Miranda
-
I can honestly say I wouldn't, Steve. There's no guarantee that the person you torture does have that information, nor that torturing will make him spill it. That is why we should not torture. You just don't know who did what. As a nation, we cannot resort to torture.
If, however, someone rapes/murders my family, they had better hope that the cops find them before I do. But as a nation, police force, civil service, etc, no, we shouldn't torture.
I can honestly say I wouldn't, Steve. There's no guarantee that the person you torture does have that information, nor that torturing will make him spill it. That is why we should not torture. You just don't know who did what. As a nation, we cannot resort to torture.
If, however, someone rapes/murders my family, they had better hope that the cops find them before I do. But as a nation, police force, civil service, etc, no, we shouldn't torture.
Fair enough VT.
And again thanks for the straight answer.
Still though I completely understand your reasoing I'd still make exceptions in ticking clock cases.
As, I believe, there is support even among the current DOJ.
And I still don't think the suspect shpould have a right to not disclose that information regardless of whether or not he's tortured.
WSS
WSS[/b]
-
Steve, what conversation are you having with yourself? We're talking about whether this should be legal. Maybe you think a special distinction should made if you personally get to do it, rather than an agent of the government, but this is just fantasy. The only person who would do such a thing would be an agent of the government. It matters not what you or I may wish to do when we're really, really angry.
Are you saying this should be legal or not? Or are you simply making the point that you could get really brutal with someone who has done something horrible?
Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.
So for the third time, I don't think citizens should get to torture other citizens, or anyone else, once they've been captured and have been subdued. We can threaten them with the death penalty, being thrown in jail for the rest of their life, and all manner of other legal sanctions. But we don't torture them to get information out of them before we've even established guilt in a court of law.
-
Steve, what conversation are you having with yourself? We're talking about whether this should be legal. Maybe you think a special distinction should made if you personally get to do it, rather than an agent of the government, but this is just fantasy. The only person who would do such a thing would be an agent of the government. It matters not what you or I may wish to do when we're really, really angry.
Are you saying this should be legal or not? Or are you simply making the point that you could get really brutal with someone who has done something horrible?
Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.
So for the third time, I don't think citizens should get to torture other citizens, or anyone else, once they've been captured and have been subdued. We can threaten them with the death penalty, being thrown in jail for the rest of their life, and all manner of other legal sanctions. But we don't torture them to get information out of them before we've even established guilt in a court of law.
Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.
You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?
He a fascist sicko too?
Or just non Democrats piss you off?
There are 2 issues.
I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.
WSS
-
-
Haha. They have a cartoon Caruso where you can stick in the lines? That's fantastic.
-
Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.
You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?
He a fascist sicko too?
Or just non Democrats piss you off?
There are 2 issues.
I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.
WSS
You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?
He a fascist sicko too?
Or just non Democrats piss you off?
There are 2 issues.
I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.
WSS
Well, fill me in because I haven't a clue. You're all over the map. You're pro torture, think everyone should want to do it, but you don't think it should be legal. Except that you do, and in all sorts of cases where vital information can be extracted. Especially if you get to do it personally, which everyone can admit would be fantastic, or else you're a liar.
Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.
-
You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?
He a fascist sicko too?
Or just non Democrats piss you off?
There are 2 issues.
I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.
WSS
Well, fill me in because I haven't a clue. You're all over the map. You're pro torture, think everyone should want to do it, but you don't think it should be legal. Except that you do, and in all sorts of cases where vital information can be extracted. Especially if you get to do it personally, which everyone can admit would be fantastic, or else you're a liar.
Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.
Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.
What's the difference?
You aren't going to respond to anything that's said anyway so what's the point?
Get your spinner ready!
1 I don't think a suspect who has knowledge that could prevent harm to an innocent person should have the right to withhold it.
2 Personally if it was my loved one's safety at stake it would not bother me if enhanced interrogation tactics were used on him.
My guess is that you'd feel the same.
3 I think that in ticking clock situations law enforcement or the CIA should have the option of using enhances interrogation tactics.
So blah blah Beck grumble fascist blah blah Cheney......
Go on.
WSS
-
Yeah, this is why we try not to let people like you near the controls.
What you're saying is entirely unamerican and unconstitutional. As long as you're comfortable with that, which you seem to be.
Love the use of euphemism, though.
