i feel like, in your good old days, you were just unaware of how sinister the cia was.

and suddenly, ron paul’s cry for the dissolution of the cia doesn’t sound like it would be so bad.

I wonder if Mr. Al-Masri will now be willing to kill as many americans as possible to avenge his ordeal. Perhaps some of his family would be willing to do the same. Oh yes. gotta love how the bushney’s are making us so much safer, and popular too.

Where are the geneva conventions when you need them?

All you can do is pray your name isn’t Arab-sounding.

This conduct is exactly what the Founding Fathers created the United States to protect against. Small wonder the offending party would be the Republicans.

What was done to Al-Masri is horrible. I wish our CIA could be held accountable, but it’ll never happen. Scumbags.

“We don’t torture”

…according to how we have redifined torture.

on the fresh air program on NPR last night they had a professiona FBI interrogator who has recently written a book repudiating the interrogation tactics being used by the CIA and the military as backwards, unimaginative, inneffective and unecessarily brutal, leading to false information, the radicalization of otherwise moderate people and the moral turpitude and perdition of those perpetrating the abuse as they get to a point where they sadistically enjoy punishing the subject rather than trying to actually gather intelligence. Just think, in the real world these guys will probably become law enforcement agents at some time, law enforcement agents that are initially trained on how to circumvent the laws and trample human rights. Get up off your ass and at the very least join marches or email campaigns, do not let your country be turned into a totalitarian police state as mine was in the 70’s, if you don’t think it can happen here, just remember it is the US who promoted those military takeovers in South America in the 70s and perfected the techniques, it won’t take much for them to implement those lessons learned on the american people… for ‘the benefit of the whole’ of course.

Where in the “AMERICAN” Bill of Rights,, or even in the “AMERICAN” Constitution, does it give any rights to anyone other than “AMERICAN CITIZENS”??

LET’S GIVE THAT DOG HIS DAY IN COURT!!!

OH NO YOU DON’T!! THAT CAT HAS TO SPEAK TO HIS LAWYER!!

AND BEFORE YOU SWAT AT THAT FLY,, YOU MIGHT BE BREAKING A FEDERAL LAW, YOU KNOW THAT FLY HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST!!!

IN the declaration of independance where they state that ‘ALL men are endowded with certain rights by their creator’

In no uncertain terms they recognized that ALL humans have certain rights as a birthright.

In the constitution they delineated the specifics of what rights those entail. See, the founders were not the selfish, xenophobic, isolationist supremacists that tend to lead the political class in this country and thereby the lemmings that would have no problem following david duke.

JED:
SO WILL YOU BE VOTING TO LET ARNOLD RUN FOR PRESIDENT??

how’s he even relevant?

Jed,

My condolences.

mine as well… I never thought I see the day the constitution had been murdered, but here we are.

mine as well… I never thought I see the day the constitution had been murdered, but here we are.

Until this is corraborated, or in some way verified, i’ll withold judgement. just because this guy says it happened doesnt mean that its true…evidence trumps allegations any day. Does the guy have any proof beyond his story?

and btw Jed, the “all” in the Declaration only refers to US citizens; if it appealed to everyone the whole concept of national sovereignty would be worthless…you are right that they believed all men are born with the same inaliable rights, but our constitution only guarantees them to US citizens…this guy seems to be a German national, so does that mean he is entitled to the same stature under our constitution as a natural born citizen, or even an immigrant who has become a citizen? i think not

Right, Jed. Keep holding up the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, as if this proves the point you’re making. If the point you’re proving is valid, why does it need to be justified by citing something people wrote down centuries ago? Anyway, concerning your claim: “In no uncertain terms they recognized that ALL humans have certain rights as a birthright.” Maybe you should look into the 3/5 Compromise.

careful Blood– those documents may have been written centuries ago, but they form the bedrock of the rights and the government we have today

i’ll agree with Jed on this one(theres a first for everything i suppose) in that he should keep bringing them up, so that one never forgets what those documents give them, and why it makes us unique among the worlds peoples

now as to whether one believes they’re dead or not, that up for debate…will jed be singing a different tune with Prez Hill or Obama?

Ole,

You said it yourself. It was a COMPROMISE. Which is probably the defining principle of our political system and the ability thereof which separates it/us from all others. You also seem to be ruling out ‘original intent’ with your position, something which I believe the right-leaning Supreme Court would disagree with. I, not surprisingly, agree with you.

Merk,

You seem to contradict yourself in your rebuttal to Jed. The DOI talks about ‘all’ men, as you said and that was the document referred to by Jed. The Constitution gets more specific, without getting specific, on the issue. Remember, you had to be a white male with property to vote per the original document. THAT is ‘original intent.’

As to this gentleman, it would appear there’s a body of evidence to support the contention that HIS rights were violated by THIS country. Are you implying we need not apply our own standards to others? That would be conveniently hypocritical and disastrous to the national ethos, what’s left of it.

It is, as you inferred, a ‘he said/she said’ situation at the moment. I trust that more investigative reporting will shed more light. Given the context of the times, I’m inclined to believe him.

the german government has done an investigation and has found that his allegations hold credibility. Had he not had some proofs of his ordeal the german media would not have even let it see the light of day, they have much higher journalistic standards.

Anyone who endorses torture of any kind should not be allowed to vote.

Those documents are a bolt-hole that Jed ducks through for safety and comfort, for others with the intelectual fortitude, they are aportal through which a quest for justice can begin. Even a strict-interpretation of the Consitution is just an interpretation, and requires justification. Jed merely holds up the document and says “see, what I’m saying is all in here and so I rest my case.” I agree with DD, it was a compromise, a worthy compromise, but one that relegated blacks to 3/5 of a person – hardly an endorsement of the “all men are created equal” line from the Declaration. Apparently, some truths are not so self-evident. In fact most truths require ongoing discussion and argument to move towards.

Ole,

While I don’t hold with ‘strict interpretation’ or ‘original intent,’ there has been significant precedent in citing the text verbatim. It IS a conundrum. Where doest one draw the line(s) between what was said, what was meant and what has evolved? Politically speaking, it’s the best game in town.

marriage is being redefined too

Every one of my marriages has redefined me. I haven’t a clue as to who I am.

perhaps you should have been allowed to follow the original basis for marriage and married two or more at a time.

I wonder how many people know what marriage was all about a couple of thousand years ago before it was redefined into a monogamous financial trap.

Two or more? Double or more the pain and anguish inflicted, both ways?

I like the ‘old’ way. I was reading that the ‘species’ was ‘better’ back then because of the genetic diversification that existed when women bore children from multiple fathers. Wait, isn’t that what we have today? Hmmm, that article didn’t mention much about the potential for inbreeding in such a scenario. Perhaps ‘old man’ traveled a lot more than we’re led to believe.

I was thinking one could deflect the other. Or they would be too busy competing with each other to bother the husband. Or having two around would temper both their attitudes. Then again. Twice the battle could be the outcome.

I was thinking back in the ‘really old’ days it was several women having children from one man. But your point is valid, seems like there is a propensity these days to have multiple children from multiple parents without any sense of family cohesion.

Perhaps man’kind’ is on the threshold of a comeback. Too late for me.