Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[Ender]

Umm…Just a quick question…Who gave the state that authority?

Rom 13:1-6 Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. 2 Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. 3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. 4** For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain.** For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. 5 Wherefore be subject of necessity: not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

CCC 2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.** Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.**

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We still haven’t distinguished between what is illicit torture as opposed to licit but strenuous interrogation. THAT was the real debate going on in Guantanamo, fr’instance. No one is suggesting that the interrogators in any situation are omniscient but-

really if you lose omniscient then you have the condition where you torture 50 people and get 5 to roughly match, so what about the 45 other people?

-given that they have a subject in custody who is reasonably

reasonable by whose standards? Again as always the scenarios is “by my omniscient knowledge” without that it is mixture of innocent people

believed to have needful information, the interrogators can do a number of things that will frequently, if not usually, elicit timely and useful information from the subject. There are by the way fail-safe tests for bad information:

how well did this work on the WMD’s?

the tests include comparing information from one subject with that from what is already known and/or with that which is being obtained from other subjects with similar or related information.

Everything else that Texas Roofer is saying is just sophistry. In the real world–we can in fact gain intelligence that gives us a very high probability of an attack, and which identifies certain subjects as being likely to have additional information which might help us to avert the attack. We can also make a mistake in the information, so there should be check and balances of various kinds to limit the damage.

again where was this when the WMD’s were the issue?

And in the real world, the United States and other republican democracies do have the will and the means to structure those check and balances into the system. The system actually worked pretty well over the past several years

Are you really dismissing all those who died, or have permanent injuries both mental and physical as to insignificant to even count

–it at least allowed us to expose abused, possible abuses, and alleged abuses, and to enter into debate about how to confront such abuses if needful.

I know you mean well but exactly how do you know how much torture occurred?

Remember we caught some people doing very illegal, inappropriate, humiliating and disgraceful things to some prisoners in Iraq. Those people were punished for their misdeeds.

And the ones we did not catch how many were not caught?

Governments and governmental organizations do have the ability to limit themselves. They also have the ability to go over the deep end–but that’s a risk we take in order to mitigate risks of even greater magnitude.

We’re not going to arrive at a perfect system. But when the choices are as stark as those offered us in the OP-

the OP’s choices are false

-we are then faced with evil at every turn and our choice must be the lesser of those evils. Texas Roofer seems to think that doing nothing with respect to what might be not only our best but only way of getting needful information to stop a horror.

making “horror” and then attempting to limit the “horror” we make, is foolish. You cannot make and eliminate “horror” you can work toward reducing “horror” by elminating causes and practices which create “horror” which means torture must go.

By the way: I am as proud of the men and women who serve in the FBI, CIA, MIA, NSA, and whatever other alphabet-soup agencies work on our behalf to protect our democracy as I am of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. We ought all be proud of those who serve such agencies, even though some members of those agencies make mistakes. They are part of the team that help to keep us free.

You did not even count their sacrifices when the died for elimination of WMD’s

Try this suppose a person takes a baby to the roof of an 8 story building hangs the baby over the edge and says – “give me a dollar or I drop the baby?” Do you do it?

The next day a person takes a baby to the roof of an 8 story building hangs the baby over the edge and says – “give me a million dollars or I drop the baby?” Do you do it?

The next day a person takes a baby to the roof of an 8 story building hangs the baby over the edge and says – “have the police chief resign or I drop the baby?” Do you do it?

The next day a person takes a baby to the roof of an 8 story building hangs the baby over the edge and says – “kill the man named XXXXX or I drop the baby?” Do you do it?

See the problem once you start down this road of cooperation with evil you breed evil. Each request raises the stakes. Each request confirm the control of the terrorist.

Now go through the same scenario with each answer the same “You hold the baby in your hands, whether the baby lives or dies is your decision. Even if we perform your request you can kill the baby, even if we do not perform your request you can save the baby. Ultimately, we play no part in the decision of the baby’s life or death - that is in your hands alone.”

While your method lines up terrorists wishing to demand results the latter method shows there is no point in performing this action again (ever). This because the terrorist achieves nothing from the event.

 

[RobHom]

And so it is clear he is subhuman to you, now are you omniscient, and above moral reproach?

You are assuming facts not present. I consider no-one subhuman. I have fought my war, and my enemy was not nice to those of us that were captured. I consider the enemy to be the enemy. However, given that a terrorist is not a member of a “standing army of a sovereign nation”…he is a not accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention. Further, since a terrorist is called a “terrorist” that means that he or she is essentially a coward that hides and uses every violent method to kill, maim and injure anyone possible… therefore, I suffer few moral qualms doing what is necessary to protect innocents. If you have a problem with that…so be it. But, I can clearly state: If it is a choice between coddling a terrorist…letting many innocents die, or doing what is necessary to save many innocents, that’s a no-brainer. I will do whatever is necessary to protect innocent lives.

