Printable View
For all who support 'enhanced interrogation'...
Given a theoretical US citizen that was attempting a terrorist attack, should the CIA be allowed to 'interrogate' him to find out information?
Or should we not do such since he's a US citizen, even if the CIA believed he possessed information about a ticking time bomb?
what exactly is 'enhanced interrogation'?
enhanced interrogation is a euphemism for torture.
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
no, but.....
if they did it illegally and it worked I wouldn't care that much.
I don't know if the CIA has jurisdiction within US boundries but I have no problems with the FBI interrogating possible terrorists(or the CIA if it is within their jurisdiction).
I'm sure all of our local police departments have to get tough with criminals.
I don't know if you've ever been outside but it's a dog eat dog world out there and some people just need some slapping around.
Torture, for those who don't support enhanced interrogation :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Let's just say waterboarding, sensory deprivation/overload, sleep deprivation, and drastic temperatures.
hand jobs work better
sincerely,
libs
you don't say....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
what kind of 'torture' are we talking about?
'cut the pickle, tickle tickle'? waterboarding? forcing them to whiz on an electric fence?
Academic, since outsourcing remains legal and the precedents for indefinite detention still stand, as do an array of *investigational tools* not called *waterboarding*.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
They would interrogate them bleep out of them under standing law IMO.
I don't know about waterboarding....Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
it's so easy a miamiheat can do it.
At least the board repubs are logically consistent! :toast
Next question!
Would those who support enhanced interrogation of US citizens also support revocation of habeas corpus rights? Or would the right to habeas corpus enshrined in the Constitution have precedence?
If you believe that the right to habeas corpus would hold precedence, how long do you think it would be acceptable for the FBI/CIA to hold a prisoner in custody?
Yes, but I was wondering what the board Republicans would say, just to make it clear. Not asking so much about the optics/realpolitiks of today's situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
First of all, I don't approve of the EITs. No effing way.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Secondly, no and HELL NO. Habeas is the only check against arbitrary detention. If we ever have to suspend it again, maybe the president will be courteous enough to ask Congress to endorse the suspension, like Lincoln did.
I'm sure the police never use any enhanced interrogation techniques.
I'd only support it if Jack Bauer was giving the interrogations.
if anyone, citizen or not, wants to bring terrorism here to the mainland then i feel they lose all rights whatsoever. rights that we as americans have and supposedly live by, but there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against them. i'm just waiting for the gotcha moment :wakeupQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Judges and Juries give them latitude to use *necessary force*. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The paucity of prosecutions (20 or so) among the 200 or so remaining at Gitmo does not inspire confidence that this is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Do you feel the use of terrorism automatically renders a citizen's rights null and void?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
If so, do you feel that should only apply to terrorism?
(Regarding evidence, who's going to check on it besides the FBI/CIA? Congress? The judiciary?)
possibly, but i think you can't be too safe in this situation especially the way things are now. war is hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If that individual were high up in an organization that had just murdered 3500 americans and the government did not have a handle on that organizations plans/capabilities then yes interrogate the fucker. Otherwise no.
Do you think that enhanced interrogation should be used in any possible ticking time bomb situation, no matter the time/place/person? Or are you saying you're ok with it because we're at war, and if we were at peace, we could afford the luxury of a trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
The idea that Gitmo capital cases could plead guilty without any trial has been floated.
Then we could execute a few of em.
How would you feel about that, VLE?
without a doubt. citizen here or anywhere. there should be no tolerance for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
if you're intent is meeting allah, or whatever you're fighting for, and you want to take other people with you, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
i'm sure there's highly classified covert ops checking this out. at least i hope there is, but to be honest i don't have an answer to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
is this the individual pleading guilty without coercion? or is it forced or whatever you want to call it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
if it's done by the accused without any coercion then i'm all for it. nobody wants them. send them to their maker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
i'm still anticipating the gotcha
I see this as a much bigger concern than you. Do you not think that the power to abduct someone, accuse them of terrorism, and then not have an independent branch review the evidence might lead to an abuse of power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Heck, I'm concerned by that power being available even with Congressional oversight, as it's been shown they won't do much about that.
No gotcha here. Just trying to have an open dialogue with people who feel differently than I do, in order to better understand where they/their arguments are coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
The pleas themselves would be willing. The evidence was *likely* coerced in a large number of cases, but the elegant thing about any plea bargain is that the *evidence* and the circumstances of detention will not be liable to discovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Does death extinguish the legal standing of the defendant, or can his heirs sue?
I might choose intentional martyrdom at the hands of US officials over indefinite detention by the same if the choice was mine.
If it comes to pass, this is what people will say.Quote:
if it's done by the accused without any coercion then i'm all for it. nobody wants them. send them to their maker.
I couldn't disagree more etc.,
we have people in the past few years that have been released from prison because they've been cleared of a crime for whatever reason(dna, new evidence, what have you) that have been locked up for years. i think 25 is the longest that i've remembered. is justice really blind? who knows but terrorism is a whole other beast to tend to. i don't think we can be too safe.
