PDA

View Full Version : Torture, Assassination, y the American Way of Life



Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 03:23 PM
From the Future of Freedom Foundation (http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-02-17.asp)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Torture, Assassination, and the American Way of Life
by Jacob G. Hornberger

As most everyone knows, the CIA has been assassinating people practically since the time it was formed in 1947. By and large, however, the CIA kept its assassinations secret. Americans, for their part, had a feeling that such things were being done but didn’t ask any questions.

The system was almost in the nature of a secret, unannounced pact between the government and the people. As part of its job to protect “national security,” the government would have the omnipotent authority to assassinate people, but it would keep its assassinations secret from the citizenry. In that way, the citizenry would be shielded from the unsavory things that government would be doing in the name of “national security,” and citizens wouldn’t have to concern themselves with things like conscience.

The principle, of course, has been the same with respect to torture. For decades, the Pentagon was secretly teaching soldiers the principles of torture, including at its infamous School of the Americas.

...

The Constitution, of course, does not delegate to the federal government the powers to take people into custody, torture and abuse them, and kill them. There is also no power to assassinate people. In fact, the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, trial by jury, right to counsel, and other such procedures. It also protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, especially without judicially issued warrants. It guarantees speedy trials and prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

So, how did the CIA and the Pentagon acquire such powers? No, there was no constitutional amendment. They simply assumed the powers, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. That was the secret pact between them and the American people during the Cold War. “We now wield these powers that the Constitution prohibits us from exercising,” U.S. officials effectively said, “but we must exercise them to keep you safe from the communists. Don’t worry: we will exercise them secretly and surreptitiously so that it will appear that nothing has changed in a fundamental way.”

Thus, throughout the Cold War Americans continued innocently believing that they were living in a free country, one in which the government’s powers were limited by the Constitution, even though deep down everyone knew that the government was now secretly wielding powers that were inherent to brutal dictatorships. </div></div>

See the whole thing at the link. A short one pager.

cushioncrawler
02-19-2012, 04:14 PM
Yes -- but its the perfiktly legal things dunn by the usofa and in the usofa that shood be the main worry.
mac.

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Constitution, of course, does not delegate to the federal government the powers to take people into custody, torture and abuse them, and kill them. There is also no power to assassinate people. </div></div>

You talk a lot for someone who knows so little.

You should familiarize yourself with the history of "LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL" ... in fact Ron Paul tried to give the POTUS singular authority as an alternative to using US troops in war.

BTW ... it was a policy of his that I support.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 07:19 PM
Heh!

That should be: You <s>talk</s> QUOTE a lot for someone who knows so little. (All boxed text is a quotation citation from the piece.)

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 07:31 PM
You seem to misunderstand what letters of marque and reprisal entail, and allow, and do not allow:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Letter of Marque by its terms required privateers to bring captured vessels and their cargoes before admiralty courts of their own or allied countries for condemnation.</span> Applying the rules and customs of prize law, the courts decided whether the Letter of Marque was valid and current, and whether the captured vessel or its cargo in fact belonged to the enemy (not always easy, when flying false flags was common practice), and if so the prize and its cargo were "condemned", to be sold at auction with the proceeds divided among the privateer's owner and crew. A prize court's formal condemnation was required to transfer title; otherwise the vessel's previous owners might well reclaim her on her next voyage, and seek damages for the confiscated cargo.[22]

...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Privateers were also required by the terms of their Letters of Marque to obey the laws of war, honor treaty obligations (avoid attacking neutrals), and in particular to treat captives as courteously and kindly as they safely could.[25] If they failed to live up to their obligations, the Admiralty Courts could and did revoke the Letter of Marque, refuse to award prize money, forfeit bonds, even award tort (personal injury) damages against the privateer's officers and crew.[26]</span>

from Wiki's article on the subject

So, while people could be taken into custody, the rest of that was not allowed or else the letter of marque could be revoked, and the booty captured, lost, and monetary sanctions laid upon the persons operating under that letter.