Me omniscient…hardly, and well aware of it.
Me above moral reproach…hardly and well aware of it.

If confused try to understand this - he thinks you are subhuman- so who is correct? Well in the real world the killer writes history claiming the killee was the bad guy. Will that be true if he kills you first?

What he or she “thinks of me” is immaterial. Ask yourself this question: If a terrorist hellbent to kill innocent people plants a bomb that will kill many, and I have the wherewithal to extract the information regarding the location and detonation time…and can prevent the death of many…but I instead have a moral crisis and say… I can’t hurt this person, it just isn’t morally right… haven’t I just committed the greater sin…that of omission coupled with cowardice and disregard for human life? To put it in a more moral sense… If the person I am dealing with is the member or an evil force, committed to the destruction of my people and nation, then it is my DUTY to disable that evil force and prevent their success.

He who writes history is he who prevails in battle. It has been this way since the beginning of time. So whats your point?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You are assuming facts not present. I consider no-one subhuman. I have fought my war, and my enemy was not nice to those of us that were captured. I consider the enemy to be the enemy. However, given that a terrorist is not a member of a “standing army of a sovereign nation”…he is a not accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention. Further, since a terrorist is called a “terrorist” that means that he or she is essentially a coward that hides and uses every violent method to kill, maim and injure anyone possible… therefore, I suffer few moral qualms doing what is necessary to protect innocents. If you have a problem with that…so be it. But, I can clearly state: If it is a choice between coddling a terrorist…letting many innocents die, or doing what is necessary to save many innocents, that’s a no-brainer. I will do whatever is necessary to protect innocent lives.

Me omniscient…hardly, and well aware of it.
Me above moral reproach…hardly and well aware of it.

What he or she “thinks of me” is immaterial. Ask yourself this question: If a terrorist hellbent to kill innocent people plants a bomb that will kill many, and I have the wherewithal to extract the information regarding the location and detonation time…and can prevent the death of many…but I instead have a moral crisis and say… I can’t hurt this person, it just isn’t morally right… haven’t I just committed the greater sin…that of omission coupled with cowardice and disregard for human life? To put it in a more moral sense… If the person I am dealing with is the member or an evil force, committed to the destruction of my people and nation, then it is my DUTY to disable that evil force and prevent their success.

He who writes history is he who prevails in battle. It has been this way since the beginning of time. So whats your point?

So the logic is that you can terrorize innocent people, to find the non-innocent then stop a few crimes and crime will go away? Of course your actions would have to be viewed as what? And again what prevents the victims from retaliation? Or are you going to kill all you torture?

 

[Ender]

So the logic is that you can terrorize innocent people, to find the non-innocent then stop a few crimes and crime will go away? Of course your actions would have to be viewed as what? And again what prevents the victims from retaliation? Or are you going to kill all you torture?

This is an evasion of his point. There is a simple scenario you refuse to deal with: a terrorist has been captured who has knowledge that is needed to prevent the deaths of numerous innocent people. How far may one morally go to extract that information?

Saying “you can’t know whether someone is a terrorist” is both an evasion and untrue. There are certainly times when one doesn’t know whether the person captured is a terrorist or not, just as there are unquestionably times when it is known beyond any doubt at all. The question remains: in the scenario defined, the person is known to have information which, if it can be extracted from him, will save innocent lives. How far can you go to obtain that information?

Ender

 

[RobHom]

So the logic is that you can terrorize innocent people, to find the non-innocent then stop a few crimes and crime will go away? Of course your actions would have to be viewed as what? And again what prevents the victims from retaliation? Or are you going to kill all you torture?

Again you make the exact same error, as before, by assuming facts that are not present.

Ender’s response to you was “dead-on”. Well put as well.

I can tell you this… you apparently have little or no knowledge of the issue at hand. You have never been trained (apparently) as a soldier or any other form of warrior, meaning as well that you are not trained in the handling of “prisoners” according to the Geneva Convention. You are also apparently ignorant of exactly who and what a “terrorist” is, what their game-plan, goals, and desires are.

There is absolutely no logic present that anyone would just grab someone off the street and start ripping finger nails out, shoving burning bamboo splinters under finger nails, or cutting off fingers and toes with bolt cutters… You are making rather illegitimate assumptions. That is foolish at best.

There are ways of “extracting” information from someone that does not involve any forms of “torture”. Some methods may involve chemicals, some may be psychological, and some “threatening”. Most of the methods are wholly painless.

Since you don’t know me, I won’t bother to be bothered by your trite comments, but rather I will attempt to illuminate you on the subject:

If a person is captured or detained…that is a suspected terrorist, there are ways of ascertaining identities quickly. Once their identity, or lack thereof is ascertained…and other factors as well, in-depth interrogation commences. If the person is “highly rated” as a suspect…methods are put into play…depending on the severity of the issues at hand.

