Which do you feel is more important?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Which do you feel is more important, the winner of the white house or the senate/house races?

[SteelClip49]

Oklahoma winning their 6th Big XII title.

[StoopTroup]

OU / texas

[SicEmBaylor]

Which do you feel is more important, the winner of the white house or the senate/house races?

It ought to be the Congressional races, but the reality is that the White House is more important. Oh how I long for the days when Congress was the architect of domestic policy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Presidential race, as there's a good chance that whoever's president the next four years will make two or three Supreme Court appointments.

[mdklatt]

Presidential race, as there's a good chance that whoever's president the next four years will make two or three Supreme Court appointments.

But Congress is the one that approves them.

[Frozen Sooner]

The Senate, in fact.

And even though the Senate approves them, it's still pretty rare for a Supreme Court nominee to go down in flames unless they're seriously flawed-see Meiers, Harriet and Bork, Robert.

[mdklatt]

The most important thing is that the same party not control both the White House and Congress. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely, which is why straight ticket voters boggle my mind. However, the pubz need a serious enema at this point, so they deserve a couple of years in time-out.

Cut the bull**** and get your act together for the mid-term elections, stupid elephants. :mad:

[soonerscuba]

White House.

I think that the mid-term Republican primaries will be very, very interesting. If most pick up libertarian leaning candidates, they should make serious gains. If they pick from their stable of God, Guns, and Gays cadidates, expect more of the same. Unless, Obama is an astonishingly bad president which could happen.

[olevetonahill]

Presidential race, as there's a good chance that whoever's president the next four years will make two or three Supreme Court appointments.

I agree Mike , Im gonna vote for who I think will appoint the Least Lib.Judges.

[Frozen Sooner]

I agree Mike , Im gonna vote for who I think will appoint the Least Lib.Judges.

See, and that's why I'm going to vote for the guy who's going to appoint judges who understand that torture does, in fact, constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The Federal Judiciary is absolutely stacked with conservative-appointed judges. Balance needs to come back to the Judicial Branch.

[olevetonahill]

MIke , Bro I dont see eother Of em Condoning that . JSM cause, well hes been there, Obama cause He wants to talk to em .:D

[Fugue]

See, and that's why I'm going to vote for the guy who's going to appoint judges who understand that torture does, in fact, constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.


n/m

[SicEmBaylor]

See, and that's why I'm going to vote for the guy who's going to appoint judges who understand that torture does, in fact, constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The Federal Judiciary is absolutely stacked with conservative-appointed judges. Balance needs to come back to the Judicial Branch.

See, I don't think the judiciary should have an ideology one way or another. Faithfully interpreting the constitution consistent with the letter and intent of the document makes a good judge.

And I agree that torture is "cruel and unusual punishment", but I don't agree that everyone is automatically entitled to constitutional protections. Certainly any and every American citizen, but enemy combatants captured on a battlefield or a terrorist hiding in a cave is definitely not entitled to Constitutional protections and I find it the most absurd argument in the world to suggest otherwise.

[Frozen Sooner]

MIke , Bro I dont see eother Of em Condoning that . JSM cause, well hes been there, Obama cause He wants to talk to em .:D

John McCain has stated that he wants to appoint more judges like Antonin Scalia, who has explicitly argued that he does not believe that torture is cruel or unusual punishment.

[SicEmBaylor]

John McCain has stated that he wants to appoint more judges like Antonin Scalia, who has explicitly argued that he does not believe that torture is cruel or unusual punishment.

I partially disagree with him. He's much more qualified to speak on the issue than I am, but his justification for that statement does make a great deal of sense.

He has stated that torture is not punishment which, logically, it isn't. It's a means to an end and not the end itself (the end being punishment). It's a way of gathering information and in those cases it isn't cruel and unusual punishment. Now, if you were torturing the guy for torture's sake as a punishment then it probably would be unconstitutional.

In any case, I don't think terrorists and/or enemy combatants are entitled to constitutional protections unless they are caught within the United States or its associated territories.

[mdklatt]

I
He has stated that torture is not punishment which, logically, it isn't. It's a means to an end and not the end itself (the end being punishment). It's a way of gathering information and in those cases it isn't cruel and unusual punishment.


That's some Clintonesque BS right there.



In any case, I don't think terrorists and/or enemy combatants are entitled to constitutional protections unless they are caught within the United States or its associated territories.


What about the Geneva Convention?

