Miranda
-
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.
-
Let's try this scenario, Steve: someone just killed a man in a convenience store and is still at large, considered armed and dangerous. The cops have good reason to believe his friend knows where he is, but isn't telling. He won't say anything.
Can we torture him to get him to talk in order to prevent a future murder?
-
Let's try this scenario, Steve: someone just killed a man in a convenience store and is still at large, considered armed and dangerous. The cops have good reason to believe his friend knows where he is, but isn't telling. He won't say anything.
Can we torture him to get him to talk in order to prevent a future murder?
Let's try this scenario, Steve: someone just killed a man in a convenience store and is still at large, considered armed and dangerous. The cops have good reason to believe his friend knows where he is, but isn't telling. He won't say anything.
Can we torture him to get him to talk in order to prevent a future murder?
First of all it's not a ticking clock.
Second it's not the situation I gave you.
I asked if you, Heck, you yourself would break the "law" and allow the violent sex offender with your missing wife's blood in his car to be waterboarded. And if you'd turn a blind eye. That's it.
You said no.
Fine.
That's the question.
That said, (and try to follow along) I don't think that accomplice should have the "right" to withhold the evidence.
And that has NOTHING to do with whether I'd personally want to see him strongarmed.
Do you understand anything or just in full bicker mode now?
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.
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.
So ignorance of the law IS and excuse now?
Cool.
And "foreigners?"
Actually enemy combatants. Like those who planned 9/11.
But you're cool with years of solitary huh?
Good for you compassion boy.
WSS
-
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.
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.
Fair enough VT; you've already answered honestly AFAIK.
But you DID say that the guy who harmed your loved one would be better off if the cops got him first.
Right?
And that's a statement of honesty I can't seem to get Heck to cough up.
Unless he really wouldn't.
Of course you also realize the ridiculous extrapolation we're running into. Right?
Whether or not we waterboard terrorists and whether a guy should have the right to withhold evidence are two seperate issues.
WSS
-
Let's try this scenario, Steve: someone just killed a man in a convenience store and is still at large, considered armed and dangerous. The cops have good reason to believe his friend knows where he is, but isn't telling. He won't say anything.
Can we torture him to get him to talk in order to prevent a future murder?
First of all it's not a ticking clock.
Second it's not the situation I gave you.
I asked if you, Heck, you yourself would break the "law" and allow the violent sex offender with your missing wife's blood in his car to be waterboarded. And if you'd turn a blind eye. That's it.
You said no.
Fine.
That's the question.
That said, (and try to follow along) I don't think that accomplice should have the "right" to withhold the evidence.
And that has NOTHING to do with whether I'd personally want to see him strongarmed.
Do you understand anything or just in full bicker mode now?
WSS
First of all it's not a ticking clock.
Second it's not the situation I gave you.
I asked if you, Heck, you yourself would break the "law" and allow the violent sex offender with your missing wife's blood in his car to be waterboarded. And if you'd turn a blind eye. That's it.
You said no.
Fine.
That's the question.
That said, (and try to follow along) I don't think that accomplice should have the "right" to withhold the evidence.
And that has NOTHING to do with whether I'd personally want to see him strongarmed.
Do you understand anything or just in full bicker mode now?
WSS
Two things:
First of all, this sounds like a ticking clock to me. There's a man who is armed and dangerous on the loose. This just happened in LA last week - a guy (porn star, actually, though "star" is probably a reach) got fired, went out to his car, got a sword, walked back into the office and hacked one person to death, and seriously injured two others, then fled. They launched a sizable manhunt for the guy, because he was considered armed and dangerous and mentally unstable, and likely to kill again.
Now, if someone - a friend, say - had information about his whereabouts, but chose to remain silent about it, should the cops be allowed to torture him?
Secondly, assuming you get your way and a few sections of the Bill of Rights are repealed, just how do you expect to know when A) someone is withholding something, and B - how do you force them to comply?
I'm interested how this works in your world.
Cop: I know you know where he is.
Friend: No, I don't.
Cop: Yes, you do.
Friend: No, I don't.
...What happens then?
-
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.
So ignorance of the law IS and excuse now?
Cool.
And "foreigners?"
Actually enemy combatants. Like those who planned 9/11.
But you're cool with years of solitary huh?
Good for you compassion boy.
WSS
So ignorance of the law IS and excuse now?
Cool.
And "foreigners?"
Actually enemy combatants. Like those who planned 9/11.
But you're cool with years of solitary huh?
Good for you compassion boy.
WSS
Pow!
Yes, Steve, enemy combatants would be foreigners. But I love how you're still using the Orwellian get-around-the-Geneva-Conventions-anyway-we-can language of the Bush administration. First, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and now "enemy combatants."
And you picked a nice day for this one. I'm sure you know who Maher Arar is, right? Well, we thought he was an "enemy combatant." Turns out he was just a Canadian. We snatched him, put him on a plane to a black site in Syria, and had him tortured. Problem was, he didn't do anything.
