Miranda
-
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?
-
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?
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.
Not that I don't like them, Heck, just that I find them hard to believe.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But if you'd honestly let the wife and kid die rather than to waterboard the guy in whose car their blood was found I'd say you're in a very tiny group. I don't think it makes you particularly noble. No more than the family who prays while the kid dies of a fever rather than seek medical attention.
You're kinda fu*ked up.
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.
Actually professor, Miranda's a fairly new take on the law.
And thr Geneva convention isn't the US constitution.
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.
That's exactly where it should work Heck.
Unfortunately you and your heroes prefer to let violent criminals go free to victimize really innocent people.
For votes and profit.
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.
No idiot.
I say most normal people would.
But (as you know and just refuse to admit) I say that person should be required to give the information.
It was Vapor Trail who mentioned the cops better find the perp before he did.
Any of your bullshit for a fellow Dem?
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?
Limbaugh?
Wow.
What a frigging dearth of wit you have.
Did SOROS make you say that??????!!!!!!
WSS
-
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
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.
To jail someone for perjury, you have to be able to prove they are lying. To jail someone for withholding evidence or obstructing justice, you have to be able to prove that they have done so. Contempt of court is a unqiue beast but is largely done at the discretion of the judge, so it isnt really something we can apply as a rule here.
If you could prove that someone had kidnapped and set up the murder of someone, so as to prove that they knew where the person was so that you could throw them in jail for withholding this knowledge, then you can ALREADY throw them in jail for the kidnapping and attempted murder. So threatening them with 6 months more isnt going to get anything out of them.
I'll admit that you quite nicely answer my question about what to do to non-criminals withholding information - we threaten them with charges of obstructing justice. Absolutely right. Good point.
What about the rest of the questions we would have to answer to turn this into law? The ones I asked above?
As for whether or not this is hypocrisy, it absolutely is not. One of the reasons we have a criminal justice system is because we do a much better job of administering justice when we are not emotionally involved. We use rules that were written ex ante and remove emotionally involved people from cases to ensure that the system is run fairly and with minimal violence. For example, what would you do to someone that raped your sister? Personally, my guess is that, if it was within my abilities, I would hunt him down and cause him unimaginable pain before leaving him to die a lonely and painful death. But I don't want to have thousands of families running around looking to carry out their own personal brand of vigilante justice against whoever they suspect to be guilty of crimes, so I like that we have an official government process for investigating, trying, and punishing rapists.
I want personal vengeance, but I dont want a country of vigilantes, so I support laws against vigilanteism. That isnt hypocrisy; it is support for the rule of law.
-
Actually professor, Miranda's a fairly new take on the law.
And thr Geneva convention isn't the US constitution.
No, but the 8th amendment is. I'm pretty sure that torture counts as cruel and unusual punishment. The government isn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that to anyone.
That's exactly where it should work Heck.
Unfortunately you and your heroes prefer to let violent criminals go free to victimize really innocent people.
For votes and profit.
I've interpreted his argument as being based on the principal of being innocent until proven guilty.
No idiot.
I say most normal people would.
But (as you know and just refuse to admit) I say that person should be required to give the information.
It was Vapor Trail who mentioned the cops better find the perp before he did.
Any of your bullshit for a fellow Dem?
I'd argue that many people with that personal of a vendetta would want to do terrible things to a person that kills and rapes their family. You can't compromise everyone else's constitutional rights because you're pissed off. If you want this to happen, you need to repeal the 8th amendment.
-
I really don't know how to respond to this. Nor do I really care to. I mean, when you type that something is unconstitutional and against our laws, and then you come back and say "Actually professor, ... thr Geneva convention isn't the US constitution"... what do you say to these people?
Yes, Steve, I'm well aware that it's not part of the Constitution. Are you aware that it's part of our laws? You know, like I typed? You don't seem to. Yes, we signed a treaty and we're bound to it by law. That's how treaties work. That's how they're enforceable. All you had to do was read and comprehend.
Jesus...
But here's why your unemployment crack is very Limbaugh-ready. Here's your logic:
Unemployment insurance uses taxpayer money. Some of the people who get unemployment insurance have no interest in finding work. Therefore, unemployment insurance is support for people who don't want to work.
Or we can try it this way: Defense spending uses taxpayer money. Some of the defense contractors who get this money waste it, or are producing something the military doesn't need. Therefore, defense spending is a waste of taxpayer money.
Like I said, save that kind of logic for the Limbaugh call-in. It's that dumb, and needs that kind of audience to find it convincing.
You know, like your audience in here. I'm sure they love it. As well as the "for votes and profit" line, which I'd call a crack, but you actually believe it, so it isn't.
How dense.
-
Actually professor, Miranda's a fairly new take on the law.
And thr Geneva convention isn't the US constitution.
No, but the 8th amendment is. I'm pretty sure that torture counts as cruel and unusual punishment. The government isn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that to anyone.
That's exactly where it should work Heck.
Unfortunately you and your heroes prefer to let violent criminals go free to victimize really innocent people.
For votes and profit.
