Thread: torture

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Powell has done nothing to be considered a traitor as far as I know.

Well a recent WH letter was leaked where he questionned the war and the torture saying that "we lost our moral ground"

Surely, you didn't miss that one too ?

Do you have a link

I'm busy with other stuff today.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...wellLetter.pdf

Originally Posted by surasak

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...wellLetter.pdf

Why would Senator McCain want to REDEFINE what torture means ?

Did you read that ? The English is a little off in one of the sentences.

That's not what I read when I saw the letter.

I can support Colin Powell. I'll listen to him.

Besides the Graham-Levin amendment and the signing statement essentially render McCain's amendment worthless.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp....amendment.pdf

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

.....

Originally Posted by surasak

I have been referring to people who have been systematically rounded up and detained with no evidence, no charges, no indication that they did anything wrong. After years of languishing in U.S. custody they trickle out of detention once it's determined that they don't know anything. Should we use torture as a weapon to put these people through pain and suffering just to find out they know nothing? That has been my stance since the beginning and continues to be the focus of my argument.

Looks like we've been talking at cross purposes. Of course, people should not be detained without evidence of wrong-doing and of course they should not be tortured.

Originally Posted by surasak

That is the main reason why the death penalty continues to be a focus of attention when it comes to punishment. Do we continue to allow it knowing that innocent peolpe will die?

I am for the death penalty in specific circumstances. And those circumstances are when there is undeniable evidence that the accused has deliberately killed someone for reasons other than self-defence or preventing another death. There may be other extenuating circumstances, but I can't think of them all.

Originally Posted by surasak

Should I let the police torture the terrorist if the risk of them torturing someone innocent in the future is bound to happen? Do I have the right to make that decision? Does anyone? At what point does it become acceptable to torture innocent people so that once in awhile we might actually torture someone 'guilty?' What if someone claimed I knew something about a bomb, the police rounded me up, and started torturing me?

The evidence that the "prisoner" actually knew something would be to be put before a judge or some such authority, and he would give the permission to proceed.

In my "pretend" example, I said there was irrefutable evidence that the terrorist knew where your family were being held. Under those circumstances, I would want the interrogator to do what was necessary to get that information.

Originally Posted by surasak

Do we use torture as a weapon in the 'war on terror' when we don't know if the people captured did anything wrong or have any shred of knowledge about anything?

As I said, in the case where there is NO evidence, then torture should not be considered.

Originally Posted by surasak

A fair justice system would not torture 10 innocent people just to get information from one that might save 5. I cannot support that.

This is where it gets impossible to write down rules of how many terrorists may know something and how many lives may be saved by using torture. Every case should be considered on its merits and put before a judge - or group of judges - to decide.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by RDN

OK, let's play pretend. You've pissed off some Islamic Fundies on a web site. Maybe this one. Unusual for sure, but let's say they've really got it in for you.

They find out where you live, abduct your wife and kid and take them to a house somewhere with a bomb in it. This bomb will go off in 24 hours - they even leave you a note to tell you that your family will be blown to kingdom come in 24 hours and there's nothing you can do about it.

What are you going to do?

You call the police, who track down the terrorist and they find unrefutable evidence that this terrorist knows where the house is. The man won't talk. After hours of questioning, reasoning and pleading, he still won't talk. The chief interrogator says to you: "OK, we'll try some tactics not in the book. Just a bit bit water boarding. He won't die but he'll think he'll die".

Perhaps you don't watch '24', but you must be spending a fair amount of time in front of the tube to come up with this scenario......

This forum brings out the best of my imagination...

Or worst?

I believe the biggest problem of that we are overlooking here (which is one of the tenets of our legal system, for better or for worse, so be it) is a person has the right to avoid self-incrimination. You cannot force someone to testify in this country.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As a firm believer of our Bill of Rights, and as a conservative (real conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution - fake conservatives will bend it and throw away pieces to suit ficticious wars on terror), I don't see how coercion, physical force, or threat to life or limb in an attempt to get someone to give witness or testify could be provided without severely undermining our legal system and what we stand for in this world. As it is the Bush administration is sliding down the slope towards a totalitarian system where the government is holding secret sessions where detainees are denied basic criminal rights to hear evidence against them, etc. Even detainees in the war on terror lose the basic right not to be charged twice for the same crime (meaning that if the government doesn't like the outcome they can prosecute over and over until they get a conviction). I do not believe it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole to torture even a single individual even if it would save many. You cannot throw an entire legal system out the window simply because there are people who are criminals because the purpose of our legal system is to protect those who are innocently accused. I believe that principle should override any other.

Originally Posted by surasak

I believe the biggest problem of that we are overlooking here (which is one of the tenets of our legal system, for better or for worse, so be it) is a person has the right to avoid self-incrimination. You cannot force someone to testify in this country.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I always thought that "self-incrimination" part was a bit daft anyway.

Originally Posted by surasak

As a firm believer of our Bill of Rights, and as a conservative (real conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution

Careful! Some people might label you a "Constitution fundamentalist"! We all know where fundamentalism leads...

Originally Posted by surasak

... I do not believe it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole to torture even a single individual even if it would save many.

With correct safeguards, I believe it is acceptable.

Originally Posted by surasak

You cannot throw an entire legal system out the window simply because there are people who are criminals because the purpose of our legal system is to protect those who are innocently accused. I believe that principle should override any other.