I'm sure you'll chalk this kind of thing up to an innocent mistake. One of the many we made when we've tortured people over these last eight years, sometimes to death.
And I find your continued attempts to link solitary confinement and torture to be wanting. They're two different things. I know you think it's a slam dunk, but whatever. That's you.
But I think we're making progress. The state can torture any "enemy combatant" that they believe has knowledge of a future attack or murder. And the state can torture any American citizen that may have knowledge of an impending attack or murder. And you'd love to do it personally, and can't believe there are people who wouldn't.
Do I have you right?
-
Well, this thread got mighty convoluted.
Just my .02- Yeah, for one of the rare times I'm on Heck's side of the argument. I'm against this apparent weakening of Miranda Rights.
Torture? Sorry, against it. Yeah, even terrorists, or someone who knows where your wife\kid's\girlfriends killer is hanging out and doesn't want to rat him out to the cops. As was pointed out there' legal ways to deal with that- it's called obstruction of justice, and you have to prove in court they knew something.
Way to easy to get to people to admit to something they didn't even do just to make the pain go away- that should enter into the equation.
It's too bad the line between military combatants and terrorists is getting mighty fuzzy.
-
So ignorance of the law IS and excuse now?
Cool.
And "foreigners?"
Actually enemy combatants. Like those who planned 9/11.
But you're cool with years of solitary huh?
Good for you compassion boy.
WSS
Pow!
Yes, Steve, enemy combatants would be foreigners. But I love how you're still using the Orwellian get-around-the-Geneva-Conventions-anyway-we-can language of the Bush administration. First, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and now "enemy combatants."
And you picked a nice day for this one. I'm sure you know who Maher Arar is, right? Well, we thought he was an "enemy combatant." Turns out he was just a Canadian. We snatched him, put him on a plane to a black site in Syria, and had him tortured. Problem was, he didn't do anything.
I'm sure you'll chalk this kind of thing up to an innocent mistake. One of the many we made when we've tortured people over these last eight years, sometimes to death.
And I find your continued attempts to link solitary confinement and torture to be wanting. They're two different things. I know you think it's a slam dunk, but whatever. That's you.
But I think we're making progress. The state can torture any "enemy combatant" that they believe has knowledge of a future attack or murder. And the state can torture any American citizen that may have knowledge of an impending attack or murder. And you'd love to do it personally, and can't believe there are people who wouldn't.
Do I have you right?
Pow!
Yes, Steve, enemy combatants would be foreigners. But I love how you're still using the Orwellian get-around-the-Geneva-Conventions-anyway-we-can language of the Bush administration. First, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and now "enemy combatants."
And you picked a nice day for this one. I'm sure you know who Maher Arar is, right? Well, we thought he was an "enemy combatant." Turns out he was just a Canadian. We snatched him, put him on a plane to a black site in Syria, and had him tortured. Problem was, he didn't do anything.
I'm sure you'll chalk this kind of thing up to an innocent mistake. One of the many we made when we've tortured people over these last eight years, sometimes to death.
And I find your continued attempts to link solitary confinement and torture to be wanting. They're two different things. I know you think it's a slam dunk, but whatever. That's you.
It is. Only a coward or liar would say otherwise.
But I think we're making progress. The state can torture any "enemy combatant" that they believe has knowledge of a future attack or murder. And the state can torture any American citizen that may have knowledge of an impending attack or murder. And you'd love to do it personally, and can't believe there are people who wouldn't.
Do I have you right?
Well if you're guessing I'm bored yes.
Rather than waste more time I'll repeat my position and my opinion.
I would personally look the other way if someone wanted to torture the information concerning the whereabouts of my loved one
out of the guy with her blood in his car.
I would allow enhanced tactics in rare instances against terrorists as we did with KSM.
I do not think withholding life saving information should be a right.
Solitary is torture. Even if Democrats do it.
Sending suspects to the Saudis (to whom waterboarding is mere foreplay) for "interrogation" (rendition) is torture.
Since it's still accepted practice I assume there are fascists amont the current administration.
And
Yes Pakistani citizen Arar, if he was tortured in error would be an unfortunate mistake.
Riley Fox and Chelsae King are just two more unfortunate mistakes out of hundreds.
So to anyone here who has a different opinion on any one of those specific thoughts, Toop, VT, Cal, T, John Hoorta or anybody else, it's fine with me as long as you're honest and adress the statement I made and not Heck's stupid extrapolations.
It isn't black and white.
On the otrher hand if all you have to say is shit like this " And you'd love to do it personally, " then why waste the time?
WSS
-
First of all it's not a ticking clock.
Second it's not the situation I gave you.
I asked if you, Heck, you yourself would break the "law" and allow the violent sex offender with your missing wife's blood in his car to be waterboarded. And if you'd turn a blind eye. That's it.
