Reply With Quote
you just don't have the power to pretend that every single detainee is a high level, ultra death planning lex luther.
when you are ready to pretend that, then you'll be ready to marshal some of the facility's we're planning.
It is a case by case situation but YES I would support the CIA.
you just don't have the power to pretend that every single detainee is a high level, ultra death planning lex luther.
when you are ready to pretend that, then you'll be ready to marshal some of the facility's we're planning.
So you're fine with beating someone to death with a flashlight?
I don't know why you keep posting about a 50/50 chance with regards to my posts. I clearly sited that if it is "known" that a detainee had information that could help in preventing innocent lives being lost I would not mind the performing of interogation tactics that would help retrieve that information.
Whether lawful or not I guess is in the interpretation of the law both internatinal and domestic and to which extent (definition) were these prisoners considered labeled.
It's an interesting read and if you have the time:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/p...ublication.pdf
You can see why there is such adverse and debatable context regarding this whole issue. This discussion took place just prior to the presidential election.
One very interesting aspect of the discussion is how democrats never viewed this as an important enough issue to make a stand on but rather let it be something Republicans argued at the time since McCain was oposed to Bush's decesion regarding the interrogation process.
Because most Democrats don't care about torture either, sadly.
I'm only pressing on the 50/50, because it seems somewhat strange to me that if you KNEW he had information, you'd definitely do it. However, you wouldn't be willing to take the chance, even if lives were on the lines, with torture. If there are lives on the line, don't you think pressure might lead you to doing such anyways?
And worse than that, let's say you DID hold to those beliefs. Good on you! But who's to say you won't be cast aside for someone who is willing to bend those beliefs a bit more, who's willing to take the 50/50 chance?
And regarding the Wilson do ent, those who always say that "cruel and inhumane punishment are tough to define" never try to define it themselves, it seems. They can say what it ISN'T, but not what it definitely IS.
Here's another interesting link from the Wilson Center:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cf...news_id=510315
I would be more than welcome to get more specific guidelines on what cons utes torture. I'm positive that mock executions would fall under those guidelines.
Regarding the first part of your response is what makes the second part a not so "positive" aspect but more so an opinion.
On a side note...Ever see the Samuel L. Jackson movie "The Negotiator" where he basically interrogates his captures using scare tactics and "mock" execution?
It's funny how the Liberally based motion picture industry produces, promotes and shows such movies and portrays these characters as heroes and then has a problem with the U.S. Government doing the same in real time situations.
Kind of confusing to the general public I would think.
Yeah, the general public thinks there are really sentient robots that turn into trucks and planes too.
The only reponse I can have to this is that I know you're pretending to be ignorant of the comparison and if your not pretending....well
Movies are not to be used as an excuse for ignorance of the law. It was a useless comparison you made -- I just pointed that out.
yes......and the pounding music peaks and strategic pauses are mesmerizing.
wild comma is still bewitched from "sum of all fears".
I didn't use the movie as an excuse for ignorance of the law...which by the way has not been clearly defined as illegal regarding mock executions through any international agreement concerning torture.
There are "opinions" and "interpretations" regarding mock executions but nothing clearly defined.
And it's not a useless interpretation when millions of Americans define their "interpretation" of law through movies. Especially when movies portray people doing "unlawful" things as heroes.
All I'm referring to is that many people might view the interrogation that is being used by the CIA today as acceptable if the only view they have of such type of interrogation is portrayed in a movie they might see.
I know. One should investigate upon their own if they think it's illegal or curious but many form beliefs of what government is like and accepted through adaptations in the movies.
Yeah, I think it's pretty stupid too. It's why I'm not a fan of 24.
Throughout history, mock executions have been considered a form of torture. As well, all reputable medical professionals recognize it as torture. Given such, I'm positive it would be considered such. There's no true deliberation in the medical community that mock executions don't often introduce serious mental trauma upon its victims.
I think we can gain information without resorting to either longlasting physical abuse, or by resorting to tactics that are considered by the international community to be too degrading/cruel/inhumane. I would rather we don't go down the road of threatening people with death, or the deaths of their family, or smearing menstrual blood on them, on getting them naked besides a hood and threatening them with power drills, etc etc.
Sure, people are ignorant and stupid and believe fiction is true. The fake board conservatives prove that every day.
There's also "interpretation" and "opinions" on the idea that sexual molestation is harmful to children, if you ask NAMBLA. Does that mean we shouldn't outlaw it?
It may not be clearly defined in the GENERAL population, but the medical community has had a good definition of it for years now.
Torture is defined in part as "the threat of imminent death" in the US Code.
I don't see how anyone can describe a mock execution as anything else.
If I recall, you are right. However, what else and what context is that in? Have the code# and section so I can look it up please
OK, a set of laws for operating in the USA. Was this alleged crime committed inside the USA?
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...0---A000-.html
Yes. I read that. Was the person doing the interrogation (alleged torture) either in the defined united states, or a US national?
I was in the process of looking at that version also. Is that change in code newer than the crime? In that case, it would be an ex-post-facto law.
Could be. I don't know the history of that particular statute.
If nothing else, I'm glad the door is now closed. Seems there is a reason the law was changed if it was made to specifically include mock executions.
Sexual molestation to a child is a defined act to that child.
A mock execution is the visualization of an act that really is not being done for the purpose of deriving information. No One Is Physically Hurt.
By the way...I've never heard of a movie depicting sexual molestation as a heroic event.
1) Define molestation.
2) Molestation doesn't have to cause physical hurt.
(Note: I am obviously not ok with child molestation, but let me show you how easily some "obvious" cases can be defined away to be "difficult".)
Main Entry: molestmu-!lest
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈlest \
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
Date: 14th century
Results
1. 1 to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2. 2 to make annoying sexual advances to especially to force physical and usually sexual contact on
As far as mock executions...the prisoner/detainee that information is wanting to be retrieved from while apparently witnessing an execution of another is neither physically harming, humiliating or degrading to the prisoner/detainee themselves.
Now IF the person that is perpetrated in the mock execution is being effected with either physical injury, humiliation or degradation...then violation of the law is certainly committed to that individual.
But there is nothing in law that states it's a violation of an individual's rights in witnessing that act.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions