SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:07PM
You seem to be concentrating on the term "extraordinary rendition", which I dare say everybody here understands perfectly, whilst missing the word "torture".
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:24AM
I have been focused on that term because you kept bringing it up like it was the ultimate qualifier to the world's most horrific crime. (It is horrific.) Torture can and has been performed without extraordinary rendition, and at the very least, all individuals I mentioned have been kept in solitary confinement for very long periods of time (up to six years, I believe).
You might try to define "torture" narrowly to only include things such as breaking on a wheel, spinning on a Judas chair, or having a car battery hanging off your testicles, but I'm quite certain you'd not appreciate being waterboarded (the US executed Japanese soldiers for using this "water torture") or locked away in a tiny box from all human contact for years.