You said no.
Fine.
That's the question.
That said, (and try to follow along) I don't think that accomplice should have the "right" to withhold the evidence.
And that has NOTHING to do with whether I'd personally want to see him strongarmed.
Do you understand anything or just in full bicker mode now?
WSS
Two things:
First of all, this sounds like a ticking clock to me. There's a man who is armed and dangerous on the loose. This just happened in LA last week - a guy (porn star, actually, though "star" is probably a reach) got fired, went out to his car, got a sword, walked back into the office and hacked one person to death, and seriously injured two others, then fled. They launched a sizable manhunt for the guy, because he was considered armed and dangerous and mentally unstable, and likely to kill again.
Now, if someone - a friend, say - had information about his whereabouts, but chose to remain silent about it, should the cops be allowed to torture him?
Secondly, assuming you get your way and a few sections of the Bill of Rights are repealed, just how do you expect to know when A) someone is withholding something, and B - how do you force them to comply?
I'm interested how this works in your world.
Cop: I know you know where he is.
Friend: No, I don't.
Cop: Yes, you do.
Friend: No, I don't.
...What happens then?
I'm interested how this works in your world.
Cop: I know you know where he is.
Friend: No, I don't.
Cop: Yes, you do.
Friend: No, I don't.
...What happens then?
Fair question.
At that point the guy answered the question.
That's what I want.
If he lied we can't help that but he DID answer.
If it turns out later that he lied that's another situation.
WSS
-
Hoorta Way to easy to get to people to admit to something they didn't even do just to make the pain go away- that should enter into the equation.
Hoorta, yes that's exactly right.
That's why I never anywhere in this whole thread advocated using torture to obtain a confession.
Never.
If anyone brought that into the conversation it's just a lie to muddy the water.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
"Do I think he has a "right" to remain silent?
No and I (as well as you) would torture the shit out of him for that info.
And rightfully so."
" if you're telling me you would NOT use any of those methods I listed if it were YOUR loved ones in a Rodrigues type case OR among the victims of a planned terrorist plot you're a liar."
I know. I don't know what gave me that idea that you would like to torture people personally and don't understand why others wouldn't.
-
Heck, I'm kinda curious too. Someone rapes and kills your family. You run him down and disarm him. At this point, what would you do?
-
Hoorta Way to easy to get to people to admit to something they didn't even do just to make the pain go away- that should enter into the equation.
Hoorta, yes that's exactly right.
That's why I never anywhere in this whole thread advocated using torture to obtain a confession.
Never.
If anyone brought that into the conversation it's just a lie to muddy the water.
WSS
Hoorta Way to easy to get to people to admit to something they didn't even do just to make the pain go away- that should enter into the equation.
Hoorta, yes that's exactly right.
That's why I never anywhere in this whole thread advocated using torture to obtain a confession.
Never.
If anyone brought that into the conversation it's just a lie to muddy the water.
WSS
Steve- shades of gray in my mind "confession" and "obtaining information" is a matter of semantics. It's coercion against one's wishes, and I guess that's where we differ. IMHO, it's your right not to talk to the police if you choose not to. I "confessed" to knowing something, um after I was tortured. It's a slippery slope once you go down that path. As to cruel and unusual, the definition of what that is has changed over time. Whippings, stocks, burning at the stake, and crucifixion used to be OK way back when. The ACLU got electrocuting and hanging convicts in the cruel range, and they're working on the lethal injection angle. If you want to define solitary as "cruel and unusual" why not just fly convicts to a deserted tropical island and supply them with unlimited internet access, dancing girls, and free beer while they serve out their "punishment"?
I hate to deal in absolutes- but just how extreme does the situation have to be, before the end justifies the means? In my book not just one person's life in jeopardy, or a couple. Here's a scenario that I dreamed up, (and I really don't have the answer to). We just nabbed a suspected terrorist who we strongly believe knows the whereabouts of a stolen nuke that's going to be floated up the Hudson River to blow up New York. What to do then?
-
Excellent point, Hoorta.
What DO we do then?
There has to be a legit, proveable point,
where the terrorist, serial killer has no mirand rights.
If that point is definately over the edge, an emergency
get-the-info now that is PROVEABLE for that person to have...
don't we have sodium penathol?
Maybe that info can't be used in court against him, but the emergency
need for the information to save lifes is met and hopefully resolved.
Nobody is saying "torture the somebeech until he confesses" except Heck, as usual.
The question is: Who verifies the legit emergency need to GET that information that a terrorist
DOES certainly have?
I'm annoyed with the relativism "water boarding is tortune", "solitary is torture",
"bread and water is torture", "feeding the terrorist broccoli, ham and brussel sprouts is torture"...
The foreign non-citizen terrorists have NO RIGHTS.
-
Cal, there is no "legit, provable point." Not one that I want the government defining, anyways. Here's the solution. We are the United States of America, we do NOT 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