There is a significant difference between “torture” and “interrogation”. You might want to learn that difference.

Insofar as “innocent” people are concerned…they are easily sorted out. The non-innocent are easily sorted out as well.

Intense interrogation is never used in a “cavalier” manner. It is not used when dealing with criminals as such. Our legal system sees to that.

However, given that a combatant not in uniform is or can be considered a “spy”, which under the Geneva Convention places that person in dire straits…and the same set of dire straits applies to saboteurs, the category that most terrorists fall into.

You may wish to bone up on the subject: nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rotunda012902.shtml

Frankly, I think outright “torture” is something that sociopaths would engage in, I have no use for it. But still, if the spy, terrorist or saboteur has knowledge that will make the difference between many innocents living or dieing…then extreme measures would prevail.

Keep in mind, the acts of spies, terrorists and saboteurs are not “minor crimes”, they are acts of war, thus they are handled as such. My actions would be for the greater good. Retaliation…not worried about it, as the individual would be apprised of the fact that were they to be set free, any retaliation on their part would foster a greater retaliation in kind… If they were released as innocent. Kill everyone interrogated? Hardly. If they are in fact found to be a spy, a terrorist, or saboteur…then they would get a fair trial, even though the Geneva Convention, which incidentally goes not provide protections for those classes, and the sentence imposed by the court or military tribunal would be carried out.

Personally, I think that people like you should be more than ecstatic that people like me are willing to do the things that are necessary to protect our society from those that would destroy us given the chance…who in fact are presently trying to do just that, while it appears rather apparent you are unwilling to do anything to protect yourself, your family, or your nation.

You are completely free to cast judgment if you choose, however, you should pray fervently that the day does not occur that you should have prayed for things to not have turned out the way they did, should that occur.

 

[RobHom]

This is an evasion of his point. There is a simple scenario you refuse to deal with: a terrorist has been captured who has knowledge that is needed to prevent the deaths of numerous innocent people. How far may one morally go to extract that information?

Saying “you can’t know whether someone is a terrorist” is both an evasion and untrue. There are certainly times when one doesn’t know whether the person captured is a terrorist or not, just as there are unquestionably times when it is known beyond any doubt at all. The question remains: in the scenario defined, the person is known to have information which, if it can be extracted from him, will save innocent lives. How far can you go to obtain that information?

Ender

You made several good points Ender, and I am in agreement with you.

In my opinion…if it is ascertained that the person does in fact possess information that extracted from him or her will save innocent lives…you can go very, very, very far…until you get what you need.

Texas Roofer…before you respond tritely again, consider this hypothetical situation:

A terrorist has kidnapped your family, and has them sitting in the middle of a football field on the 50 yard line, shackled together, wired up with enough explosives to dig a 50 foot crater…and there is a timer that has a keypad on it. You have captured the terrorist. The timer says there are 5 minutes (300 seconds) before the explosives go off, killing and obliterating your entire family.

What are you, and I do mean YOU…going to do? Are you going to moralize over the situation? Are you going to buy the terrorist a beer, and play gin-rummy? Or are you going to do whatever is necessary to extract the numbers necessary to stop the clock?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I can not help but notice a complete sustentation of my earlier post in your reply

Again you make the exact same error, as before, by assuming facts that are not present.

Ender’s response to you was “dead-on”. Well put as well.

I can tell you this… you apparently have little or no knowledge of the issue at hand. You have never been trained (apparently) as a soldier or any other form of warrior, meaning as well that you are not trained in the handling of “prisoners” according to the Geneva Convention.

You seemed to have over looked the administration claim the Geneva Convention did not apply

You are also apparently ignorant of exactly who and what a “terrorist” is, what their game-plan, goals, and desires are.

And how can you know?

There is absolutely no logic present that anyone would just grab someone off the street and start ripping finger nails out, shoving burning bamboo splinters under finger nails, or cutting off fingers and toes with bolt cutters… You are making rather illegitimate assumptions. That is foolish at best.

I notice you fall short of saying that has never happened or will never happen

There are ways of “extracting” information from someone that does not involve any forms of “torture”. Some methods may involve chemicals, some may be psychological, and some “threatening”. Most of the methods are wholly painless.

Are these legal? and do they damage the person?

Since you don’t know me, I won’t bother to be bothered by your trite comments, but rather I will attempt to illuminate you on the subject:

If a person is captured or detained…that is a suspected terrorist,

And who decided who is “a suspected terrorist”? (it looks like the same problem is back)

there are ways of ascertaining identities quickly. Once their identity, or lack thereof is ascertained…and other factors as well, in-depth interrogation commences. If the person is “highly rated” as a suspect…

And there it is again - who decides?