-
Actually Heck, like John was asking,
what DO YOU believe in, if ANYTHING?
What do you believe?
It's pretty chicken little to go around whining about what other people post,
and arguing against it,
while being so cowardly and UNAmerican, that you won't have
any value or principle or belief of your own.
So far, you got nothin' Heck. Empty Paper Bag Man.
Or, Empty Suit Man, just like Obamao the troll.
-
Yes, this is the up-is-down world you guys like to live in. I argue for the Constitution, for the Bill of Rights, for the American and Western application of justice, and you can't figure out what principles I'm arguing for, and call it un-American.
Meanwhile, Steve speaks of how he doesn't care for parts of our Constitution and argues for throwing away much of the Bill of Rights, and for the state-sponsored torture of American citizens, and he's gets no mention. You think that's great. And very American.
This is why the cover of this week's The Economist -- The Economist -- wonders how the American right has become so angry and useless and devoid of ideas.
Thankfully, guys like Tupa also exist. Sadly, there are barely enough of people like him in the Republican Party to field a touch football game.
-
Yeah, this is why we try not to let people like you near the controls.
What you're saying is entirely unamerican and unconstitutional. As long as you're comfortable with that, which you seem to be.
Love the use of euphemism, though.
Yeah, this is why we try not to let people like you near the controls.
What you're saying is entirely unamerican and unconstitutional. As long as you're comfortable with that, which you seem to be.
Love the use of euphemism, though.
Well at least you haven't slipped up and offered anything of substance.
WSS
-
Haha. Okay, Steve. Please, continue with your dissertation on torturing the shit out of people who won't talk. I'm learning so much of substance.
-
Haha. Okay, Steve. Please, continue with your dissertation on torturing the shit out of people who won't talk. I'm learning so much of substance.
Haha. Okay, Steve. Please, continue with your dissertation on torturing the shit out of people who won't talk. I'm learning so much of substance.
But if it were your wife or kid you'd turn the other cheek?
You're an idiot Heck.
And a bore.
If you don't like what I said tough shit.
And since you don't have the balls to answer you're a pussy too.
There's your substance.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Heck translation:
"I'm a little sissy and I disagree with everything that everyone says, unless
they are a liberal/progressive just like me and they do the same thing, and I
wish Shep and MosquitoZits were here so I could be idolized while making
no sense whatsoever on most subjects, and trying to change every subject
and that's why I am afraid to start my own subjects and if you don't like me
wearing my pink jammies you are just like a fascist pig and you are stupid
and I have to argue with everybody but I never have any content as to what
I am arguing about, I just want to ridicule anybody who disagrees with me
when I disagree but I have courage to have my own opinions, and I can't back
them up, so I say "haha you should read your first book haha" because Steve
keeps making me cry and John asked me a great question, but I am too
dumb to have any kind of answer but I wish I was the master of this foruma
and I wish I didn't like to lick Obamao's toes because everybody is making me feel
ignorant but I am a genius and everybody should not make me cry, "
-
Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.
What's the difference?
You aren't going to respond to anything that's said anyway so what's the point?
Get your spinner ready!
1 I don't think a suspect who has knowledge that could prevent harm to an innocent person should have the right to withhold it.
2 Personally if it was my loved one's safety at stake it would not bother me if enhanced interrogation tactics were used on him.
My guess is that you'd feel the same.
3 I think that in ticking clock situations law enforcement or the CIA should have the option of using enhances interrogation tactics.
So blah blah Beck grumble fascist blah blah Cheney......
Go on.
WSS
1 I don't think a suspect who has knowledge that could prevent harm to an innocent person should have the right to withhold it.
2 Personally if it was my loved one's safety at stake it would not bother me if enhanced interrogation tactics were used on him.
My guess is that you'd feel the same.
3 I think that in ticking clock situations law enforcement or the CIA should have the option of using enhances interrogation tactics.
I'm curious how you would answer my questions from my earlier post. You think it should be legal to torture in "ticking clock situations". A few of my problems are:
1) What is a ticking clock situation? Does a life have to be directly at risk? How much time has to be on the clock?
2) Who decides whether or not the suspect is worthy of torture? Do the police on the scene get to make that call? Do they need evidence? Do they need a court issued warrant?
