Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:22:43 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote: I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual punishments. I happen to have a book on the subject of execution of death sentences by hanging. It was well into the nineteenth century before hangmen started using the long drop, one which breaks the neck, so that the body doesn't thrash around, neater that way. This also shuts off the blood flow to the brain, causing immediate loss of consciousness. On the other hand, the good old short drop took about twenty minutes to kill, as the air was not shut off completely. Certainly cruel, but it was the usual method. The condemned at Nuremburg were killed indoors, on a portable gallows that was supposed to be set up over a hole in the ground. Those *******s got the short drop. Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking on the wheel. It achieved that at least. The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting, Nobody ever picked hanging. Casady |
#152
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:38:36 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: You haven't seen the TV psycho drama? No. Its called 24 I presume. Casady Yeah, in the last episode terrorists took over the White House. I think the leader's name was Bush. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#154
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Let's look at it this way: The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like. Winning hearts and minds, one at a time. I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual punishments. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a crime. You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes* torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are "acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework. Keith |
#155
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message ... ) Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a crime. You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes* torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are "acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework. Keith It was not my intention to be correct. However, the previously-stated argument was, as I recall, proferred by the Bush administration. |
#156
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Capt. JG wrote:
Yeah, in the last episode terrorists took over the White House. I think the leader's name was Bush. Terrorists took over the White House? From Bush? How could you tell the difference? Certainly difficult if you're standing in Bagdad. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D96R77MO1.html "Hostilities have officially ended...." Cheers Marty |
#157
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message ... ) Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a crime. You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes* torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are "acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework. Keith It was not my intention to be correct. However, the previously-stated argument was, as I recall, proferred by the Bush administration. I was replying to Bruces' post, actually, not yours. I had assumed your original comment was tongue-in-cheek. And you are certainly correct about the Bush proffer; one of many such convenient departures from reality and morality. Keith |
#158
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
And trying to say that crucifixtion & waterboarding are not "torture"
is a not a red herring, it's a big fat lie. Dave wrote: A classic straw man argument. A pity you can't read more carefully, Doug. If you could you would realize that I have neither advocated nor opposed waterboarding in any of the above discussion. I have simply pointed out the fallacy of sticking a label like "torture" on it as a substitute for reasoned discussion. So, calling torture "torture" is a substitute for reasoned discussion? I guess if your chosen ideology is so bizarre & dysfunctional that exposure to the truth blows it to shreds, then yeah telling the truth is indeed a poor substitute for "reasoned discussion." DSK .. |
#159
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:09:01 -0400, said: On 10 Mar 2009 13:37:02 -0500, Dave wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:15:33 -0400, said: Are you denying that Congress in 2006 provided the retroactive legal protection I described? I said: "Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government." To which you replied: "A gross distortion" At which point, I suggested that you are all wet and don't know what you are babbling about. Did you check again? Did the US government prosecute people for using waterboarding? You answer my question, and I'll answer yours. I think we should take issues in the order they were raised. Unless, of course, you can't for some reason... I think we should take the questions in the order they were asked. After you.... Wouldn't it be better to 'answer' questions in the order they were asked? After all, you have no choice but to take them in the order they were asked unless you decide to edit the OP to change the order to suit you. Wilbur Hubbard |
#160
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Dave wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, said: Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a crime. I asked earlier which law school you received a degree from. And speaking of using misdirection in lieu of substantive debate... Face it Dave, the strawman here is of your construction. The quibbling over what comprises "torture" is of virtually *NO* importance when the base issue of whether torture is allowable is being questioned. So many windmills to tilt at, so many strawmen to burn, you're such a busy guy! Keith |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Way OT, but a "cold war" question. who were the "Pinkos?" | General | |||
"Jeffrey Boyd" is an anagram of "Midget Runt" in Japanese | ASA | |||
Battery with "Double the Power" or that takes up "Half the Space" | ASA | |||
Marinco 15 Amp "Marine Grade" 120VAC Receptical v. Leviton "terrestrial grade" | Boat Building |