I've interpreted his argument as being based on the principal of being innocent until proven guilty.
No idiot.
I say most normal people would.
But (as you know and just refuse to admit) I say that person should be required to give the information.
It was Vapor Trail who mentioned the cops better find the perp before he did.
Any of your bullshit for a fellow Dem?
I'd argue that many people with that personal of a vendetta would want to do terrible things to a person that kills and rapes their family. You can't compromise everyone else's constitutional rights because you're pissed off. If you want this to happen, you need to repeal the 8th amendment.
No, but the 8th amendment is. I'm pretty sure that torture counts as cruel and unusual punishment. The government isn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that to anyone.
Just a quickie here VT:
A few months ago I posted a link about solitary confinement.
It's going on as we speak in many US prisons.
Even in states with Democrat governors.
Imagine a year or two in a dark room with no himan contact, my friend.
Then we'll discuss the vague "cruel and unusual."
Oh also, unemployment has nothing to do with my statement.
It was more taxing some to keep many on welfare.
But.....
WSS
-
Does solitary count as cruel? I'd say yes. But isn't it, for the most part, used when someone does something stupid while IN prison? Like, say, shank another inmate? I think that this example is much more black and white than what you're proposing.
-
Well since were talking about punishments --- In the Navy, while at Sea, if you are an E-3 or below, the Captain can sentence you to 3 days "piss and punk" (Bread and water). After those 3 days, most need some metamucil
-
Does solitary count as cruel? I'd say yes. But isn't it, for the most part, used when someone does something stupid while IN prison? Like, say, shank another inmate? I think that this example is much more black and white than what you're proposing.
Does solitary count as cruel? I'd say yes. But isn't it, for the most part, used when someone does something stupid while IN prison? Like, say, shank another inmate? I think that this example is much more black and white than what you're proposing.
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
In todays day of information flow via internet or 24 hour news networks it would be hard for anyone to get away with torture of a US citizen and get away with it.
Then again if it were Sarah Palin or someone in her family being tortured the liberal press would turn a blind eye to it.
-
Does solitary count as cruel? I'd say yes. But isn't it, for the most part, used when someone does something stupid while IN prison? Like, say, shank another inmate? I think that this example is much more black and white than what you're proposing.
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
You are aware that this is entirely unconstitutional, right? We should get that straight. You're asking for a repeal of the Bill of Rights. Are you aware of this?
You're advocating for the state-sponsored torture of criminal suspects in order to get them to talk. You're actually advocating for "We have ways of making you talk."
Poor Tupa.
-
Does solitary count as cruel? I'd say yes. But isn't it, for the most part, used when someone does something stupid while IN prison? Like, say, shank another inmate? I think that this example is much more black and white than what you're proposing.
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
The point I'm trying to make is that you KNOW the guy that's in solitary did do something to be put there (for our sake, let's assume that there were 17 witnesses to him shanking said inmate). You don't know for sure if the person you want to torture has that information. That's my problem with your argument. I don't really think that arguing whether waterboarding and solitary are both forms of torture is relevant to the discussion.
-
So it's OK to torture him (that's what I'd call a year or two in solitary) because he shanks someone?
Hell all I wanted to do was waterboard a missing voctim's whereabouts out of a guy......
ps I amended the last post.
WSS
You are aware that this is entirely unconstitutional, right? We should get that straight. You're asking for a repeal of the Bill of Rights. Are you aware of this?
You're advocating for the state-sponsored torture of criminal suspects in order to get them to talk. You're actually advocating for "We have ways of making you talk."
Poor Tupa.
You are aware that this is entirely unconstitutional, right? We should get that straight. You're asking for a repeal of the Bill of Rights. Are you aware of this?
Hey you used to tell us it's a living changing document to be made to reflect Obama's whims.
You're advocating for the state-sponsored torture of criminal suspects in order to get them to talk. You're actually advocating for "We have ways of making you talk."
Poor Tupa.
Speak for yourself worm.
WSS
-
Are you also aware that Miranda extends no rights to people that they don't already have? All it does is inform people who are arrested of the rights they retain under the Constitution.
Horrible, I know. All these rights people have in this country. We should be more like the countries in the Middle East, or Burma, where they don't stand for this kind of bullshit process argument.
Then we can go right to the torturing when the cops think the torturing could do some good.
-
No, no. I understand how you're very specific about when and where you want the state to torture foreigners, or its own citizens, and which parts of the Bill of Rights you think are dead wrong, and that your system would be much better and would never lead to the kinds of abuses we see in dictatorial regimes, and there's really no reason to worry about giving up some of the basic rights and principles on which this country was founded in order to stop letting the mythical criminal mastermind in your head from run roughshod over our hapless criminal justice system, or to satisfy this odd vigilante dream you keep repeating over and over again.
This all makes perfect sense. I'm coming around. Really.
-
Really, Steve, that's the reality of it. These preventative measures are in place so you can't have shit like the Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials. Once you start taking those rights away, the whole slippery slope thing just kills any of it for me. I don't want it because I don't know where the government would draw the line as to what is reasonable suspicion to allow for torture.
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