"Civil Discourse" per Larken Rose

[Cobalt Shiva]

The German courts found that the agents did indeed torture this German citizen.

The German definition of "torture" includes "inadequate wine list in the detention facility mess" and similar items that do not conform to the US definition of torture. I do not accept German legal definitions as binding on the US judiciary.

[SteveSy]

The German courts found that the agents did indeed torture this German citizen.

The German definition of "torture" includes "inadequate wine list in the detention facility mess" and similar items that do not conform to the US definition of torture. I do not accept German legal definitions as binding on the US judiciary.

Dude you're a frigging moron.....

Whatever it was we will never know because no evidence was allowed to be presented. The case was closed as soon as the government claimed the "state secrets" doctrine. This guy could have been just some poor bastard on vacation like he said he was. The govenrment isn't even claiming he's a terrorist anymore as far as I can tell.

Is this how you want our government to act? This more resembles a fascist police state mentality. You can't claim moral superiority while picking up people imprisoning them for five years, possibly torture them and then not even letting the government face the consequences for their actions in court. Even if the government did everything this guy claims the government has gotten a free ride.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Whatever it was we will never know because no evidence was allowed to be presented.

The evidence was available; the judge decided that it was not necessary to review it, most likely because it followed the SteveSy & Sooie standards of argumentum ex rectum.

[SteveSy]

Whatever it was we will never know because no evidence was allowed to be presented.

The evidence was available; the judge decided that it was not necessary to review it, most likely because it followed the SteveSy & Sooie standards of argumentum ex rectum.

Hmmm that's a pretty stupid answer considering he wouldn't know if it was "SteveSy & Sooie standards" because he never reviewed it.

From another story:

Conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec said the Bush White House uses the doctrine too broadly. "The notion that state secrets can't be preserved by a judge who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution, that a judge cannot examine the strength of the claim is too troubling to be accepted," said Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University.

...

The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.

Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.

- http://www.spokesmanreview.com/ap/story ... =D8S60FF00


Dude you're just plain dense.....you make my points about people being idiots for me. You support every claim I make about government going off the deep end and no one doing anything about it. Here you are just accepting our government can just pick up people and not even face the consequences if they abuse their power.

Whatever.....I've had my fill of Cobalt Shiva stupidity....Stupid people frustrate me too much.

btw, next time, at least make an attempt to do a google search before acting like you have intelligent answers. You obviously didn't even know the basics about the case.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Dude you're just plain dense.....you make my points about people being idiots for me.

Stevie, to make things painfully clear: you're the idiot.

[LPC]

This thread has definitely drifted into ranting and raving, and I'm locking it.

For those interested in the el-Masri case, I've thrown you some raw meat at http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1504