time acts of congress are rejected as contravening the
constitution.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5