Posted on 05/23/2004 11:22:32 AM PDT by nmh
Johnnie Cochrane???
Why does the Dersh support torture?
That's simple. Job security. More torture subjects=more clients.
I believe YOU are right!
"That's simple. Job security. More torture subjects=more clients."
Geesh! Didn't even cross my mind - $$$$$$!
If torture is not legalized, it will take place in dangerous back alleys. It should be safe, legal, and rare.
>That's simple. Job security. More torture subjects=more clients.
You are probably mistaken. Dersh saw the light on 9/11/2001. He's still a liberal, but he's for the War on Terror.
Perhaps...but we'll see.
Dershowitz is probably correct on this one. There's an old and largely forgotten principle in Anglo-American law that says that the safety of the community is the greatest good and that there may be times that the executive branch HAS to act outside of the law to protect the people. There are long periods of time when the legislature isn't even in session, much less able to act quickly in an emergency. The rule was that the executive should go ahead and do what was necessary even if it meant breaking the law, but THEN, afterwards and at the first opportunity, the executive has an obligation to lay an account of its conduct and the circumstances before the legislative authority. The legislature would then either pass a resolution retroactively justfying the executive's illegal action (if they agreed it was justified) OR would proceed to impeach the executive for violating the law.
This happened in 1779 (I think) when Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia. There was (or may have been) a plot by Loyalists to seize and destroy the lead mines in SE Virginia on which Washington's army depended. The county militia officers, mainly Colonel Crockett (not the Alamo guy) and Colonel Lynch (yes, that one), acted swiftly to arrest suspected loyalist conspirators, many of whom were whipped etc., although no one was hanged. AFTER the conspiracy was crushed -- if there was a conspiracy -- they wrote Governor Jefferson an official report describing everything they had done. Jefferson laid it before the legislature, which passed a law indemnifying the militia officers and their men. What the law said was that if anyone brought criminal or civil action against Crockett or Lynch or their men, they could plead the act of indemnification and the judge was to consider the case against them null and void.
"...and I vow to you that I will fight with every breath in my body for a military intelligence officer's right to choose."
Doesn't he come from a Stalinist family political heritage? The Constituition forbids cruel and unusual punsihment but nobody seems to take it seriously any more. Yeah just excise it from the Constituition and allow the Government to treat all its "subjects" as they like.
Alan Dershowitz brings no credit to himself or the legal profession. He is a joke without the laughs.
I saw him the other night on Fox. He actually made a lot of sense.
I'm not into the torture thing, but he talked a lot about how people were too involved in protecting the civil rights of those that would kill us. For a change, I actually listened to him.
When Hillary and her gang (which includes, ta-da,... Dershowitz!) take power, they'll need torture as another means to control the general American "terrorist" unrest and revolt they likely will face.
Until then, they think it is OK to start polishing up such techniques and getting legal acceptance against terrorists in general by using it now on Muslim terrorists, while they slide their own noses under the edge of that tent in anticipation of future events.
I suspect Dershowitz has information dangerous to the Constitution. I think we should get it from him.
I'm not into the torture thing, but he talked a lot about how people were too involved in protecting the civil rights of those that would kill us. For a change, I actually listened to him.
Dershowitz may be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but when it comes to the WOT in general and Israel specifically he turns into a rabid hawk. He's stood up against pro-Palestinian terrorist groups on the Harvard campus and firmly believes in Israel's right to exist and defend herself.
I think he's serious about legalizing torture as a weapon in the WOT, not as a future source of victims/clients.
I wonder which of you is right. I, personally, trust liberals, socialists, and lawyers less than conservatives, hawks and libertarians.
One constant occurance with libRats is that they propose some policy "for the children" or some such lofty reason, and their real purpose is power and access to other people's money. That's why, when their policies fail to accomplish stated goals, they always need more power and more money to make it work, so we get more of the same instead of a change in POLICY.
I believe Dershowitz wants torture because he believes he can control it to his own advantage with lib help. Ethical and moral conservative judges probably would not issue ANY torture warrants, but activist liberal judges would, but only for conservative or rightist subjects. It would be a dream come true for the commies, to have a legal system operate like Hitler's or Stalin's. Think of all the confessions they'd get.
I agree with Dershowitz. Sometimes torture is necessary to save lives. Why should our soldiers have to decide whether to put their own careers on the line in order to do it. Set up a process.
The Italians did it. Let's legalize it ourselves.
Don't forget "humiliating!"
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.