🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <190920061243093917%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net>,
 "John�]� 
 ���������������������������������������������������������������" 
 <jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink.net> wrote:

> So if you have a serial killer in your neighborhood, you tell the
> police to leave him alone because if you make him mad he might kill
> again?

Lovely. Your argument is, "because local police lawfully engage to 
apprehend a serial killer, our nation should unlawfully allow the 
President of the United States free reign to unlawfully torture 
detainees without evidence, trial or representation, just because they 
are suspected of being "unlawful combatants", a term we deliberately 
made up to avoid calling them prisoners of war so that we didn't have to 
afford them any opportunity to prove their innocence."

You cannot justify dysnomia (literally, "lawlessness") by pointing out 
the lawful procedures of criminal justice. Bush's plan flies in the face 
of both domestic and international law and utterly defies any concept of 
justice. 

Unfortunately for those who love torture, the Supreme Court agrees with 
this truth.

To quote from a Washington Post editorial:

"It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of 
honorable "debate" over torture. Bush says he is waging a "struggle for 
civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, 
and they don't debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and 
dishonors every American."