|
Tezzor posted:It's incredible how you think this rationale, while accurate, is defensible. It's not illegal if the government does it.
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
quote:At least 26 of the 119 (21% or just over 1 in 5) prisoners held by the CIA were later found to be innocent, many having also experienced torture.[13 This is really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar.. Pulp fiction government.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
It's arguably not rape because it was not part of a sexual experience, but, yeah. It probably was.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
NYT still refusing to use the word "torture" seemingly. Even the USA Today has the word "torture" in the headline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Nah, that would lead to a chilling effect on pro-torture legal arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Ah I didnt see that on the front page at Dunkin Donuts this morning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You know, every day I wake up and think "You know, we need more pro-torture legal arguments. Torture, like rape, gets the short end of the stick". Publish or perish. It's tough on law school campuses these days.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Was Obama's "We tortured some folks" comment laying the groundwork for the revelation of this report?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:The CIA won't do jack poo poo but whine about it like they are now. Would it? They'd probably just change the name.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Way more than 35 percent of Americans are pro-torture: Those question offer a flash hypothetical though and seem like push polling. The proper question should have been something like "do you think torture should be legal"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I don't know what makes you think that declaring it illegal or legal would change people's position on whether it's okay or not. Whatever. Ok not ok, legal not legal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Arguing with someone against torture by citing its ineffectiveness implies its use would be valid were it effective. It's also a moot point because the necessity defense is available in the US. One definition: There, to present the defense at trial, defendants must meet the burden of production on four elements: “(1) they were faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) they acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) they reasonably anticipated a direct caus al relationship be- tween their conduct and the harm to be averted; and (4) they had no legal alternatives to violating the law.” So if someone is charged with torture TODAY, they can argue it was necessary and not be convicted. So the whole "national debate" is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Something else which bears mention is that we have highly effective interrogation techniques. Torture isn't just ineffective and morally corrupt and corrupting, it's a wasted opportunity to do something works. Serious people do not torture. Using torture is just incompetence. Someone needs to cook up talking points for this. Right. SO it would NEVER be justified because there would always be legal alternatives. Therefore torture should not be legal and it is never justified. Wow. I can't believe this debate is happening.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This would only work on the individual that was ordered to carry it out. Well, ok but the Idea of someone ordering someone to torture someone is monstrous. Why would that ever be legal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We hanged the officers that ordered war crimes after WWII, not the men that did them (they'd have been shot if they refused after all). I am just saying this is how monstrous we have become: we are debating whether torture as a policy choice is Ok.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
The Holocaust was legal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Sadly executive lawlessness goes all the way back to Washington. The constitution isn't really a good system in terms of the holding the executive to laws. But that depends on your definition of law I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Sadly executive lawlessness goes all the way back to Washington. The constitution isn't really a good system in terms of the holding the executive to laws. But that depends on your definition of law I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
He probably had no confidence they would follow through with the offer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 21:03
|
|