Report: 'indisputable' evidence of US torture

[GhostWriter16]

You conveniently glossed over the part of my argument that pointed out the torture aspect of it.

"you find threatening someone with death to the extent that they their body is reacting consistently with the process of dying more of a moral error than telling someone they're going to die after an indiscriminate amount of time andthen actually going through with the procedure."

In simpler words, I think it's equivalent to torture - a cruel and unusual punishment - to tell someone that they are condemned to death at a point in the future to be determined. That's the torture part. Forcing them to live each day, knowing that they will die on a predetermined arbitrary day

OK, I'm sorry, I legitimately didn't understand what you meant until that last paragraph that I bolded. I don't know if I agree that just having a predetermined day someone is supposed to die, and then killing them on that day, constitutes torture. I'd tend to agree that forcing someone to live against their will could be a type of torture, but I think that applies regardless and in any situation. Voluntary suicide and voluntary euthanasia should of course be legal.

That said, while I theoretically support the death penalty for any murderer, in practice I only support it when the evidence is essentially irrefutable. If there's enough evidence that we as a society feel comfortable using the irrevokable punishment, we should use it the very next day. We shouldn't be waiting 10+ years or whatnot.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama are two of the most obvious cases I can think of. Ironically, they are the two that will never be charged.

Maybe you could elect a libertarian just once and rectify this unfortunate situation?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Voluntary suicide and voluntary euthanasia should of course be legal.

Suicide with Explosives in a vest like shape and dont forget to take as many "armysoldiers" with you.

 

[Puck Nutty]

Suicide with Explosives in a vest like shape and dont forget to take as many "armysoldiers" with you.

Not to be "that guy", but if you blow yourself up legality becomes kind of moot since you'll be dead and all.

 

[peter grimes]

That said, while I theoretically support the death penalty for any murderer, in practice I only support it when the evidence is essentially irrefutable. If there's enough evidence that we as a society feel comfortable using the irrevokable punishment, we should use it the very next day. We shouldn't be waiting 10+ years or whatnot.

That's an extremely high standard of proof you're requiring - and in a practical sense, next to impossible to implement. There will always be doubt, that's why the standard for conviction is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Things are never black and white. There is always nuance.

If your standard had been in effect for the last hundred years, hundreds of innocent people would have been put to death by society for crimes they didn't commit. All because the legal system thought the tools they had were adequate to establish proof. Remember - lie detectors and fingerprints once were the gold standard. Now it's DNA. DNA is arguable much better, but it's certainly not completely without doubt.

Just this year we had the case of massive errors and potential fraud at the Massachusetts lab that handled tens of thousands of criminal analyses. Thousands of convictions are now in doubt.

According to your standard, if any of those cases had been capital cases, potentially innocent people would now be dead.

Doesn't that go against your christian beliefs and your libertarian dogma?

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's an extremely high standard of proof you're requiring - and in a practical sense, next to impossible to implement. There will always be doubt, that's why the standard for conviction is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Things are never black and white. There is always nuance.

If your standard had been in effect for the last hundred years, hundreds of innocent people would have been put to death by society for crimes they didn't commit. All because the legal system thought the tools they had were adequate to establish proof. Remember - lie detectors and fingerprints once were the gold standard. Now it's DNA. DNA is arguable much better, but it's certainly not completely without doubt.

Just this year we had the case of massive errors and potential fraud at the Massachusetts lab that handled tens of thousands of criminal analyses. Thousands of convictions are now in doubt.

According to your standard, if any of those cases had been capital cases, potentially innocent people would now be dead.

Doesn't that go against your christian beliefs and your libertarian dogma?

In practice I think most of the time they should go with life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for pragmatic reasons like this. There are exceptions, however, where we are next to absolutely certain. But not very often. It wouldn't be the end of the world for me if they just did away with the death penalty entirely.

Outright Fraud is a different matter entirely. I look at that as outright murder by the people committing fraud.

Anti-Death Penalty advocates like to point out that something like 15% of capital convicts have later been proven innocent. I think that's more a problem with the conviction system than with the death penalty. I'm not even comfortable locking someone up if there's a 15% chance of innocence. There's a reason, a darn good one, why its "Beyond reasonable doubt" and not "Preponderance of the evidence." To me, 85% chance of guilt isn't even beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Commodore]

I really wish we'd never stooped to torture. Never. I don't, personally, feel it's negotiable.

I guess it's easy to say that in the safety of my home, but shouldn't there be a few limits to our conduct? Even if they are tactically useful?

