 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." Du har inte tillstånd att skriva på denna sida. Lägsta nivå på medlemskap för att kunna skriva i detta forum är Brain Bonde. Läge: Alla kan skriva
16. juli 2009, 17:03:57 Ämne: What is acceptable? Ändrat av Übergeek 바둑이 (16. juli 2009, 17:07:47)  Case 1: The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail. Case 2: A suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is sentenced to death. Case 3: A child serial rapist has abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail. Case 4: A communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his associates are sent to prison. Case 5: A man is supected of being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His comrades were never found. Case 6: An radical anarchist is suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison. Case 7: A man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is indeed innocent and he is set free. I divided my cases as follows: Case 1: a common criminal Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent So my questions are: If waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners (cases 1, 2 and 3)? Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)? Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)? Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)? Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)? Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)? What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)? I find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some opinions. 16. juli 2009, 17:08:15 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: Doing it causes suffering, suffering creates hate. And hate creates pain. So how is it a cure is what I wonder!! 16. juli 2009, 17:20:24 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? (V): What I am trying to get to in my posts is that if we say that waterboarding is not torture, then it is an acceptable interrogation technique and should be used whenever the state decides it is suitable. I want to see those who defend or oppose waterboarding make some good arguments answering my questions. I see some of us claiming a high moral ground, but if waterboarding saves lives, then should it be acceptable? Those who support waterboarding have said that it is OK to go even further, but is there a limit? When does waterboarding (or other similar techniques) become or stop being acceptable? 16. juli 2009, 17:26:22 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: I know. police are prosecuted for over using violence and prosecuted and sent to jail. If a criminal hurts someone they are sent to jail. I've never heard of someone being above the law.. even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be. Now if God has to obey the laws, I can see no exception!! 16. juli 2009, 17:48:23 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? (V): Even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be. Models don't work Czuch...  Now you have me confused again, with your contradictions..... models dont work except God created a model at creation that bound?????16. juli 2009, 17:57:25 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? (V): Call it what you will, but the fact remains that none of it would be used at all, just the threat would be enough, all they have to do is cooperate, its their own fault, any technique gets used against them. Unlike beheading Dan Pearl, which is done simply for the fun of it, our interrogations are for a purpose, and can be avoided with cooperation. 16. juli 2009, 18:16:28 Ämne: Unlike beheading Dan Pearl, which is done simply for the fun of it, our interrogations are for a purpose, and can be avoided with cooperation. Ändrat av Papa Zoom (16. juli 2009, 18:17:15)  Czuch: Exactly. I want the military to have all the tools they need to keep me safe. But if Obama keeps it up, we'll have to Mirandize the enemy on the battle field. Here's me: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford on, one will be appointed to you. Please remember that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand these rights as I've explained them? Oh and one more thing: Would you like fries with that?" 16. juli 2009, 21:49:13 Ämne: Re: all they have to do is cooperate, its their own fault, any technique gets used against them. Czuch: So, we can say the same of USA people that get killed or tortured? slippery slope..... 17. juli 2009, 02:35:28 Ämne: Re: all they have to do is cooperate, its their own fault, any technique gets used against them. (V): So, we can say the same of USA people that get killed or tortured? yes, sure you can say that, but Daniel Pearl??? Really? 16. juli 2009, 17:42:44 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: Waterboarding is not acceptable to get a confession, because people will confess to anything to avoid.... But getting intel is a different story, you cannot make up good intel just to avoid.... 16. juli 2009, 17:36:50 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? (V): And hate creates pain. 16. juli 2009, 18:09:53 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: Case 1: The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail. Waterboarding should not be used to obtain confessions to a crime. No lives are at stake here. Case 2: A suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is sentenced to death. Same as above Case 3: A child serial rapist has abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail. Yes, water board the pervert and then let the crowd beat the living crap out of him (after you accidently leave his cell door open). Some jerk knows the whereabouts of my granddaughter I'm going to start taking off fingers. Case 4: A communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his associates are sent to prison. Same as number one. No to waterboarding. Case 5: A man is supected of being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His comrades were never found. It depends on whether or not there is an immediate dangers to innocent people. If you join a guerrilla organization intent on harming the US, and you get caught, don't expect tea and crumpets. Case 6: An radical anarchist is suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison. No. Same as case 1 Case 7: A man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is indeed innocent and he is set free. Yes to water boarding. It's not like they just would randomly pull some guy out of a crowd. There was good reason to suspect him. You can't know he's innocent until after a full investigation. But when lives are at stake, you do what you have to do. Waterboarding is simply unpleasant. For some, a trip to the dentist is worse. I divided my cases as follows: Case 1: a common criminal Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent So my questions are: If waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners (cases 1, 2 and 3)? Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that lives are at stake. I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us. A bank robber, once caught, poses no more threat. Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)? See the previous answer. Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)? Of course it is. So is removing some dudes fingers. Maybe a few other parts too. Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)? No Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)? If lives are at stake -- yes Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)? If lives are at stake, yes. What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)? Buy him ice cream. Let's face it, they don't pull nuns out of the convent and water board them. If you join a terrorists organization, and then are suspected of doing something that jeopardizes the lives of others, don't complain when given a bath upside down. Here's a concept: get a good job, don't join a terrorist group bent on hurting others. I find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some opinions. 16. juli 2009, 20:24:31 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Ändrat av Übergeek 바둑이 (16. juli 2009, 20:53:03) Artful Dodger: > Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used > only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that > lives are at stake. I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us. In other words, information obtained under duress is acceptable in order to save human life. It might be inadmissible in court, but it is acceptable because human life has been saved. The right to life of the victims takes precedence over the human rights of the prisoner. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Waterboard first, ask questions later, because human lives are at stake. Then, waterboarding has failed and the suspect is still refusing to give us information. It is time for the hot irons and psychotropic drug injections. Since the "method of last resort" failed, should we find another "last resort" after that? I find the argument that waterboarding is rather benign as somewhat shallow. Who decides what harmful means? A doctor working for the Pentagon tells us that waterboarding is no more harmful than falling in the deep end of the swimming pool and wading to the edge of the pool. Another psychiatrist comes out and tells us that the spychological damage could leave a person scarred for life. Should we wait 50 years and then ask victims how they feel? On the other hand, the military has sent a clear message to other people around the world. If the military can use dubious interrogation tactics, so can everyone else. Somewhere in the world somebody will be waterboarded and when somebody asks why a government will manufacture evidence and say the person was guilty. We will have to live with that as an acceptable risk. Terrorist around the world will say "Look at what the American military did. They torture people." Then waterboarding will become a symbol under which terrorists will justify their actions, just as Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay are used in terrorist propaganda. 16. juli 2009, 20:44:40 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: But they(we) all do anyways, we humans hide behind self righteous stuff as though we're so civilized. We(the good guys,, the side God is on) never will stoop to bad behavior) and the terrorists say the same thing also but the ugly truth is everyone does what ever it takes to win, and always has.. ever study chimpanzee tribe behavior? humans are just a higher form 16. juli 2009, 21:53:03 Ämne: Re: ever study chimpanzee tribe behavior? humans are just a higher form GTCharlie: And human bEiNgS have developed the ability to choose and not be bound by animal fear and flight.. Not to act like animals trapped in a corner lashing out. 16. juli 2009, 21:41:42 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Übergeek 바둑이: water boarding has worked every time. It's not nuns that are captured on the battle field. It's enemy combatants. And in all the thousands that have been captured, only three have been water boarded. And in those cases, information that was vital to the safety of others was obtained. We can create any scenario we want to discredit water boarding. But the reality is this: it hasn't been used since 2003 and when used, it was used only on those well-known for their terrorists activities. In all seriousness, I don't want water boarding to be used as a routine tactic against the enemy. But I don't want it completely removed from the tool box either. Notice that beheadings is not being discussed amongst the terrorists with some on one side saying it's a useful tool and others saying it's too cruel. No, they video tape it and post it on the web. I also wouldn't want law enforcement to use this technique without serious parameters. There are too many loose cannons out there. But if I had a guy in my custody and I knew that he had info on where one of my grand kids were, the police better hurry. I may go to jail for it, but I won't stand by and do nothing. What if I'm wrong about this guy? I don't act recklessly. But I will err on the side of my family's welfare. Every time. 16. juli 2009, 21:47:52 Ämne: Re: What is acceptable? Artful Dodger: Only three people.. have you definite proof of that? And what of the other illegal methods of gaining info, which the USA gov and judicial say are illegal to use on their people?? |
Datum och tid
Vänner online
Favoritforum
Vängrupper
Dagens tips
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Tillbaka till sidans början |