The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that torture is a "foreseeable consequence" of military detention and that the people being held in the Guantanamo military prison are not people under the Constitution. People aren't people according to some U.S. Appeals Court judges and torture by Nazis is to be expected, so it must be okay. ("Guantanamo detainees are not human beings - US judges." Presscue. January 11, 2008.)
Is the United States a Nazi nation? Are we living in Nazi America? We have some Nazi Appeals court judges, obviously. When did the Nazis take over exactly? Well, when were the anti-Nazis really ever in charge? Wasn't it all just false propaganda? It was all just a smoke screen while the U.S. competed for Empire?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is signatory and hence bound under its own Constitution, is the highest mundane expression of the secular law regarding all international dealings. The prisoners at Guantanamo are covered by that declaration. They are innocent until proven guilty. They have human rights that have been and are still being violated by criminals.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that "the type of conduct the defendants were employed to engage in....The alleged tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants' legitimate employment duties." Therefore, the Court ruled that the defendants should have first exhausted administrative-complaint procedures against the Pentagon rather than going directly at them with tort claims. ("Detainees barred from challenging torture, abuse," by Lyle Denniston. SCOTUSblog. January 11th, 2008.)
"...tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants' legitimate employment duties" means that the court here is saying that torture is a legitimate duty. Now that's just twisting the law to cover the sadists, especially those higher up who authorized the illegality. Everyone knew before the evil neocon, Federalist Society, perverts came into power that torture was illegal. No CIA agent didn't know that. Too bad for them that they went ahead and violated the law anyway thinking that the executive would cover them. Sure, George W. Bush will pardon anyone and everyone who followed his orders. If the legislature doesn't proceed with impeachment while he's in office, it will become too late to stop him from doing just that. That's exactly what the two Parties (Republican and Democrat) want.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)