BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)
-   -   Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

Richard Casady March 10th 09 03:20 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:22:43 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.


I happen to have a book on the subject of execution of death sentences
by hanging. It was well into the nineteenth century before hangmen
started using the long drop, one which breaks the neck, so that the
body doesn't thrash around, neater that way. This also shuts off the
blood flow to the brain, causing immediate loss of consciousness.
On the other hand, the good old short drop took about twenty minutes
to kill, as the air was not shut off completely. Certainly cruel, but
it was the usual method. The condemned at Nuremburg were killed
indoors, on a portable gallows that was supposed to be set up over a
hole in the ground. Those *******s got the short drop.

Hanging was invented to be less cruel than boiling in oil or breaking
on the wheel. It achieved that at least.

The state of Utah used to offer the choice of hanging or shooting,
Nobody ever picked hanging.

Casady

Capt. JG March 10th 09 05:02 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:38:36 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


You haven't seen the TV psycho drama?


No. Its called 24 I presume.

Casady



Yeah, in the last episode terrorists took over the White House. I think the
leader's name was Bush.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




Capt. JG March 10th 09 05:03 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.


Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.


In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.


Oh, I don't think so.

Crime confessions obtained by torture, where the primary proof of
guilt is the confession, doesn't make the info accurate. Only that you
punished somebody for a crime. That covers the Russian incident you
refer to...


No, I believe that it proves the point; that the Russians were able
through "torture", perhaps being sleep deprivation and starvation
combined with long interrogations, were able to "convince" people to
publicly confess to crimes that the individuals concerned must have
known would result in their execution.


As for the Nazis, well they may have caught some partisans by using
info gained by torture, but they did not eradicate the Resistance...
in fact the Resistance grew steadily. And in the end, who won


You are taking a rather long ranged view, perhaps far fetched. The
Germans were able to identify other members of a specific group, which
I suspect was their immediate aim.

So yeah, the evidence seems very strong that torture doesn't work....
thanks Bruce!

DSK


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)



So, but this logic, the US gov't should sanction techniques just like those
Germany carried out?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




[email protected] March 10th 09 05:15 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.


I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though
doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be
covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in
international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is
outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by
definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you
interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for
a crime.

You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes*
torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are
"acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework.

Keith

KLC Lewis March 10th 09 05:28 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
)

Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though
doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be
covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in
international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is
outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by
definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you
interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a
crime.

You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes*
torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are
"acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework.

Keith


It was not my intention to be correct. However, the previously-stated
argument was, as I recall, proferred by the Bush administration.



Martin Baxter March 10th 09 05:31 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Capt. JG wrote:


Yeah, in the last episode terrorists took over the White House. I think the
leader's name was Bush.


Terrorists took over the White House? From Bush? How could you tell the
difference? Certainly difficult if you're standing in Bagdad.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D96R77MO1.html

"Hostilities have officially ended...."

Cheers
Marty


[email protected] March 10th 09 06:02 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message
...
)
Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though
doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be
covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in
international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is
outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by
definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you
interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a
crime.

You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes*
torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are
"acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework.

Keith


It was not my intention to be correct. However, the previously-stated
argument was, as I recall, proferred by the Bush administration.


I was replying to Bruces' post, actually, not yours. I had assumed your
original comment was tongue-in-cheek. And you are certainly correct
about the Bush proffer; one of many such convenient departures from
reality and morality.

Keith

[email protected] March 10th 09 06:27 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
And trying to say that crucifixtion & waterboarding are not "torture"
is a not a red herring, it's a big fat lie.


Dave wrote:
A classic straw man argument. A pity you can't read more carefully, Doug. If
you could you would realize that I have neither advocated nor opposed
waterboarding in any of the above discussion. I have simply pointed out the
fallacy of sticking a label like "torture" on it as a substitute for
reasoned discussion.


So, calling torture "torture" is a substitute for reasoned discussion?

I guess if your chosen ideology is so bizarre & dysfunctional that
exposure to the truth blows it to shreds, then yeah telling the truth
is indeed a poor substitute for "reasoned discussion."

DSK
..


Wilbur Hubbard March 10th 09 09:34 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:09:01 -0400, said:

On 10 Mar 2009 13:37:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:15:33 -0400,
said:

Are you denying that Congress in 2006 provided the retroactive legal
protection I described?

I said:

"Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government."

To which you replied:

"A gross distortion"

At which point, I suggested that you are all wet and don't know what
you are babbling about.

Did you check again? Did the US government prosecute people for using
waterboarding?

You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.


I think we should take issues in the order they were raised. Unless,
of course, you can't for some reason...


I think we should take the questions in the order they were asked.

After you....




Wouldn't it be better to 'answer' questions in the order they were asked?
After all, you have no choice but to take them in the order they were asked
unless you decide to edit the OP to change the order to suit you.

Wilbur Hubbard



[email protected] March 10th 09 09:39 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 


Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, said:

Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for
a crime.


I asked earlier which law school you received a degree from.


And speaking of using misdirection in lieu of substantive debate...

Face it Dave, the strawman here is of your construction. The quibbling
over what comprises "torture" is of virtually *NO* importance when the
base issue of whether torture is allowable is being questioned.

So many windmills to tilt at, so many strawmen to burn, you're such a
busy guy!

Keith


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com