|
Yeah, I know "plonk"
|
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:49:44 -0700, said: that violates a constitutional prohibition. And your law degree is from....? Probably from the same place you got yours - out of a Crackerjack box? Wilbur Hubbard |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:01:14 +0000, Gordon said: Torture works wonders! Don't you all watch "24"? Sheesh Never heard of it. I tend to get my entertainment from those old fashioned things where you have to turn the pages. They still publish "Playboy" magazine? Wilbur Hubbard |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message . .. On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: While you may personally agree with this approach, it is nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution. Sigh...went right over your head too, eh. Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher, eh. The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as to whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question. Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I wouldn't have to provide the Cliff Notes. Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave. And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work. Well, it does work, but not at all in the way intended. You're right! It works against those who do the torturing. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:06:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Probably from the same place you got yours - out of a Crackerjack box? Hey Neal, why don't you regale us again with how you tried that jaywalking case? It was a moving traffic violation - not jaywalking. I could have gotten POINTS on my DL had I been found guilty. It was a serious matter and I prevailed via my superior understanding of traffic statutes. Even the judge who was trying his best to side with the Sheriff could find no way to do so without being in violation of his oath to uphold the law. Too bad YOU weren't council for the State. Your ass would have been grass, too. Wilbur Cecil Hubbard |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:19:35 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:01:14 +0000, Gordon said: Torture works wonders! Don't you all watch "24"? Sheesh Never heard of it. I tend to get my entertainment from those old fashioned things where you have to turn the pages. They still publish "Playboy" magazine? Dunno. Ask somebody the way to one of those places where they sell books, magazines and newspapers, and you can look. I know the way to K-Mart. I get batteries replaced for free there regularly. But the magazine rack is pathetic. It's gotten completely full of women's and teenybopper magazines in the last several years. It's really difficult to find a man's magazine such as Field and Stream or even a sailing magazine there. Wilbur Cecil Hubbard |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:19:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: Torture doesn't work. It's a fact. Unless you watch 24. Then it works. WTF? Casady |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:19:40 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Torture doesn't work. It's a fact. Unless you watch 24. Then it works. WTF? Casady You haven't seen the TV psycho drama? Jack Bauer always wins by torturing someone. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:08:12 -0400, said: Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. A gross distortion. You need to take a look at something beyond those left wing blogs, Not At All. If you had done so you would have discovered that your courageous Congress after dithering for several years dealt with the issue like a hot potato, finally deciding in 2006 to provide retroactive legal protection to those U.S. personnel who engaged in or directed the activity. I will credit Obama with the political guts to step up to the plate and say that if a few thousand or a few hundred thousand Americans get killed as a result of prohibiting the activity, he takes responsibility for that result. It's a fact... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:39:46 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: A gross distortion. You need to take a look at something beyond those left wing blogs, Not At All. If you had done so you would have discovered that your courageous Congress after dithering for several years dealt with the issue like a hot potato, finally deciding in 2006 to provide retroactive legal protection to those U.S. personnel who engaged in or directed the activity. I will credit Obama with the political guts to step up to the plate and say that if a few thousand or a few hundred thousand Americans get killed as a result of prohibiting the activity, he takes responsibility for that result. It's a fact... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html I missed the part of the article about what our courageous Congress did in 2006. Perhaps you can direct me to that part. I'd suggest talking to your fellow Republicans. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message ... The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means. Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this method of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother to, say, kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save herself and her 5 children. No problems with that right? A very poor example. In fact, the mother would likely choose to aputate one or two limbs from her parents, then smoke the meat until it becomes ham. Neither parent would die, and they'd all eat well for a few weeks. To kill both parents would be a total waste. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
wrote in message ... Oh, and your refutation of "torture" equating to "cruel"? Did I miss that? Twist and squirm all you want Dave, the subject was "Torture", irrespective of which techniques comprise that term. Stephen says he sanctions "Torture", not just waterboarding, and that violates a constitutional prohibition. Time to wake up and smell the 18th century. Was that too many syllables for you? Keith 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. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On 9 Mar 2009 17:15:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:08:12 -0400, said: Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. A gross distortion. Check again, Dave. You are all wet on this. You need to take a look at something beyond those left wing blogs, Not At All. If you had done so you would have discovered that your courageous Congress after dithering for several years dealt with the issue like a hot potato, finally deciding in 2006 to provide retroactive legal protection to those U.S. personnel who engaged in or directed the activity. I will credit Obama with the political guts to step up to the plate and say that if a few thousand or a few hundred thousand Americans get killed as a result of prohibiting the activity, he takes responsibility for that result. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mar 9, 11:32*am, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani said: wrote: Stephen Trapani *wrote: I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have not done something wrong, you have done something good. No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any realistic circumstances. You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out grown that. .... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing that there is such a thing as torture that is okay. And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest of our society. Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this. The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to foreclose further discussion of the policy question. What do -you- call holding somebody's head under water until he "almost" drowns? And please note that 1- US 'interrogaters" using waterboarding and other "harsh" or "pressure" methods have in fact killed many of their captive subjects. pThis makes debating whether or not it's "really torture" or just all- good-fun prankmanship rather backward. When pranksters kill people accidentally, it's called "1st degree murder." 2- killing the subject certainly limits the amount of info gained, eh? 3- there are/were a lot of "methods" used besides waterboarding, including an indoor form of crucifixion. What fun! 4- I have said nothing at all against using INTELLIGENT methods of gaining info, such as playing scratchy Elvis songs at 120 decibels (such as was used to flush out Noriega). Although the best method is to turn the interrogee into a collaborator, that takes time... and a lot more skill & intelligence than torture. I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture" doesn't work Well, it doesn't. The only people who say it does are Bush/Cheney propagandists.... at least nowadays. In the past, torture had it's enthusiastic adherents. And trying to say that crucifixtion & waterboarding are not "torture" is a not a red herring, it's a big fat lie. Of course, you're very comfortable with that as a basic tactic. Lastly, let's take a look at the premise that by NOT torturing captives, we are "allowing" terrorists to carry out their planned attacks... a very very misplaced moral responsibility. Of course, for a group that is openly hoping that millions more Americans will lose their jobs & homes, will suffer medical misfortunes they can'tafford, and that as a result President Obama's popularity will wane, isn't really out of place hoping that terrorists will attack & kill thousands of Americans so they can blame Obama for that too.... doesn't really have much of a sense of morality OR responsibility, do they? DSK |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Actually, it is. Last year I received a fairly prestigious award for it.
Marty wrote: Oh well, I hadn't realized that your middle name is "Jax", tell me, did you also write a definitive tract on the subject? Aww heck, you beat me too it! DSK |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: While you may personally agree with this approach, it is nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution. Sigh...went right over your head too, eh. Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher, eh. The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as to whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question. Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I wouldn't have to provide the Cliff Notes. Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave. And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work. 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. The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from whole cloth. In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
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... 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? So yeah, the evidence seems very strong that torture doesn't work.... thanks Bruce! DSK |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Dave wrote:
result. It's a fact... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html I missed the part of the article about what our courageous Congress did in 2006. Perhaps you can direct me to that part. I didn't miss the part where you said, "A gross distortion. You need to take a look at something beyond those left wing blogs, Not At All" in response to Jon's allegation that the US had prosecuted those who engaged in water boarding for torture... Nice arabesque, well not really. Actually a rather clumsy obfuscation. Cheers Martin |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:49:44 -0700, said: that violates a constitutional prohibition. And your law degree is from....? From the sublime to the ridiculous... Cheers Martin |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message ... 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. The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from whole cloth. In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Cheers, Bruce People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their compatriots down the river. With others, the more pain you cause them the more intransigent and unbreakable they become. Particularly if they feel they are serving a higher cause, are somewhat masochistic anyway, and are angry at being tortured by those whom they believe to be evil. That being said, how can you distinguish between the varying degrees between the extremes? And regardless of the "quality" of information one might receive by torturing a prisoner, how does a Nation maintain the moral high ground when it is willing to torture prisoners? Win their hearts and minds -- and you cannot do that by force. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message ... The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means. Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this method of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother to, say, kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save herself and her 5 children. No problems with that right? A very poor example. In fact, the mother would likely choose to aputate one or two limbs from her parents, then smoke the meat until it becomes ham. Neither parent would die, and they'd all eat well for a few weeks. To kill both parents would be a total waste. Hey! It's *my* example, and those children are *HUNGRY*! Besides, she's no Sarah Palin, so the parents would just spoil if not properly dressed... Keith |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: While you may personally agree with this approach, it is nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution. Sigh...went right over your head too, eh. Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher, eh. The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as to whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question. Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I wouldn't have to provide the Cliff Notes. Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave. And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work. 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. The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from whole cloth. In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Cheers, These loony lefties can talk themselves into the wildest nonsense. They're now saying that hurting or threatening to hurt people can't get them to reveal what they know. As if somehow humans have evolved into some other species, immune to fear of pain. Meanwhile, the current policy of most armies nowadays is for prisoners to give up everything they know instead of trying to withstand torture. Oops! Did any of you lefties forget to cover your eyes? I hope none of that sunk in! Heaven forbid you should have to come up with an actual defense of your position!! Stephen |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
|
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Oh, and your refutation of "torture" equating to "cruel"? Did I miss that? Twist and squirm all you want Dave, the subject was "Torture", irrespective of which techniques comprise that term. Stephen says he sanctions "Torture", not just waterboarding, and that violates a constitutional prohibition. Time to wake up and smell the 18th century. Was that too many syllables for you? Keith 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) |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message .. . 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. The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from whole cloth. In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Cheers, Bruce People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their compatriots down the river. Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great detail. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:35:51 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote: Bruce In Bangkok wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: While you may personally agree with this approach, it is nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution. Sigh...went right over your head too, eh. Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher, eh. The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as to whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question. Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I wouldn't have to provide the Cliff Notes. Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave. And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work. 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. The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from whole cloth. In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Cheers, These loony lefties can talk themselves into the wildest nonsense. They're now saying that hurting or threatening to hurt people can't get them to reveal what they know. Or, what they don't know! Besides, most accredited terrorists have gone through extensive training regarding torture. Being tortured is considered a golden opportunity to send the enemy in the wrong direction or into a trap. |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
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, I know "plonk"
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:49:41 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote: In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification to be wholly correct. Two things. A less skillful interrogator will reveal what it is that he wants to hear. He will then hear it for sure, whether it relates to the truth or not. The other is that other methods work better. I read a book relating the story of the best of the German POW interrogators. He never even threatened harm, he was polite and pleasant, and got something out of everyone foolish enough to converse at all, even on seemingly innocent topics. The only ones that didn't reveal something useful were the ones that clammed up completely. Casady |
Yeah, I know "plonk"
On 9 Mar 2009 17:15:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the United States Government. A gross distortion You think we gave it the seal of approval when the Japanese did it to POWs during WWII? Then it was definitely torture, at least all the history books agreed on that. Casady |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 .. |
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 |
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 01:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com