…methods are put into play…depending on the severity of the issues at hand. …

And there it is again - who decides? ( you need omniscient knowledge)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There is a significant difference between “torture” and “interrogation”. You might want to learn that difference.

Do you know no one in the US legal system has to under go “interrogation” Interrogation only exists to those who do not know their legal right to stop the interrogation.

Insofar as “innocent” people are concerned…they are easily sorted out.

Wait just a minute, Why are innocent people involved? Did you not write “There is absolutely no logic present that anyone would just grab someone off the street” what happened to that?

The non-innocent are easily sorted out as well.

again Who decides?

Intense interrogation is never used in a “cavalier” manner. It is not used when dealing with criminals as such. Our legal system sees to that.

I recall several cases which made the National News, one involved a mentally handicapped man in Missouri. The governor turned him loose. What was the error in that case? The governor of Illinois stopped all capital punishment because of some Chicago Interrogations, what was wrong there?

However, given that a combatant not in uniform is or can be considered a “spy”, which under the Geneva Convention places that person in dire straits…and the same set of dire straits applies to saboteurs, the category that most terrorists fall into.

civilians do not wear uniforms either, who know which is which?

You may wish to bone up on the subject: nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rotunda012902.shtml

Frankly, I think outright “torture” is something that sociopaths would engage in, I have no use for it. But still, if the spy, terrorist or saboteur has knowledge that will make the difference between many innocents living or dieing…then extreme measures would prevail.

And there it is again - who knows? ( you need omniscient knowledge) You have to know which of his denials are false and which are not false

Keep in mind, the acts of spies, terrorists and saboteurs are not “minor crimes”, they are acts of war, thus they are handled as such. My actions would be for the greater good. Retaliation…not worried about it, as the individual would be apprised of the fact that were they to be set free, any retaliation on their part would foster a greater retaliation in kind.

Retaliation could come from others. And this eye for an eye approach will leave all participants blind (both ways)

. If they were released as innocent.

So you again acknowledge innocent people are in the process

Kill everyone interrogated? Hardly. If they are in fact found to be a spy, a terrorist, or saboteur…then they would get a fair trial,

And how can they now get a fair trial? “Your honor under torture we extracted the following confessions” A fair trial can occur earlier but not later

even though the Geneva Convention, which incidentally goes not provide protections for those classes, and the sentence imposed by the court or military tribunal would be carried out.

Not court, that is the problem we refuse to try these people in Court

Personally, I think that people like you should be more than ecstatic that people like me are willing to do the things that are necessary to protect our society from those that would destroy us given the chance…who in fact are presently trying to do just that, while it appears rather apparent you are unwilling to do anything to protect yourself, your family, or your nation.

Acts of war should be resisted with acts of war. Acts of crime should be resisted with acts criminal trials and criminal sentences People like me are always available for just war. Have you seen a just war lately?

You are completely free to cast judgment if you choose, however, you should pray fervently that the day does not occur that you should have prayed for things to not have turned out the way they did, should that occur.

It would sound as though an unjust fear proceeds your decision. I do not suffer unjust fear. Do you know we are at war in Iraq while the terrorist were Saudi Arabians? How many Iraq’s could tell you about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and thus how many should have been tortured?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You made several good points Ender, and I am in agreement with you.

In my opinion…if it is ascertained that the person does in fact possess information that extracted from him or her will save innocent lives…you can go very, very, very far…until you get what you need.

Texas Roofer…before you respond tritely again, consider this hypothetical situation:

A terrorist has kidnapped your family, and has them sitting in the middle of a football field on the 50 yard line, shackled together, wired up with enough explosives to dig a 50 foot crater…and there is a timer that has a keypad on it. You have captured the terrorist. The timer says there are 5 minutes (300 seconds) before the explosives go off, killing and obliterating your entire family.

What are you, and I do mean YOU…going to do? Are you going to moralize over the situation? Are you going to buy the terrorist a beer, and play gin-rummy? Or are you going to do whatever is necessary to extract the numbers necessary to stop the clock?

That means I have 5 minutes to cut the line, and thus separating the signal. Which I only know based on you telling me ( omniscient knowledge). Hey omniscient one is their other terrorists involved?

Now you were given the first high level Iraq captured and told to go until you had the location of the weapons of mass distruction. So can you explain the fact you now have no stopping point?

 

[RobHom]

I can not help but notice a complete sustentation of my earlier post in your reply

Happens like that…

You seemed to have over looked the administration claim the Geneva Convention did not apply

And if you knew or understood the Geneva Convention…you would know and understand that the administration was standing on solid ground…based on the Geneva Convention itself.

And how can you know?

Frankly, you make it somewhat obvious.

I notice you fall short of saying that has never happened or will never happen

I’ve not fallen short of saying anything. I cannot say with surety that is has or has not happened. But my personal experience is that we (Americans) have always abided by the GC even where non-signatories forces have been concerned.