Even with US citizens? That's pretty hardcore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
i guess a "world" court would have to be assembled. spread out the blood on everyone's hands if that's what it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The way I see it, since liberals want to coddle terrorists, we should be able to use "enhanced interrogation" against anybody who votes for a Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
This would be a very powerful and useful tool for rectifying some of the ideological "problem children" in the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Liberals are more dangerous than terrorists. It's well past time to take the gloves off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
that's one of my nicknames, coincidentally. and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The detainee should enter the criminal justice system as soon as practicable IMO. I still don't see the necessity or justification of having a separate law track for terrorists, or separate housing.
LE plus criminal justice worked before 9/11; it has worked since and will work again in the future. The relevant federal laws are already on the books and they are still being enforced. Why does everybody still lose their mind about this? LE will still cooperate with federal officials to git r done. Normal LE plus signals and prisons works fine.
Prevention is not a reasonable expectation IMO, if it is also a reasonable goal to have. Zeal for security can be overdone.
http://www.calico.ie/uploaded_images...ort-713835.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-...1579208933.jpg
http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/wp-content/u...nzi-scheme.jpg
any questions?
Based on the current definition of torture, all contestants on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here" are currently being tortured.
As are people watching it.
Please give us that current definition in full.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Yes. Do you know how lame that sounds in 2009?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
That is not a simple yes or no answer. The three detainees that were subject to enhanced techniques, were rather high up on the food chain, and it was certain they had important intelligence. Without knowing is the guy (gal) had important intelligence, I say no. However, if this was someone who was in charge of attacks, then yes. Like others have said though, the CIA operates outside the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
lame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
From "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here"
All this while snakes, spiders, roaches, rats ran around by their heads.
http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495x...Torrie_IAC.jpg
http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495x..._Three_IAC.jpg
http://www.nbc.com/app2/img/500x495x...ut_IAC_001.jpg
Yeah lame. On you VLE, not 9/11.
9/11 is not a CYA or get out of jail free card. It certainly doesn't give us the *right* to detain US citizens indefinitely without charges as formerly believed, much less to torture and execute them whimsically, as you seem to have suggested.
What did you mean by*you can't be too careful...*?
Of course we should question Americans citizens. Why stop doing this? That's how we get information from a suspect, witness or victim after a crime has been committed. If anything we need to add some special interrogation methods. Casey Anthony would be a good choice to start off with. Of course video tape it. She has been on TV every day for like a year. No telling how much money she is costing that state already and the trial has not even started. We all know she killed her kid. We want to know why and we want to save some money. Enhanced interrogate her ass. Let the American people see what these methods are all about and the results. Then we need to kill her so we can save even more money. It's the smart way to go especially durning these economic times.
I don't see why not.
Are you really that retarded? Do we have to spell out the distinctions regarding consent for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Have a reality show, like Cops, so that people will know what to expect when it happens to them.
Clever.
i believe i said if they plead guilty without coercion. i think i stated that twice and very clearly. i'm not saying imprison anyone that smells like a camel and has a beard. come on now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Can you see how that might be construed as fulfilling their explicit wish to become martyrs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
And there were women with uncovered faces there too! :wow
And women who could read! :wow
A hardcore Islamists would lose his freakin mind on that show.
I'm liking how you are thinking young man. I am thinking a few speicals. We don't want to give away all the secrets to our American killers,rapist,child molestors.... Baby steps. Only for people we know did the crime...Like a Casey Anthony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
dude, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Is this part of your schtick too? Pretenting to have ADD so you can duck out of a corner you've painted yourself into?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Already made up. The government should have to show how good its hand is. They shouldn't be allowed to bluff it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
It must suck to be completely humorless.
i'm trying to understand you. are you saying even if we try and find a terrorist guilty that we shouldn't terminate them? just imprison them for life? and remember, no coercion in finding them guiltyQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
... after gettin caught throwing away cards on the sly.
The universe of possible penalty outcomes should receive due consideration IMO before being dismissed as possibilities. The cases we are talking about are capital cases, and these can have foreseeable political ramifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Alternatives to execution deserve to exist (at least) in the conversation about the decision to execute or not IMO. It's all speculative at this point, but it can't hurt to be careful. Men's lives are staked to the outcome of the proceedings.
Martyrdom denied = no martyrdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I think the rumors that Ramzi Yousef converted to Christianity is worth the cost of keeping him alive.
Do it. Cases get dropped and PD's sued because they breathe too hard on a suspect.
I would love for Uncle Sam to waterboard me. (jk fbi) I'd claim 8th amendment on those suckas. THUG LIFE
Not at Bagram and Gitmo. They're lucky to get any charges at all there.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
You're only funny when you're not trying to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That is wrong. However, they are not U.S. citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Gitmo sucks at proving terrorist crimes. If somebody claims otherwise, put the cards on the table.
The fruits of investigation were -- to a significant degree -- tainted by the method. Coercion and physical duress queer the evidence.
However, habeas and Common article 3 still apply per Boumediene.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW1N1X88KH0
winehole, i bring this jackass to the table. what would you do with him? i'd say ship his ass to gitmo and forget about him.