[SicEmBaylor]

That's some Clintonesque BS right there.
I like nuance. I've never faulted Clinton or anyone else for that.





What about the Geneva Convention?
I believe the Geneva Convention covers legitimate combatants between two recognized nations. I also believe there is a definition as to what specifically constitutes a legitimate combatant, and I'm pretty sure a terrorist doesn't meet the requirement.

In fact, in WWII, we executed German prisoners caught behind American lines who were in American uniforms and thus forfeited their Geneva protections (this was especially true during the Ardennes Offensive).

And even if we do extend them Geneva protections (which we typically do) -- we're under no obligation whatsoever to extend them constitutional protections.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

What about the Geneva Convention?

What about it? I thought it covered combatants from opposing countries. What country do these terrorist come from?

Now I agree that torture is wrong, but technically, terrorists aren't under the Geneva Convention are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[mdklatt]

I like nuance. I've never faulted Clinton or anyone else for that.



And even if we do extend them Geneva protections (which we typically do)

Except for torturing them.

So we have to let out when the "War On Terror" is over, right? When's that going to be? That's a nice little fascist trick of claiming wartime powers after you've declared war on a concept.

[mdklatt]

What about it? I thought it covered combatants from opposing countries. What country do these terrorist come from?

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...you know, our allies in the Middle East.



Now I agree that torture is wrong, but technically, terrorists aren't under the Geneva Convention are they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Is that a loophole or intentional? How sad that we're relying on technicalities to get away with something like torture.

[C&CDean]

Constitutional rights do not apply to terrorist **********s. Habeus Corpus this mother****er.

[SicEmBaylor]

So we have to let out when the "War On Terror" is over, right? When's that going to be? That's a nice little fascist trick of claiming wartime powers after you've declared war on a concept.

I completely and totally agree with you. I think the War on Terror is an absolute load of nonsense. You can't declare war on a tactic.

Obviously, I don't believe that we should torture everyone. In general I don't think we should, but I think we should reserve the option for the most extreme circumstances and not go so far as to extend constitutional protections to a whole class of people who don't deserve it and certainly aren't entitled. Look, you can't just pick and choose which constitutional protections you're going to extend. If you say that it's unconstitutional to torture then you have to extend them full and equal protection. Can you imagine our troops having to become Cops and collect evidence in order to build a proper case against every SOB they catch? It's scary to think how that would limit our ability to conduct military operations.

Like I said, it should be used sparingly and only in the most dire circumstances. Extending constitutional protections though would be disastrous. And of course you are right on about the fascist/"war on terror" comment.

[mdklatt]

Like I said, it should be used sparingly and only in the most dire circumstances. Extending constitutional protections though would be disastrous.

Even if you can make a moral case for torture, there's still the fact that it just doesn't work. Why aren't the police allowed to beat confessions out of suspects? Because it doesn't yield reliable results.

[SicEmBaylor]

Even if you can make a moral case for torture, there's still the fact that it just doesn't work. Why aren't the police allowed to beat confessions out of suspects? Because it doesn't yield reliable results.

That's also true. But in the "nuclear bomb hidden in a city" scenario, I'd give it a shot in any case.

[mdklatt]

That's also true. But in the "nuclear bomb hidden in a city" scenario, I'd give it a shot in any case.

I don't think we should be basing our policies on 24. What if you get the wrong city? Now you're diverting resources on a wild goose chase, not to mention all the chaos and panic.

[C&CDean]

You guys live in na na land.

[olevetonahill]

If I Know or suspect that some maggot Is Gonna Harm My Family , what ya think Im gonna do? Invite em over fer tea and Crumpets ?:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

You guys live in na na land.

No **** Bro
The "Rule of Law " is for the Law abiding .

[OUthunder]

God Bless Antonin Scalia.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm curious what some of you think "right" means.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...you know, our allies in the Middle East.



Is that a loophole or intentional? How sad that we're relying on technicalities to get away with something like torture.

Really? Are these people fighting for these specific countries, in uniform under these countries?

And I fail to see how it is a loophole. These people are disguising themselves as citizens and hiding behind women and children. I'm just curious what you would have us do with these people? According to the Geneva Convention, they have no way to hide behind the Geneva Convention.

Like I said, I don't agree with torture, but my goodness you act like these people have done NOTHING wrong.

[Sooner_Havok]

To be clear, JM and a lot of other people have said what we are doing to these people is not torture.