Are these legal? and do they damage the person?

Since we are most likely dealing with non-Americans and doing so outside the US…legalities are up in the air. Damage the person? Most likely not, no more than standard anesthesia used in surgery.

And who decided who is “a suspected terrorist”? (it looks like the same problem is back)

Its a decision made by properly appointed “competent authority”. The problem isn’t back…it never existed.

And there it is again - who decides?

Again, properly appointed “competent authority”

And there it is again - who decides? ( you need omniscient knowledge)

Again, properly appointed “competent authority”. “Omniscient knowledge” is not a requisite. There are processes in place to make the determinations.

Nice try, but your naivete is showing through.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well if you believe even half of that - I am proper authority and competent - so your done! (go ahead start back peddling- oh, oh I meant)

Happens like that…

And if you knew or understood the Geneva Convention…you would know and understand that the administration was standing on solid ground…based on the Geneva Convention itself.

Frankly, you make it somewhat obvious.

I’ve not fallen short of saying anything. I cannot say with surety that is has or has not happened. But my personal experience is that we (Americans) have always abided by the GC even where non-signatories forces have been concerned.

Since we are most likely dealing with non-Americans and doing so outside the US…legalities are up in the air. Damage the person? Most likely not, no more than standard anesthesia used in surgery.

Its a decision made by properly appointed “competent authority”. The problem isn’t back…it never existed.

Again, properly appointed “competent authority”

Again, properly appointed “competent authority”. “Omniscient knowledge” is not a requisite. There are processes in place to make the determinations.

Nice try, but your naivete is showing through.

really something you chose to ignor time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

 

[RobHom]

Do you know no one in the US legal system has to under go “interrogation” Interrogation only exists to those who do not know their legal right to stop the interrogation.

You are making an erroneous assumption that those people would automatically be granted full protection under US law.

Wait just a minute, Why are innocent people involved?

Hmmmm, I guess you’ve never heard of people who fit a specific description being picked up and interviewed? Happens all the time in this country when crimes occur, does it not? And when someone is alibied or found not to be a person of interest or a suspect they are immediately released, no?

Did you not write “There is absolutely no logic present that anyone would just grab someone off the street” what happened to that?

I really think its rather disingenuous of you to take part of my statement out of context. As I stated…it stands. Because their is absolutely no logic present that we would just grab someone off the street and rip their fingernails out or anything else. It has never been our way of dealing with things. We are not the KGB, STASI, Gestapo or any of the others.

again Who decides?

Again…“properly appointed competent authority”.

I recall several cases which made the National News, one involved a mentally handicapped man in Missouri. The governor turned him loose. What was the error in that case? The governor of Illinois stopped all capital punishment because of some Chicago Interrogations, what was wrong there?

Yup, and no-one has stated that our “criminal justice system” is 100% foolproof. Mistakes are made. Your examples are specious at best. In my own home state they had to release a man who had been convicted of killing his children…he spent many years in prison…put their by false testimony…and there have been others. Do you expect that we just close down the system and let criminals run rampant.

But you are forgetting, we are not talking about “criminals” we are talking about “terrorists”…COMBATANTS, SPIES, SABOTEURS. There is a significant difference.

civilians do not wear uniforms either, who know which is which? And there it is again - who knows? ( you need omniscient knowledge)

In the two and a half years I was in Vietnam, I never once saw a member of the Viet Cong wear a uniform. How one knows which is which is a learned skill, and one that your survival depends on. Many have died for not having acquired and honed that skill. But usually…they are easy to sort out. Civilians usually don’t carry explosives, and other weapons with them in combat areas.

You have to know which of his denials are false and which are not false

That too is fairly easy to sort out. Believe that.

Retaliation could come from others. And this eye for an eye approach will leave all participants blind (both ways)

Anything is possible. Such is the way of man. Would you prefer to abdicate any responsibility in advance of a potential peril? Sounds like it…

So you again acknowledge innocent people are in the process

There is always that risk when and where humans are involved. But it would seem that you advocate doing absolutely nothing in favor of not hurting someones feelings…

And how can they now get a fair trial? “Your honor under torture we extracted the following confessions” A fair trial can occur earlier but not later Not court, that is the problem we refuse to try these people in Court

In reality, terrorists, and saboteurs…caught in the act or after the fact are not necessarily “entitled” to a trial. If they are recognized as “combatants” they can be incarcerated for the duration of the hostilities without a trial. Spies can be tried and executed, and I believe saboteurs can as well if that is the route that competent authority chooses to take.

Acts of war should be resisted with acts of war.

Agreed.

Acts of crime should be resisted with acts criminal trials and criminal sentences

Agreed.

People like me are always available for just war.

As I am, even though I am 58.

Have you seen a just war lately?

Not lately.

It would sound as though an unjust fear proceeds your decision.

Again, you are assuming facts not present. I am a pragmatist and realist. I understand what is going on, and I also understand that the average American is “oblivious” to the actual situation that we are facing, now and in the future.

I do not suffer unjust fear.

Are you sure about that? You seem terribly worried about upsetting someone…

Do you know we are at war in Iraq while the terrorist were Saudi Arabians?

Can’t blame that one me… Maybe here is some of the reason why: hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html
commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
alaiwah.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/is-the-saudi-royal-family-behind-al-qaeda/

How many Iraq’s could tell you about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and thus how many should have been tortured?

Couldn’t tell you how many, but I rather doubt that the average Iraqi would know much about much of what went on there. On the other hand, there would be those that would know if they had existed. BTW… I have always been “skeptical” about the purported WMD’s…

You continue to confuse “torture” with “interrogation”. You should really try to get a better grip on the realities that are involved in them and the differences.

 

[RobHom]

That means I have 5 minutes to cut the line, and thus separating the signal.

Yes, and you would have killed your entire family by cutting the line. You apparently know very little about rigging explosives.

Which I only know based on you telling me ( omniscient knowledge). Hey omniscient one is their other terrorists involved?

You are starting to run to the cesspool…you are losing ground very rapidly… I gave you a simple scenario, put you in play and you “obfuscated” and simultaneously abdicated your tenuous yet precarious balance on your moral high-ground…

Now you were given the first high level Iraq captured and told to go until you had the location of the weapons of mass distruction. So can you explain the fact you now have no stopping point?

How can you even begin to say that??? There is always a “stopping point”. I think you know very little about the subject. Just as I think you have very little real knowledge about intelligence gathering…

Perhaps the guidelines in this link might help you understand how interrogations are done: hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/0819interrogation.htm Not much in there that causes me any problems.

 

[RobHom]

Well if you believe even half of that - I am proper authority and competent - so your done! (go ahead start back peddling- oh, oh I meant)

I believe everything I stated. You may well be competent, however it remains to be seen, and that would require you being appointed by competent authority. Me, done? Hardly.

I have no need or intention of “back peddling”. You’ve cited nothing that gives me pause to do so. In fact you’ve obfuscated and rambled about without offering anything of substance.

really something you chose to ignor time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

I’ve not ignored anything. I was aware of the charges made, and the fact that absolutely nothing has come out of it all in the past 25 months. I don’t think anyone on the planet took it seriously.

In fact it can pretty much be viewed as little more than a droll attempt by a prosecutor in Germany getting 15 minutes or less of fame.

Make no mistake… I do not take the subject lightly, and I do not adhere well to the notion of “torture”. It is barbaric, and immoral. But there is a difference between interrogation and torture.

The only times I think that extreme measures could be applied, is under extreme need. Its that simple. No matter how you paint it…if a terrorist, spy or saboteur has knowledge of the presence of a bomb or other device or attack in plan, they are no longer simple “criminals”. They are “combatants” and are not accorded “civil rights” and are subject to trial by military tribunal.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You are making an erroneous assumption that those people would automatically be granted full protection under US law.

This is a common fault see the US Constitution defines all US courts and Military and or government officials. It is not whether a person abducted outside the US has constitutional rights it is no US authority exists outside the Constitution.

Hmmmm, I guess you’ve never heard of people who fit a specific description being picked up and interviewed? Happens all the time in this country when crimes occur,…

Wow there you go, innocent persicution

…
I really think its rather disingenuous of you to take part of my statement out of context. As I stated…it stands. Because their is absolutely no logic present that we would just grab someone off the street and rip their fingernails out or anything else. It has never been our way of dealing with things. We are not the KGB, STASI, Gestapo or any of the others.

“people who fit a specific description” as opposed to?

Again…“properly appointed competent authority”.

That is me

Yup, and no-one has stated that our “criminal justice system” is 100% foolproof. Mistakes are made. Your examples are specious at best. In my own home state they had to release a man who had been convicted of killing his children…he spent many years in prison…put their by false testimony…and there have been others. Do you expect that we just close down the system and let criminals run rampant.

nope just a fair trial, which has not been done for many over the last eight years

But you are forgetting, we are not talking about “criminals” we are talking about “terrorists”…COMBATANTS, SPIES, SABOTEURS. There is a significant difference.

actually we are talking about how one knows the difference between these groups

In the two and a half years I was in Vietnam, I never once saw a member of the Viet Cong wear a uniform. How one knows which is which is a learned skill, and one that your survival depends on. Many have died…

Were they all Americans?

for not having acquired and honed that skill. But usually…they are easy to sort out. Civilians usually don’t carry explosives, and other weapons with them in combat areas.

so did you always wait to shoot until you saw the “explosives, and other weapons”?

