I personally believe that the US has a responsibility to a higher ideal than even international law, namely our own code of conduct as described by our own law. The Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal", not "All citizens". To say that these rights which we declared inalienable to all men are null just because you aren't a citizen is beyond me, especially as we trapse around the world touting our superior method of government only to ignore some of its more basic principles.

Show me a way in which international law can be interpreted to mean it's okay to torture people and I'll agree. Sorry, but the 2nd amendmant argument hinges on the rather important phrase, "A well regulated militia", interpretation of which has hardly been agreed upon. So until I see something in the Geneva Convention that even vaguely can be taken to mean it's okay to stack naked prisoners or smear fake menstrual blood on their faces, this isn't a debate, it's flat out wrong.

.............. remember why they are being rounded up. Is it to humiliate the population? Is it to show the world how strong we are?..........NO! It would be much easier, and ironically enough much more in accord with so called international law, to just level those neighborhoods with a fuel air bomb. They are being rounded up at our peril, in order to save their lives.

Frankly, I don't believe that American liberals care at all about international law.....it was a previous President that started the practice of transporting prisoners to other countries to be interrogated without so much as a ahem.

What about sodomizing them with flashlights? What's your reading on that?

Can we burn em with cigars? No? Damn

So you agree that the second amendment and its cheif defender are open to ridicule and humiliation but laughing at terrorists(who are not covered by any Geneva Convention that I am aware of) are off limits?

You may notice that the "joke" in the OP was not ridiculing terrorists but rather people who dont' support torture. Secondly, if it were a joke, it would be one thing. But as I said, it's not a joke at all, it truly is the argument given by people. "It's okay to torture the prisoners because they're really really bad." Nope, I don't see the humor in that.

Nice. I'll just let your words speak for themselves. They say volumes more about that kind of thinking than I ever could.

Well, I don't think it is ok to torture prisoners because they're really really bad either. Where I disagree is the defintion of torture and how far we should go to obtain information that may save thousands if not millions of lives.

If we had one of those 9-11 pilots in custody on 9-10, how far would be too far in making him talk(assuming we knew something was up, but not where or when)?

Sorry, I will not buy the internment camp argument.

Really not fair, since I did not say we should do this. I said it would be more in accord with international law then the "sweeps"....and I am right, it would be.

:rolleyes: