This man was forced to retire for discharging a fire arm next to an insurgents head to get information. He saved a lot of lives and did it gladly. This is hope and change I would vote for.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he saved a lot of lives, ending his career seems like a small price to pay.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Better to end his career on a high note then allow, encourage and give incentive to such reckless acts in the future with no consequence.
IP: Logged |
posted
His military career was just a side note. Anyone want to take odds that he'll win that Congressional seat next year? He sounds an awful lot like a "racist tea bagger" to me.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Are you being an idiot? Have you stopped beating your wife?
IP: Logged |
posted
How wonderful that he had two chances to save lives- one through his questionable interrogation method and the second by showing that questionable actions have consequences and we are still a law abiding nation, even when rough times come. He should accept the consequences and be as proud of that action as he was of his interrogation.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: How wonderful that he had two chances to save lives- one through his questionable interrogation method and the second by showing that questionable actions have consequences and we are still a law abiding nation, even when rough times come. He should accept the consequences and be as proud of that action as he was of his interrogation.
quote:If he saved a lot of lives, ending his career seems like a small price to pay.
Well, yes. That's not the question, though. The question is, should he be made to pay this particular price?
I honestly don't know. I'll have to hear more about the incident before I make up my mind.
One thing I do know: it's wrong to say, "You did the right thing, but the law shall punish you anyway." It's a way of making ourselves feel better: Oh, we don't endorse that, see? He got punished according to the law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One thing I do know: it's wrong to say, "You did the right thing, but the law shall punish you anyway." It's a way of making ourselves feel better: Oh, we don't endorse that, see? He got punished according to the law.
I don't entirely agree. Often "doing the right thing" is against the law. Civil disobedience is frequently the right thing, for example. I think that penalties should be proportional which it often isn't, but there should still be law.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Rakeesh is saying that is if the right thing to do is against the law, the law should be changed.
I think it hinges on a fine line between respecting or understanding an illegal action, and actually endorsing it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The REAL question, coming from someone who was in the service is this.....
Did he know he wasn't suppose to do that? Who authorized it other than himself, and was it a legal order even if someone else told him/ordered him to do it?
It may have been. If so, someone else should back him up. That's probably why he was forced to retire.
He sounds like he is full of crap to me.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think this could be an OK way to handle things.
Saying "torture is OK" is leads to horrible consequences, but there really can be times where it's the best course of action.
If you're that convinced that torture is the answer, then do it, save those lives, and pay the price.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure he was happy to pay that price and I hope he wins the Congressional seat. Think of a politician like a parent...who is the better father: One who tells you you're a victim and the world owes you something or the one who teaches self respect and puts you on a path of individual success. I know this guy is black but I bet his children will be very successful in life while others cry "disadvantaged".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the link, but this sounds like something Jack Bauer would do, based on what I've read on this page. And, for the record, I think Jack Bauer would make a terrible congressman...
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: I didn't read the link, but this sounds like something Jack Bauer would do, based on what I've read on this page. And, for the record, I think Jack Bauer would make a terrible congressman...
The link is a video, and it's rather disturbing IMO.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't entirely agree. Often "doing the right thing" is against the law. Civil disobedience is frequently the right thing, for example. I think that penalties should be proportional which it often isn't, but there should still be law.
Civil disobedience serves as a poor example for this situation because all or nearly all of the cases in which civil disobedience is the right thing to do involve working to change an unjust law or policy. West's reported behavior involves violation of the law (or at least regulations) to save lives from attack by our enemies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The laws broken for civil disobedience are often not the same laws that the protesters are trying to change. I was not trying to change the laws regarding criminal trespass, for example. Someone may break into a building for a very good reason. Again, punishment should be proportional but we don't want to take the breaking and entering or trspass laws off the books. Mr. West presumably had a good reason for breaking the law, that doesn't mean the the law should be changed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Actually, I think this could be an OK way to handle things.
Saying "torture is OK" is leads to horrible consequences, but there really can be times where it's the best course of action.
If you're that convinced that torture is the answer, then do it, save those lives, and pay the price.
This is exactly my position on the issue. Torture should be illegal, like any other number of things. But sometimes, to be a moral person, you have to do illegal things. While the legal system should be informed by ethics, it should not (and cannot) be identical to our ethics.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws broken for civil disobedience are often not the same laws that the protesters are trying to change. I was not trying to change the laws regarding criminal trespass, for example. Someone may break into a building for a very good reason. Again, punishment should be proportional but we don't want to take the breaking and entering or trspass laws off the books. Mr. West presumably had a good reason for breaking the law, that doesn't mean the the law should be changed.
Well, it depends on what sort of civil disobedience we're talking about, doesn't it? The most famous civil disobedience, and the image invoked to most people - certainly most Americans, anyway - when it's mentioned is sit-ins at segregated businesses. Which were an attempt to change the laws on things like trespassing.
As for changing the law, do you really think the punishment should be proportional here for Mr. West? That is, there would be a minimum punishment for torture that would apply to everyone, but Mr. West would get some dispensation because he (we assume) had a good, effective reason for breaking the law? Or would you in fact support being just as harsh on him as the schmucks in Abu Graib?