That too is fairly easy to sort out. Believe that.

Anything is possible. Such is the way of man. Would you prefer to abdicate any responsibility in advance of a potential peril? Sounds like it…

There is always that risk when and where humans are involved. But it would seem that you advocate doing absolutely nothing in favor of not hurting someones feelings…

so using our legal system is nothing in your eyes?

In reality, terrorists, and saboteurs…caught in the act or after the fact are not necessarily “entitled” to a trial.

That is a requirement if US personal are involved

If they are recognized as “combatants” they can be incarcerated for the duration of the hostilities without a trial.

recognized by who? [me]

Spies can be tried and executed, and I believe saboteurs can as well if that is the route that competent authority chooses to take.

actually all US officials are required to use that option. This concept that a rogue president can simply cast a judgement on strangers with no trial is outside the authority of the office of president

Again, you are assuming facts not present. I am a pragmatist and realist. I understand what is going on, and I also understand that the average American is “oblivious” to the actual situation that we are facing, now and in the future.

Maybe it is the other way around? There were no WMD’s.

Are you sure about that? You seem terribly worried about upsetting someone…

I am not scared to put these people on trial, I think Bush has plenty of problems with it.

Can’t blame that one me… Maybe here is some of the reason why: hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html
commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
alaiwah.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/is-the-saudi-royfamily-behind-al-qaeda/

poor, very poor, I never implied you were involved. See here is the thing the Iraqs do not like the Saudi’s

Couldn’t tell you how many, but I rather doubt that the average Iraqi would know much about much of what went on there. On the other hand, there would be those that would know if they had existed. BTW… I have always been “skeptical” about the purported WMD’s…

so how do you know who to torture?

You continue to confuse “torture” with “interrogation”. You should really try to get a better grip on the realities that are involved in them and the differences.

I know what is legal and what is moral, which are you asking to set aside?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes, and you would have killed your entire family by cutting the line. You apparently know very little about rigging explosives.

There you go again working from a point of omniscient - how could you know how he wired the bomb? All torture supporters assume they are incharge, they only have guilty people, and they always stop exactly at the right time

You are starting to run to the cesspool…you are losing ground very rapidly… I gave you a simple scenario, put you in play and you “obfuscated” and simultaneously abdicated your tenuous yet precarious balance on your moral high-ground

How can you even begin to say that??? There is always a “stopping point”. I think you know very little about the subject. Just as I think you have very little real knowledge about intelligence gathering…

actually you’re spining to obfuscate and well you should the scenario is both real and damning

Perhaps the guidelines in this link might help you understand how interrogations are done: hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/0819interrogation.htm Not much in there that causes me any problems.

I address this earlier

I believe everything I stated. You may well be competent, however it remains to be seen, and that would require you being appointed by competent authority. Me, done? Hardly.

and there again you show you only consider the scenario of you in charge

I have no need or intention of “back peddling”. You’ve cited nothing that gives me pause to do so. In fact you’ve obfuscated and rambled about without offering anything of substance.

hey you relie on unnamed competent authority, at least until I name it then you abondon the concept

I’ve not ignored anything. I was aware of the charges made, and the fact that absolutely nothing has come out of it all in the past 25 months. I don’t think anyone on the planet took it seriously.

In fact it can pretty much be viewed as little more than a droll attempt by a prosecutor in Germany getting 15 minutes or less of fame.

Make no mistake… I do not take the subject lightly, and I do not adhere well to the notion of “torture”. It is barbaric, and immoral. But there is a difference between interrogation and torture.

The only times I think that extreme measures could be applied, is under extreme need. Its that simple. No matter how you paint it…if a terrorist, spy or saboteur has knowledge of the presence of a bomb or other device or attack in plan, they are no longer simple “criminals”. They are “combatants” and are not accorded “civil rights” and are subject to trial by military tribunal.

Unwise several Americans were jailed. the US government sent people to Germany to negotiate the situation to prevent further persecution

 

[RobHom]

This is a common fault see the US Constitution defines all US courts and Military and or government officials. It is not whether a person abducted outside the US has constitutional rights it is no US authority exists outside the Constitution.

You may wish to delve into the issue just a little bit deeper. In an active combat zone in a foreign country…the rules shift slightly, and while the UCMJ takes precedence over the activities of our troops, International Law has more impact outside the US.

Wow there you go, innocent persicution “people who fit a specific description” as opposed to?

No, its not “innocent persecution”. It is a standard technique with all law enforcement, worldwide. I myself have been questioned regarding something that happened long ago. I fit the description of someone…because I’m fairly “average” as far as my physical appearance. It took 20 minutes of my time, and they even gave me a ride back to where I was. There was zero persecution.