I must admit, I've never believed in the "Blackstone ratio" of 10:1. I prefer 1:1 -

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

Originally Posted by surasak

... I do not believe it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole to torture even a single individual even if it would save many.

Originally Posted by RDN

With correct safeguards, I believe it is acceptable.

so RDN.......specifically, what are the 'correct safeguards' that make torture acceptable?

and yes, this is where your entire argument begins to unravel.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by RDN

With correct safeguards, I believe it is acceptable.

so RDN.......specifically, what are the 'correct safeguards' that make torture acceptable?

and yes, this is where your entire argument begins to unravel.

"Unravel"? I don't think so.

"Correct safeguards"? Did you not read my earlier post?:

Originally Posted by RDN

...As I said, in the case where there is NO evidence, then torture should not be considered.

Originally Posted by surasak

A fair justice system would not torture 10 innocent people just to get information from one that might save 5. I cannot support that.

This is where it gets impossible to write down rules of how many terrorists may know something and how many lives may be saved by using torture. Every case should be considered on its merits and put before a judge - or group of judges - to decide.

It should not be one person's decision, it should be decided by a judge or group of judges. Just like some other "unpleasant" state activities have to be approved by judges - search warrants, phone taps, etc. Or does America not have these safeguards since 9/11?

Actually, RDN, have you not heard about those things being done without judicial oversight?

Where have you been the past 5 years? This is exactly the kind of thing we are opposing because the judiciary is being cut out of the process. Under our laws the Congress can deny oversight to the Federal court system if so desired. This has rarely been done, however, more and more often under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' all kinds of laws are being passed and with that come the denial of jurisdiction to the Federal courts to hear any appeals of those found guilty. This is an outrage! All kinds of nonsense have taken place in secret: phone taps, interception of communications, interception of wire transfers. I'm not a freaking terrorist. My money I send to Thailand is none of the government's business yet now everything is an open secret. According to Boon Mee I shouldn't worry if I have nothing to hide. BULLSHIT.

The Military Commissions Act for example denies ANY detainee basic rights to appeal a conviction. That means an innocent person can be found guilty and executed with no appeal. NO APPEAL.

Surasak, you'd have some good conversations with my conservative husband -- he's been bemoaning the current Republican administration's record on fiscal containment, privacy rights, etc.

Anyway, none of it matters until someone (Supreme Court?) puts a kibosh on Bush signing legislation with his "signing orders" that basically say, "F**k you, I'll do what I want when the time comes."

I agree, that's the most sinister procedure this President uses to essentially ignore a law he's signing. The McCain Amendment was basically undone by the President's signing statement upon signing the bill.

The sleaze is sickening.

Originally Posted by gulfcoast

Anyway, none of it matters until someone (Supreme Court?) puts a kibosh on Bush signing legislation with his "signing orders"

That's the job of Congress and the Senate ... the Supreme Court has no business in formulating law.

Originally Posted by surasak

The sleaze is sickening.

The appeasment is sickening.
BTW, how's the party of cut & runs hero doing today?
John (Flipper) Kerry.

The Constitutional role of the Court is to ensure that Congress and the President don't pass laws which are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason: you simply cannot discard or ignore parts of the Constitution simply because they might appear to hinder a witch hunt.

Were it not for the Supreme Court your local police could pick you up, torture you, and you would have no recourse whatsoever. Is that the kind of society you wish for?

Originally Posted by surasak

. Is that the kind of society you wish for?

The society I wish for supports the Commander-in-chief and the military in time of war. Don't know if you've noticed - we're at war...

I hear Burma is looking for volunteers. Sounds like your kind of place.

Originally Posted by surasak

The Constitutional role of the Court is to ensure that Congress and the President don't pass laws which are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason: you simply cannot discard or ignore parts of the Constitution simply because they might appear to hinder a witch hunt.

Were it not for the Supreme Court your local police could pick you up, torture you, and you would have no recourse whatsoever. Is that the kind of society you wish for?

I'm probably wrong sursak but it seems to me you argue against illegal aliens having rights under our Constitution but you seem to want to give non-seppo terrorists rights under that same Constitution. That's not congruent to me.

Even illegals have basic rights despite their illegal presence because being an illegal alien is not a crime against society. Even the convicts in our prisons still retain rights. The Constitution is a framework on how the government treats everyone...citizen, alien, LPR, illegal, criminal, or terrorist. You cannot say it applies to some and not others so long as any person is under the jurisdiction of the goverment.

You know, 12,000 people die on the streets of America every year. How many people die at the hands of terrorists?

Originally Posted by RDN

...As I said, in the case where there is NO evidence, then torture should not be considered.

Originally Posted by surasak

A fair justice system would not torture 10 innocent people just to get information from one that might save 5. I cannot support that.

This is where it gets impossible to write down rules of how many terrorists may know something and how many lives may be saved by using torture. Every case should be considered on its merits and put before a judge - or group of judges - to decide.

Interrogation techniques verging on torture have been used for ages, there are specially trained people who have discretion to judge when these techniques are approriate or not, i.e. may the subject know something of value, and at which point to decide whether there is any sense in continueing the procedure, i.e. the procedure would lead into illegal practises, or the subject either doesn't know anything or won't tell.
The issue under the Bush admin has been that definitions and procedures were changed, blurring edges and allowing not specifically trained army personel to 'interrogate' - apparently there has been a shortage of specifically trained interrogators.

Sorry I can't be more specific, just from memory of a similar discussion, but I will dig up sources if challenged.