FirmhandKY -> RE: Torture: Europe and Gitmo (12/13/2008 10:43:21 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife What's really sad here is the Bush/Cheney legacy has so twisted the views of some to the point where we have to debate whether common decency and respect for basic human rights is a point that needs to be argued. I agree with this point above, we should not be debating things in this way. Cutting off debate is rarely the answer to anything. quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard It's a shame people think they can use one disgraceful verdict to justify another. What the German police did was wrong and they should have been prosecuted. Sometimes even the prime suspect isn't guilty of the crime and it's for no one other than a jury to decide that guilt. What the German police did was inexcusable because they acted as the jury and found him guilty even though that is not their job, their job is to gather evidence and detect crime in a dispassionate way. What separates any legal proceeding from mob rule? The only thing in my opinion is looking at the crime in a dispassionate way in terms of evidence collected. Anyone can say person A or B is 100% guilty of this and so let us torture him to prove it. Is this the standard of justice we want? What makes those German police any different to any other man on the street lynching someone because they know they are guilty? Good paragraph. We aren't in disagreement. quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard This is dangerous territory because what people in this thread have said is we don't need proper legal trials even in domestic crime cases. Could you please cite where this was said? quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard People have often made the argument that torture to save a thousand lives is worth it and now they are saying torture to save one life is worth it. Ignore the fact the person in question may have confessed to a crime they didn't commit because they are perhaps mentally ill, lets torture him to find the victim. You people are making a mockery of the legal process by arguing such things are ok, we may as well do away with it and go back to sticking people’s heads on spikes. From a logical stand point, I agree. Which is why I find it interesting that people are excusing the European court ruling based on "it went through the legal system", but see no problem with condemning US techniques in which the legal standing of such techniques were vetted against US law. Perhaps they think (and they could even be correct) that those interpretations are incorrect, but that is not the issue in my mind. There was a process in which the law was reviewed, and strictures and legal rulings where used in order to set standards that were then followed. quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard Also people want to use legal points to decide what torture is, you mad people. If it says in a legal text that me using an electric drill on your knee caps or your skull wasn't torture, would you accept that? There is an insignificant difference between psychological torture and actual torture and in my opinion the threat of torture is psychological torture and it’s hard to tell how long lasting the effects of this will be to the person involved. The worst aspect of physical torture is the long term psychological effects of it so why are we more or less saying psychological torture is ok? I'm ashamed of the EU verdict and ashamed some would use it to trivialise their own governments misdeeds. I think part of the disconnect is that some of us (and perhaps even myself) are conflating legal and moral arguments. I've not taken a moral position. I've taken a legal position. quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard Water boarding isn’t drowning someone but it’s as close as you can get to it. You are still restricting the persons breathing against their will, under a cloth with water endlessly poured over it. Imagine being in that position before saying it is ok to subject someone else to it for any reason. And now we get into the conundrum of mixing the legal and moral definitions of "torture", which will never be resolved, I don't think. quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard You could be the next person being tortured for evidence to save the life of someone, all it takes is for the police to decide you are guilty it seems and we all know the police get things wrong often. I feel you are correct, and one of the reasons I have difficulty in taking a definitive stand on the "harsh interrogation" or "torture" debate on moral grounds. Firm
|
|
|
|