3) Do we only torture the criminals directly responsible for the situation, or would we do it to anything withholding information? How about the kidnappers mother? Wife? Son? Daughter? Unrelated passerby who is too scared to talk?
4) What rules would we have for what could and couldnt be done? Is permanent physical harm ok? Mental harm? Is there a pain threshold that we arent allowed to exceed?
-
Haha. Okay, Steve. Please, continue with your dissertation on torturing the shit out of people who won't talk. I'm learning so much of substance.
But if it were your wife or kid you'd turn the other cheek?
You're an idiot Heck.
And a bore.
If you don't like what I said tough shit.
And since you don't have the balls to answer you're a pussy too.
There's your substance.
WSS
But if it were your wife or kid you'd turn the other cheek?
You're an idiot Heck.
And a bore.
If you don't like what I said tough shit.
And since you don't have the balls to answer you're a pussy too.
There's your substance.
WSS
I did answer you. A few times. You keep asking me the same question and expecting a different answer. You can go back and look at the part where I said, yes, I'd be filled with rage, but no, how real my feelings of vengeance are doesn't really change what the law should be.
So again, no, I don't think my expressions of situational rage should be translated into law. And I don't think yours should be either.
I don't believe in state-sponsored torture, no. It doesn't make a difference whose wife and kid it is, including mine.
There, I said it. Again.
-
But if it were your wife or kid you'd turn the other cheek?
You're an idiot Heck.
And a bore.
If you don't like what I said tough shit.
And since you don't have the balls to answer you're a pussy too.
There's your substance.
WSS
I did answer you. A few times. You keep asking me the same question and expecting a different answer. You can go back and look at the part where I said, yes, I'd be filled with rage, but no, how real my feelings of vengeance are doesn't really change what the law should be.
So again, no, I don't think my expressions of situational rage should be translated into law. And I don't think yours should be either.
I don't believe in state-sponsored torture, no. It doesn't make a difference whose wife and kid it is, including mine.
There, I said it. Again.
I did answer you. A few times. You keep asking me the same question and expecting a different answer. You can go back and look at the part where I said, yes, I'd be filled with rage, but no, how real my feelings of vengeance are doesn't really change what the law should be.
So again, no, I don't think my expressions of situational rage should be translated into law. And I don't think yours should be either.
I don't believe in state-sponsored torture, no. It doesn't make a difference whose wife and kid it is, including mine.
There, I said it. Again.
And of course as usual you answered a question similar to mine but not really.
See I asked (as you did) how many innocent lives would make it worth it for you to (as Cheney seems to have) authorized the enhanced interrogation tactics.
You asked me that. I said one.
You wouldn't have done it for 3000 5000 or any number.
I'll assume that's your answer. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you would be so bold as to look the families in the eye and insult them after that you're pretty brave.
I also asked if you'd personally allow the same for guy who was holding out on the location of your dying wife or son, but you skirt the question by saying you wouldn't change the law.
So it's just you Heck.
No law involved.
Yes or no?
I also asked whether he should have a right to withhold information that would save innocent lives.
You think he should.
I just don't think that right helps make for a better society.
(ironic that you think a citizen SHOULD be taxed to support other citizens who don't wish to work but NOT asked give out life saving information)
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Steve, the whole problem lies in heck and Tom's last posts. How can you turn those rules that Tom brought up into law? You can't. There's too much ambiguity. I don't have a problem looking any family member of a 9/11 victim in the eye and saying the United States shouldn't torture people that they think has information regarding our safety. If they knew, it'd be different, but you can never know with a hundred percent certainty. So long as there's a chance that someone's innocent, I don't care if it's a fraction of a single percent, they ought not to be tortured.
-
Steve, the whole problem lies in heck and Tom's last posts. How can you turn those rules that Tom brought up into law? You can't. There's too much ambiguity. I don't have a problem looking any family member of a 9/11 victim in the eye and saying the United States shouldn't torture people that they think has information regarding our safety. If they knew, it'd be different, but you can never know with a hundred percent certainty. So long as there's a chance that someone's innocent, I don't care if it's a fraction of a single percent, they ought not to be tortured.
