Trump supports torture and other indulgences

I'm curious. What the hell are you talking about?

 

Don't be stupid.

 

He would just tell them the truth as he sees it (he's god) - they could believe it or not believe it - he's not forcing them to believe, just giving them more FACTS - Jesus gave us no FACTS about his divinity.

 

According to the Oxford Companion to American Law a treaty is not legally binding upon the United States unless and until Congress passes and the president signs legislation that provides for the enforcement of the treaty provision.

 

You can use physical pain in disciplining children.

 

Giving them objective evidence of a deity.

 

The only thing that matters is exactly what the Constitution says:

Article II Section 2 Paragraph 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

And once that's done, the treaty is part of the Constitution via the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Paragraph 2) and binding upon the US government anywhere within its jurisdiction.

 

If a particular god showed that he was actually real then maybe people would choose (they don't HAVE to) to follow his (allegedly wise) teachings better - as it stands now, people don't know he's real, or WHICH of the thousands of gods are actually real, so no need to follow his advice ("love your neighbor", etc.)

 

Yes, the Bible teaches that - but keep in mind that God/Jesus/Bible also got it WRONG about, for example, evolution, so we can't really TRUST that God/Jesus/Bible are not just an insane legend. The Bible doesn't even know what happens to the sun at night, so obviously it would be foolish to follow such a dumb book. I bet many people with Downs Syndrome even know what happens to the sun at night - but not God/Jesus/Bible.....what does that tell us about God/Jesus/Bible.

 

Okay, that sounds about right. However, I quoted the Constitution. A signed treaty becomes the law of the land.

 

Is that a joke?

 

The Supreme Court said otherwise. And as one of the earliest chief justices said "The Constitution is what the Court says it is".

 

Quite serious

 

I see, Robert. Now you approve of torture. You have lowered your values a great deal since you became a Trump fan.

Torture does not work. Trump's people do that quite a lot. They make up statements that have no basis in fact. They think saying it makes it true. They are wrong.

Cite an example where torture worked, Robert.

 

I'm not Robert, but there are many examples

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-torture-helped-win-wwii?ref=scroll

And once again if you are arguing against it based in ineffectiveness you are abandoning your moral arguments regarding it.

 

By "folks" did you mean to include Trump and his loyal band of followers who support torture?

 

You quoted me "....... "When ISIS is doing things that no one has ever heard of, since medieval times, ........"

You do understand I didn't say that. I was quoting Trump. The way you handled the quote was very misleading.

 

Right, your article was entitled How Torture Helped Win WWII Hopefully, you have noticed that we have all joined the 21st Century. There were a lot of atrocities during WWII. Many hope we are beyond that now.

It would be unwise to use atrocities committed during WWII as a justification for actions taken in the 21st Century. Of course, that is a lesson Trump still needs to learn. A number of his policies, like torture and protectionist tariffs, are based on ancient thinking.

 

Valid point. Yes - regardless of who said it, what I replied with was true, I believe.

 

Yes.

 

One can argue that it is immoral and ineffective. One can switch between the two and focus first on one line of argument then switch to another line of argument and then back again. And none of that implies any 'abandonment' of either. These two are not mutually exclusive lines of debate.

 

1) You asked for examples Sandy. You did not specify a time period I gave examples. Thus your argument that "torture doesn't work" is proven to be false.

2) Given that the agents of governments are often reluctant to reveal what does and doesn't work in recent history it is logical that they would not reveal what tactics did and didn't work in the last few years.

Thus, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Where?

It doesn't matter what anyone says, the Constitution says what the Constitution says. I'm fully aware that SCOTUS "interprets" the Constitution as it pleases. It doesn't change the Constitution or what it says. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution, only an Amendment can do that.

“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” - Gerald Massey

 

Technically the Constitution does not forbid "torture". It says "cruel and unusual PUNISHMENT". But enhanced interrogation is not a punishment. It is simply an interrogation technique.

 

Are you for real? What do you think torture is?

It's torture, the term is a coverup for ignorant fools who dream otherwise.

Torture is not and never was any kind of legitimate interrogation technique no matter how much snake oil you bought.