(double post)
You're wrong. That's an easy one. Our criminal justice system is perfectly suited for the likes of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Prosecute him. When he's found guilty, sentence him.
I agree. Gitmo is for battlefield detainees and organized Jihad fighters. Not an animal who used religion as a reason to quench his blood thirst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Still, I say someone who acts like an animal, put him down like one. At least cage him like one. I am in favor of the death penalty.
What about people like Timothy McVeigh? Didn't we process him through our court system? I think that seemed to be quite effective. We were able to try him fairly, he was found guilty, and went to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Sounds like a great idea. Maybe we can raise King George from the dead while we're at it.
No you fools, we don't need the government torturing its own citizens. Who in their right mind would willfully give that kind of power to the state?
Believe it or not, the world did indeed function before 9/11 happened. Yes, horrible serial killers and domestic terrorists were, in fact, prosecuted under our legal system. It's true!
and............................................... .................Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
We killed him, but at least we didn't water board him.
Whew, what a relief.
and.... why should we change the method we used to try and convict him? The fact that the US system of justice assumes innocence before guilt is one of the things that makes this country great, in my opinion. Do you feel differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I would feel much better about our country if it killed combatants on the battlefield, then lock them up without access to courts for an indeterminate amount of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
the "and......." was in hoping you would finish your sentence. he was tried. convicted, and.......................Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
let's finish that sentence and we can continue. people love putting words in other people's mouths on here. :wakeup
you would bitch either way, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Just guessing, probably not. LnnGrrrR is active military. I doubt he's much bothered by the other guys dying on battlefields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Said it better than I could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
When people die on the battlefield, well, shit happens. That type of action occurs in war. Lots of innocent people die, and that's something civilian leaders must take into account when they start a war.
However, when you remove someone from the battlefield, I have the belief that we should give them certain basic rights. Not saying they have to necessarily have the same rights as a POW, but until they're proven to be guilty, I don't see why we shouldn't let them have those rights.
Other people disagree. *shrug*
And went to jail and was killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I'm fine if we take that course of action for the remaining prisoners in GTMO. Try them, and if they are guilty, lock them up, or send them to Death Row, or give them whatever sentence the judges deem fair. If they are innocent, then expatriate them to their country of origin. If that country won't take them, see who will.
he was executed, not killed.
Splitting hairs, aren't we? I'm pretty if you execute someone, you're also killing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Cmon now, Viva. I've seen you complain about liberals doing everything they can to complain, bitch, etc etc, but your post before this was leading, and this post is semantics.
Do you have a rebuttal based on rational analysis? Or is this the part where you just agree to disagree, and think that even though we were able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh successfully, that we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to do that in the future?
sorry about that. i was confusing you with the guy having issue with executing this convicted terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
well i was just leading you to finish your thought. i didn't really see it as a gotcha tactic, but again, i was confusing you with someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
shootQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
if someone's death count gets in the hundreds then i see you being on a different level. if the evidence is stacked against you then you should lose your rights. i may not be following your train of thought in your last statement. are you saying i'm wrong in thinking "we should reduce/take away the rights of US citizens who try to" kill hundreds of innocent people in broad daylight "in the future"?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I can understand your thought process, but if the evidence of the crime is so obvious, what's wrong with putting them on trial ASAP? That way they can get convicted and then executed/jailed/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
No matter what the crime is, I think that we should hold up to the basic values of our justice system (ie. innocence before guilt, habeas corpus, etc). We have, IMHO, the best justice system in the world. What better way to show Western values than to use that justice system to process even the most heinous villains?
I don't think we have to sacrifice some of our values to maintain our security.
ah. now i see where you're coming from. i guess i wasn't clear, but yes, they should be tried, convicted and all that good stuff. i didn't mean to imply that if we think you did a heinous crime like mcveigh did then you go straight to the chair or what have you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Execution is a form of killing. So what. The important distinction is he was kill/executed and not murdered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Declinism. Things are getting worse. Values aren't so important to people as previously. Certainly not worth living and dying for, and probably worth trading for some bogus peace of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
See, that's what I want to see with the terrorists at GTMO. Try them, convict them, then do whatever the judge thinks is reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Do they necessarily deserve innocence before guilt? According to our laws, it's questionable whether it's necessary. However, I feel that it's desirable to prove that we did everything we could to prove the guilt of the men captured.
Is there a chance that some will be let free that might do something bad? Yes, but we take that chance today, when we let out pedophiles, rapists, and murderers out of jail.
Again, reasonable people on the opposite side of the fence state that, by not going by international standards of war, they deserve no rights at all, or severely restricted rights. But I can't say for certainty whether or not everyone that was captured was actually guilty, and if the release of some prisoners is any evidence, it's near 100% certain that some of them are innocent.
So put them on trial, a trial where they are allowed a basic defense, and the right for the defendant, or at least their attorney, to see what evidence the prosecution is using against them. If they're found guilty, then my conscience (and, I feel, the nation's) is free.