There should be limits to our conduct. As a former soldier who was very close to these types of activities I can say that it was never justified, no matter how much we benefited from it. It affects those who do that kind of stuff too. Hell, I didn't even personally partake in it, but what I allowed to happen had me in mental health counselling for quite a while when I came back.

Suffice it to say, torture is a very sensitive issue for me due to my personal experiences.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I can only imagine, man. It's one thing to shoot ( or even bomb ) an enemy, but to do stuff to them when they're strapped down crosses a different line altogether.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I can only imagine, man. It's one thing to shoot ( or even bomb ) an enemy, but to do stuff to them when they're strapped down crosses a different line altogether.

I think execution of people who similarly killed helpless people is justified. Bombing, by contrast, nearly always hurts innocents so I can't understand how that can be justified. Its understandable if you're up against a wall (Which the Imperial American Empire, powerful as it is, is NOT) but I still can't justify it.

 

[peter grimes]

There should be limits to our conduct. As a former soldier who was very close to these types of activities I can say that it was never justified, no matter how much we benefited from it. It affects those who do that kind of stuff too. Hell, I didn't even personally partake in it, but what I allowed to happen had me in mental health counselling for quite a while when I came back.

Suffice it to say, torture is a very sensitive issue for me due to my personal experiences.

Ugh. That sucks, royally. I'm sorry and ashamed that you had to be put in that situation in the name of 'keeping americans safe' and all that bull.

Do you have an opinion on the USA's refusal to ratify the treaty on the Internation Criminal Court?

Do you think that some of the people involved in the torture should be prosecuted?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think execution of people who similarly killed helpless people is justified. Bombing, by contrast, nearly always hurts innocents so I can't understand how that can be justified. Its understandable if you're up against a wall (Which the Imperial American Empire, powerful as it is, is NOT) but I still can't justify it.

I misread what I was replying to here. I thought Alps was making an argument, but he was actually just expressing empathy. I shouldn't have posted this.

 

[PhroX]

I guess we see how many important people we can get tried for war crimes and related charges.

In a better world.

This is something I see a when it comes to discussions on the torture issue - it's always about how Bush & co should be punished. And while I don't disagree, those that actually committed the torture should be punished too. The agents, soldiers and so forth. No matter what the situation is, no matter what orders they have been given, they cannot commit crimes like this and get away with it.

 

[peter grimes]

This is something I see a when it comes to discussions on the torture issue - it's always about how Bush & co should be punished. And while I don't disagree, those that actually committed the torture should be punished too. The agents, soldiers and so forth. No matter what the situation is, no matter what orders they have been given, they cannot commit crimes like this and get away with it.

Agree. It's only with prosecution at all levels that we'll be able to better ensure this sort of crime doesn't happen in the future.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Unfortunately, the soldiers would have been punished for not doing it to. What a Catch 22!

I wouldn't be against that, or even punishing everyone who participated in an aggressive war either, but its the leaders that are the real problem.

 

[Commodore]

Ugh. That sucks, royally. I'm sorry and ashamed that you had to be put in that situation in the name of 'keeping americans safe' and all that bull.

Do you have an opinion on the USA's refusal to ratify the treaty on the Internation Criminal Court?

Do you think that some of the people involved in the torture should be prosecuted?

Our refusal to ratify that treaty is an outrage to the memory of everyone who has been a victim of a war crime. What kind of message does it send to the rest of the world when the most influential nation refuses to subject itself to the International Criminal Court but expects other nations to?

Yes they should be prosecuted and if convicted, spend some time at Club Hague. What happened with me happened while I was embedded with the Iraqi Army. They were the ones doing the torturing, while I oversaw it. It was my job to report it, but I didn't because we were getting results. Plus it was me and one other American living with an entire company of IA soldiers. What do you think they would have done to us if we reported them?

But I should probably be in jail for what I allowed to happen, and if they ever did bring up charges against me for it in the future, I wouldn't fight it.

 

[Luckymoose]

Yes, I'm sure your system works perfectly and that zero of the tortured people were actually innocent.

Not that I would support torture even if that were the case.

If you're a terrorists, you're a terrorists. I'll have none of this unpatriotic garbage. Torture is the best way to make people like them talk and talking saves innocent lives. I only wish they had tortured them more.

#jackbauer

 

[bhsup]

Did you actually watch 24? He would never have said that.

 

[Luckymoose]

Did you actually watch 24? He would never have said that.

Did you?

 

[bhsup]

Every season, baby, cover to cover!

Yeah, that works better for books than tv...

 

[Luckymoose]

I recall him torturing a number of people and killing more.

 

[bhsup]

And yet my claim was he would never say what you quoted.