That is me

Your qualifications to make the statement?

nope just a fair trial, which has not been done for many over the last eight years

I can’t argue that point…and I’m even wondering if there will be a huge number of “Presidential Pardons” issued on January 19th of 2009…wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

actually we are talking about how one knows the difference between these groups

Based on any number of different parameters. Its quite a detailed issue, and one that must be ascertained carefully so that one does not make an error.

Were they all Americans?

Many were, some were Aussies, some were Koreans…some were even Vietnamese…

so did you always wait to shoot until you saw the “explosives, and other weapons”?

We were under quite a number of “constraints” as to how and when to engage the enemy. You might want to read up on them, and then ask yourself…“Is this any way to fight a war?”
cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html
globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm

Vietnam was a very difficult war, as the enemy other than the NVA did not wear uniforms…and most actual combat activity took place at night, not during daylight. Where I was, on the Cambodian border in the Mekong Delta…there was a permanent curfew from sundown to sun up…so anyone out in the open was suspect. It was that way in most of the country. Even still, you cannot imagine the restrictions placed on us.

so using our legal system is nothing in your eyes?

I never said that. Don’t try to put words in my mouth. Its obvious that I view this issue on a somewhat different plane than you.

That is a requirement if US personal are involved

Yes, as determined by the US Constitution and the UCMJ. I have no problem with that.

recognized by who? [me]

If you are appointed to a decision making position by competent authority. And if you actually possess the expertise and intelligence to make the call after performing due diligence.

actually all US officials are required to use that option. This concept that a rogue president can simply cast a judgement on strangers with no trial is outside the authority of the office of president

Inasmuch as I understand your position…you are tending here to limit your scope of view to the current administration, and you would probably be amused to find that I am probably about 99% in agreement with your position regarding the conduct of many of the people in that administration where Iraq and this so-called war on terror is concerned. The current administration has made a mockery of the Constitution. The President is not the King, nor is he god.

Maybe it is the other way around?

I don’t believe that for a minute. I truly believe that most Americans are totally oblivious to what is going on around them, or are fastidiously ignoring reality. And I’m not even a “conspiracy buff”.

There were no WMD’s.

That’s pretty much evident. I never believed there were. Frankly, as far as the so called “gas” the Iraqi’s had…I can make the same thing for the most part with household chemicals and if I want to get more sophisticated…I can go to Home Depot for what I need.

I am not scared to put these people on trial, I think Bush has plenty of problems with it.

While you may not be afraid to… I know Bush is, and it will haunt him and his people forever.

poor, very poor, I never implied you were involved.

Seems you try often to link me to things…no?

See here is the thing the Iraqs do not like the Saudi’s

I am well aware that the entire area is “tribal” and none of those people over there like each other, hate is more like it…

so how do you know who to torture?

You seem to be “hung-up” on the word torture. Do you know the difference between torture and interrogation? There is a significant difference. I have never advocated “torture”. Then again… I don’t consider torture to be “asking questions”… which it seems you do.

I know what is legal and what is moral, which are you asking to set aside?

Torture by its actual definition is not to be used. There are only extreme and extremely limited times when it can even be considered to be used.

Please don’t try to lump me with the morons in the “administration”, frankly I think most of them are fools and incompetents.

 

[RobHom]

There you go again working from a point of omniscient - how could you know how he wired the bomb?

And you were omniscient in assuming the same. Pot calling the kettle black? My, my, my… I can safely presume that you imagine a terrorist going to the trouble of kidnapping and wiring up a family with explosives would not use a dead-man switch electrically rigged as a fail safe?

All torture supporters assume they are incharge, they only have guilty people, and they always stop exactly at the right time

You’re confusing me with someone else.

actually you’re spining to obfuscate and well you should the scenario is both real and damning I address this earlier

Hardly the case. I am not hung-up on what you are. I am viewing the situation in a real life hypothetical situation governed under proper rules of engagement. There is no “spinning to obfuscate”, none whatsoever. It would seem that you are viewing the subject through a very narrow prism…of about 1 mil.

and there again you show you only consider the scenario of you in charge hey you relie on unnamed competent authority, at least until I name it then you abondon the concept

No, not so. I am not relying on any unnamed competent authority. I cannot give a persons name because I am using a term for the person in charge. That competent authority could whomever the US Government has determined is the “competent authority” is. Do you understand what a “Chain of Command” is?
Do you have any “Military background”?

Unwise several Americans were jailed. the US government sent people to Germany to negotiate the situation to prevent further persecution

Really? And who might they have been? Proofs of the statement? I would like to see them, seriously, sounds like interesting reading.

Oh, btw… I am not a big supporter of the RNC, or the DNC, I am an “NPA”, and an American.

 

[RobHom]

Texas Roofer… you seem like a fairly intelligent person, so if you would…don’t presume facts not in evidence, and actually take the time to read what I say in a neutral perspective…and read everything, then ponder it for a moment or two, OK?