Posted on 12/17/2014 4:24:07 PM PST by Kaslin
You are trying to equate a US citizen suspected of a crime with a terrorist caught on the battlefield. And it isn’t working.
When the government is out of control, which it currently is, it is certainly possible that it and things that are actually torture will be used at their whim.
The only remedy is to bring the government under control of the people again rather then acting as if some people chatting on the internet gives them permission to oppress us.
All those against making terrorists talk please put your name on the list of voluntary sacrifices we can make to appease our enemies.
The torture nuance........
I may be the only person in the world who sees it this way
but so be it. Anyway, to torture people into signing dubious
admissions of guilt as practiced in Hanoi during the Vietnam
is clearly wrong. To torture in order to force revelation of
certain events that have already happens is not good in
most cases, but not all. Torture in order to save people
from impending harm or to recover people could be accepta-
ble to me on a case by case basis.
We saved it up and did it with two bombs.
You have to get their attention.
2. It was clear that the Geneva Convention did not apply to (non-uniformed) enemy combatants. At least until one of the dumbest opinions ever from the Supreme Court. Now, nothing is clear.
3. The Army manual on treatment of prisoners prohibits waterboarding or any abuse of prisoners. The Army manual has been adopted by the other uniformed services. The uniformed services did not use the enhanced interrogation techniques.(All prisoner interrogation teams in all DOD branches consist of directly designated, specially trained individuals, and it was always stressed that improper interrogations would result in military charges of misconduct)
4. There was no torture at Abu Graib. That was a bunch of stupid soldiers taking prisoners out late at night and then for their amusement abusing them and taking pictures that sometimes faked torture. When it was discovered, they were prosecuted and given prison terms. The press did not discover Abu Graib, the Army did and someone leaked information from the investigation to the press. (Exactly IAW the UCMJ, but sensationalized by an equally sick and perverted media narrative)
Ditto.
No.
Because we have a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against ourselves.
Remember - if you’re too open-minded, your brain falls out.
It’s not a tit for tat Cubs Fan. US acts a certain way because it is civilized. Heathens and pagans can act like pagans, we don’t sink to their level.
Those being waterboarded have no morals, so where’s the problem?
Well we did carpet bomb the hell out of Germany to help win WWII, I’m fine with doing the same thing to all muslim countries. But no torture.
So let me get this straight: it’s morally objectionable to rough up i.e. torture Islamist slime who cut off the heads of little children and laugh about it, but it’s perfectly fine to drop bombs from drones killing them and and their family members? Got it. (snicker)
Actually, I'm alluding to the already-signaled readiness of the government to consider citizens who do not agree politically as terrorists
— remember that 2009 report from the DHS (Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
), remember the 2012 NDAA and it's suspension of Habeus Corpus, remember how the Bundy Ranch was essentially setting things up for dropping the federal hammer?
We are not all that far from being deemed
terrorists, feeling the full fury of government force, and having the exact same applied to us.
(That is, essentially, what exceptions and exigent circumstance
amount to in questions of Constitutionality: how the government can get around the absolute constraints imposed by the Constitution. Any argument that carves out some exception, like oh, they're terrorists
or oh, they're druggies/drug-traffickers
or oh, they're pedophiles
ought to merit much scrutiny.)
This is 100% political controversy.
In a moral context, I don’t see how it can be a sincere topic because intelligence agencies still hide most of what they do.
Why did they decide to expose the torture question for public consumption, while the rest of the stuff they commit is still a big secret? Answer: to create political theater for the purpose of manipulating our opinions.
If this is inaccurate, let me know.
Interesting.
Amendment VDo you assert that a terrorist is not a person?
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.
Remember - The whole reason the government carved out the vague third category of enemy combatant
was so that they could use criminal prosecution.
Remember - if you’re too open-minded, your brain falls out.
*shrug* - It hasn't happened yet.
Absolutely agreed, and that is my concern.
The only remedy is to bring the government under control of the people again rather then acting as if some people chatting on the internet gives them permission to oppress us.
True — It's why I've been working on some amendment proposals.
[FR Comment Thread]
Because there is no pressing need for any information that don’t have on conspiracies to kill large numbers of people.
Terroists are special cases that require special measure.
Really, I see no need to ask such stupid questions on your part. If you want to coddle terrorists, you’ll have to do it without me.
Special cases
are often used like exigent circumstances
where the government is concerned.
Really, I see no need to ask such stupid questions on your part. If you want to coddle terrorists, you’ll have to do it without me.
You are a fool if you think that I'm coddling terrorists; I'm saying that these can easily be used as precedent to be applied to us.
Remember the 2009 DHS report?
You appear to be attempting to apply "moral acceptability" in a morally relative way. You establish a false premise in doing so.
We havn't used so called "waterboarding" as an EIT "regularly" with terrorists, quite rarely actually. Only three individuals out of thousands, and those were years ago.
That being the case, perhaps it would be helpful to rephrase your question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.