|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:06 am
MSNBC Lawmaker gets to the bottom of panties torture Debate waged over making suspected terrorists wear briefs on their heads WASHINGTON - At least one member of Congress has his knickers in a twist over the subject of ... panties. In a debate about the way detainees are treated at Guantanamo Bay, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher argued that it's not torture to make suspected terrorists wear women's underwear on their heads. Rohrabacher was taking issue with FBI complaints about inappropriate and potentially illegal tactics used to get al-Qaida detainees to talk. He said interrogation-by-panties was more akin to "hazing," not torture. Story continues below ↓advertisement He mentioned the word "panties" eight times during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. Massachusetts Democrat Bill Delahunt pointedly told Rohrabacher that the issue went beyond panties, saying interrogators were also seen physically abusing detainees. Rohrabacher declared he would never apologize for someone putting panties on the head of a 9-11 terrorist. seriously...they must have been dirty
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:15 am
Well seeing as his name is Dana, he most likely had panties put on his head as a joke earlier in life. I love how he was told this wasn't just about panties yet kept talking about them. Rohrabacher is just so awesome for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:12 am
Quote: In a debate about the way detainees are treated at Guantanamo Bay, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher argued that it's not torture to make suspected terrorists wear women's underwear on their heads. Seriously, I thought the standard operating procedure here was to deny the allegations, not try and justify them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:11 pm
He is just trying to make it seem like it's not a crime, that way no one can get in trouble for it. If he fails in that, large parts of the interrogation process may come under more fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:53 am
I believe our Constitution prohibits both cruel AND unusual punishment. This would fall under unusual rather than cruel, but its still banned by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme court has ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay do have rights, which makes sense if you think about it. They are being held by the United States, to be tried for crimes by the United States, and more than likely convicted and sentenced by the United States. Clearly, this falls under the Judicial system of the United States, which fall under the Constitution of the United States, which contains the Bill of Rights. It could be argued that forcing the detainees to wear womens panties on their heads is Unconstitutional because it is an unusual punishment. I wonder what the Congressman would haver to say to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am
Okey Doke Panties on the head....not Torture lol. Hazing...yes Humiliating...yes Alright to do...No Priestess_Kelina I believe our Constitution prohibits both cruel AND unusual punishment. This would fall under unusual rather than cruel, but its still banned by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme court has ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay do have rights, which makes sense if you think about it. They are being held by the United States, to be tried for crimes by the United States, and more than likely convicted and sentenced by the United States. Clearly, this falls under the Judicial system of the United States, which fall under the Constitution of the United States, which contains the Bill of Rights. It could be argued that forcing the detainees to wear womens panties on their heads is Unconstitutional because it is an unusual punishment. I wonder what the Congressman would haver to say to that. Our P.O.W. are not citizens of the United States Constitution does not apply to them. But, The Geneva Convention does apply. And the United States did in fact sign it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:08 pm
Not really anymore since interrogations are now being done in international waters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:37 am
Well yeah sure international waters......but thats just a cop out technicality. Whether valid from a legal standpoint or not, I don't think anyone actually believes that makes it ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:18 pm
The Constitution does not apply only to US citizens; it's legally applicable to any person on US soil. The Bush administration does not believe Gitmo is on US soil, so they believe it is not subject to the Constitution.
And Guantanamo detainees are not considered PoWs, because they are not uniformed combatants belonging to any country's military. As a result, they aren't protected under the Geneva Convention.
The Bush Administration is using a very sad loophole that, thankfully, SCOTUS has now closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:55 pm
Someone might even be able to make a case that it's sexual harassment...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:57 pm
Priestess_Kelina I believe our Constitution prohibits both cruel AND unusual punishment. This would fall under unusual rather than cruel, but its still banned by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme court has ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay do have rights, which makes sense if you think about it. They are being held by the United States, to be tried for crimes by the United States, and more than likely convicted and sentenced by the United States. Clearly, this falls under the Judicial system of the United States, which fall under the Constitution of the United States, which contains the Bill of Rights. It could be argued that forcing the detainees to wear womens panties on their heads is Unconstitutional because it is an unusual punishment. I wonder what the Congressman would haver to say to that. I agree fully. But, as far as the case goes, I think that maybe Guantanamo Bay needs a better security structure. However it is home to alot more than just a few suspected terrorists along with the most dangerous criminals in the united states. So, maybe this case that was debated at the embassy of foriegn affairs is either fluke or just completely ridiculis and is the obvious result of instability in the correctioal structure of Guantanamo Bay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:38 am
MJgwarrocker66 Priestess_Kelina I believe our Constitution prohibits both cruel AND unusual punishment. This would fall under unusual rather than cruel, but its still banned by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme court has ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay do have rights, which makes sense if you think about it. They are being held by the United States, to be tried for crimes by the United States, and more than likely convicted and sentenced by the United States. Clearly, this falls under the Judicial system of the United States, which fall under the Constitution of the United States, which contains the Bill of Rights. It could be argued that forcing the detainees to wear womens panties on their heads is Unconstitutional because it is an unusual punishment. I wonder what the Congressman would haver to say to that. I agree fully. But, as far as the case goes, I think that maybe Guantanamo Bay needs a better security structure. However it is home to alot more than just a few suspected terrorists along with the most dangerous criminals in the united states. So, maybe this case that was debated at the embassy of foriegn affairs is either fluke or just completely ridiculis and is the obvious result of instability in the correctioal structure of Guantanamo Bay. sounds like a logical conclusion to me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