Steve, the whole problem lies in heck and Tom's last posts. How can you turn those rules that Tom brought up into law? You can't. There's too much ambiguity. I don't have a problem looking any family member of a 9/11 victim in the eye and saying the United States shouldn't torture people that they think has information regarding our safety. If they knew, it'd be different, but you can never know with a hundred percent certainty. So long as there's a chance that someone's innocent, I don't care if it's a fraction of a single percent, they ought not to be tortured.
I understand the problems involved VT.
And I understand the objections.
Pretty much what I want some to admit is that if it were their loved ones they'd bend those rules.
If they're faceless victims then ideology takes over (apparently) and that I find hypocritical.
But remember this.
The president whoever he is can declare war on another country and there will be innocent people killed.
Lots of them.
There's no doubt in our minds. (is there???)
So should the president of the United States have that right?
To kill thousands of civilians but not to waterboard a terrorist.
Sound strange phrased that way?
But back to the point.
It is perfectly constitutional to jail people who refuse to answer truthfully on the stand right?
Or refuse to reveal sources.
Right?
Contempt of court is a crime.
Right?
Withholding evidence obstructing justice etc etc.
So IMO one should be legally required to give up information that would avert a crime.
And that part has NOTHING to do with torture.
And finally I present this old saw.
"It's better that 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted."
I say that's bullshit because the 1000 free criminals will rape murder rob assault etc etc etc many thousands of truly innocent victims.
Personally I prefer to mourn one person than tens of thousands.
I hope this at least sounds rational to you.
(I doubt it will to, well.....)
WSS
-
I did answer you. A few times. You keep asking me the same question and expecting a different answer. You can go back and look at the part where I said, yes, I'd be filled with rage, but no, how real my feelings of vengeance are doesn't really change what the law should be.
So again, no, I don't think my expressions of situational rage should be translated into law. And I don't think yours should be either.
I don't believe in state-sponsored torture, no. It doesn't make a difference whose wife and kid it is, including mine.
There, I said it. Again.
And of course as usual you answered a question similar to mine but not really.
See I asked (as you did) how many innocent lives would make it worth it for you to (as Cheney seems to have) authorized the enhanced interrogation tactics.
You asked me that. I said one.
You wouldn't have done it for 3000 5000 or any number.
I'll assume that's your answer. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you would be so bold as to look the families in the eye and insult them after that you're pretty brave.
I also asked if you'd personally allow the same for guy who was holding out on the location of your dying wife or son, but you skirt the question by saying you wouldn't change the law.
So it's just you Heck.
No law involved.
Yes or no?
I also asked whether he should have a right to withhold information that would save innocent lives.
You think he should.
I just don't think that right helps make for a better society.
(ironic that you think a citizen SHOULD be taxed to support other citizens who don't wish to work but NOT asked give out life saving information)
WSS
And of course as usual you answered a question similar to mine but not really.
See I asked (as you did) how many innocent lives would make it worth it for you to (as Cheney seems to have) authorized the enhanced interrogation tactics.
You asked me that. I said one.
You wouldn't have done it for 3000 5000 or any number.
I'll assume that's your answer. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you would be so bold as to look the families in the eye and insult them after that you're pretty brave.
I also asked if you'd personally allow the same for guy who was holding out on the location of your dying wife or son, but you skirt the question by saying you wouldn't change the law.
So it's just you Heck.
No law involved.
Yes or no?
I also asked whether he should have a right to withhold information that would save innocent lives.
You think he should.
I just don't think that right helps make for a better society.
(ironic that you think a citizen SHOULD be taxed to support other citizens who don't wish to work but NOT asked give out life saving information)
WSS
Steve, you seem to believe you've stumbled into an area of vast hypocrisy, even though I've given you all your answers. You just don't like them.
Again, you're having a cocktail party conversation. It's not a policy discussion. And I've told you that no, I wouldn't torture someone, however I might want to, and no, I don't believe the government should be allowed to either. It's also unconstitutional, and against all of our laws. It doesn't matter what you imagine the situation to be.
Your problem is that you seem to want to have these arguments in a theoretical world, where all these things are known facts, and the information to stop these attacks is a thumbscrew away. It simply doesn't work like that in the real world.
And your logic is that if someone personally wants to maim someone who has done harm to their family then the government should be allowed to as well. Otherwise that would be hypocritical. I find this logic to be beyond ridiculous.
As for the "giving people taxpayer money not to work", give me a break. Save it for a call-in with Rush. Are you kidding?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login