I’m thinking your case falls into both.

Clearly rights apply only within the tribe, for example if Obama were to call in a tank strike force against some apartment complex in Texas in the hopes of killing a suspected federal firearms law violator and this, quite plausibly, would result in the immolation of scores of innocent children then one would say that Obama was a murderer and should be prosecuted for this capital crime. He isn’t about “our law” after all.

However if Obama sent in an airstrike against a building in a country we were at peace with in the hopes of killing a few terrorists and this in turn would quite plausibly result in the dismemberment and death of scores of innocent men women and children, this could be perfectly acceptable could it not?

Or should murder charges be filed against Obama immediately ?

Now if you disagree with the founders, that’s a different argument. I happen to agree with them.

And, unless the constitution is changed, that’s how this government should be operating.

I’m also not a fan of socialism – neither is this site in general. So “collectivism” whether through rights (like you’ve mentioned) or ownership, aren’t something that’s much in line with either the Tenth Amendment Center or the Constitution.

I beleive that it may be poetic and even emotionally useful to believe that our individual rights descend from our creator.

Thats not how it occurs in practice. Our collectively defined rights (we cannot hope to assert them individually) come only from our collective ability to defend what we classify and agree upon as our individual “rights”

Rights are only those things for which we will fight and risk death to preserve. Of course if the risk of death is almost a certainty it would be foolish to attempt to defend such rights – there are no rights in a grave. There need to be some hope of success.

That’s not what the founding fathers created. In fact, it’s the exact opposite.

That being said, I can prove the term “torture” as used is a meaningless throw away term. If I should say to you: “accept 5 minutes of waterboarding or 5 years at hard labor” which of you would gladly accept this “torture”?

Real torture generally involves the removal of body parts by the the most painfully slow process imaginable and normally is concluded by the death of the victim; waterboarding is a ride in an amusement park by comparison.

Just to remind you – again – the constitution applies to the federal government. no one else. get it?

If you base your entire argument off a wildly false assumption like that, the whole thing is going to be off base.