Put another way, if the punishment for criminal trespass is in one region, say, $250 fine and one week in jail, would you consider it acceptable that protesters engaging in civil disobedience got that maximum, or would you consider it disproportionate and unfair?
I dunno, it just seems to me from having read your posts on things like civil disobedience and torture that your position on the two isn't very similar at all. I think you would be, relatively speaking, much harsher on someone committing torture even if it's for a benevolent purpose and in fact ends up saving lives, than you would be on someone staging a sit-in. When compared to someone trespassing for the hell of it and someone torturing out of sadism, I mean. Or am I mistaken?
quote:This is exactly my position on the issue. Torture should be illegal, like any other number of things. But sometimes, to be a moral person, you have to do illegal things. While the legal system should be informed by ethics, it should not (and cannot) be identical to our ethics.
I'm fine with the penalty being just as harsh up front for sadistic torturers as for desperation torturers. I am, however, potentially dissatisfied with the sentencing being the same. I'm not saying, "Let `em off," I'm saying, "Not all torture is the same, and perhaps shouldn't be treated in the same way. Especially if we sometimes actually think it's the right thing to do, and if we would've done the same in a given situation."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that's particularly unreasonable. First degree torture vs. second, or whatever you prefer.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm fine with the penalty being just as harsh up front for sadistic torturers as for desperation torturers. I am, however, potentially dissatisfied with the sentencing being the same. I'm not saying, "Let `em off," I'm saying, "Not all torture is the same, and perhaps shouldn't be treated in the same way. Especially if we sometimes actually think it's the right thing to do, and if we would've done the same in a given situation."
Isn't there generally quite a bit of leeway that a judge has for sentencing? Is this not something that you'd expect a judge to take into consideration?
Or do you think we need to legislate this kind of distinction?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't there generally quite a bit of leeway that a judge has for sentencing? Is this not something that you'd expect a judge to take into consideration?
Sometimes, judges aren't allowed to take things into consideration. It's all over the country right now, ironically involving another very politicized war and its fighting-the 'war on drugs'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would certainly find it acceptable to consider mitigating circumstances in this sort of case.
quote: I think you would be, relatively speaking, much harsher on someone committing torture even if it's for a benevolent purpose and in fact ends up saving lives, than you would be on someone staging a sit-in. When compared to someone trespassing for the hell of it and someone torturing out of sadism, I mean. Or am I mistaken?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can think of one justification for not going easy on torture -- say you torture someone once and get nothing useful. There is then incentive to keep going, hoping you'll find a justification for it.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I suppose that's one way of looking at mandatory minimums. But it does hack away at a judge's ability to take things into consideration.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In certain types of cases, no, there really isn't. Mandatory minimums and "3rd stike" laws in some cases allow no discretion at all.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wouldn't you say that there is generally quite a bit of leeway that a judge has for sentencing?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally? No idea. There has been a big push for mandatory minimums/3 strikes on broad classes of crimes. Most 3 strikes laws apply to the very broad category of "felonies".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The impression I have of sentencing rules was that in the past, judges had a lot of leeway. People felt like judges were making incorrect decisions and passed mandatory sentencing laws to limit those "mistakes." This has led to its own problems. Another interesting aspect on the sentencing was a study on how often defenders made mathematical errors that affected how long their clients were in prison. Apparently a lot of defenders had trouble filling out basic math formulas, which often added weeks and even months to their clients time.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Arbitrary minimum sentencing takes away a powerful and important discretionary tool in the hand of judges, greatly reducing their flexibility in sentencing (down to almost nothing in cases where clearly nowhere near the maximum is warranted). While sometimes judges extend too much leniency, I am more than willing to accept that downside for even a few (and I'm quite convinced it wasn't/isn't a few) cases where such leniency is applied appropriately. Better 100 guilty men, et cetera.
This is especially the case where economic situation comes into play. Better off defendants are much, much more likely to have leniency (quite possibly appropriately) given in many classes of offense, such as relating to drugs. I believe some of the reason for minimum sentencing laws was to reduce that preference, but 1) I disagree that it is the correct direction to adjust things (see above), and 2) better off defendants are still more likely to have leniency due to things like access to lawyers who are good at plea bargaining, less pursuit by prosecutors, and the like, but poorer defendants who miss out on those things, for whom leniency might be appropriate, now don't even have the chance of leniency once sentencing is reached.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall and it is a bit fuzzy, the defense we were planning to use when I was arrested for criminal trespass had something to do with circumstances, urgency, immediacy - I can't remember what it was called. From what I understood, it is not an easy defense to use. Basically, you had to prove that circumstances were such that you had no choice but to break the law. Sort of and "I had to break and enter in order to save the baby" kind of thing. You have to establish that you did save the baby and that was the only way to do it and a jury gets to decide whether your judgement on that was correct.
This is pretty vague as (after a few postponements and continuances) the charges were dropped so I didn't see this play out. I could see this as a scenario for someone indicted for torture. Go before a jury and let them decide. If you are that sure you need to torture, you should have confidence that you can make that case to a jury.
I know that this is often touted as a truism. I've been wondering lately whether or not it actually is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of innocent people are in jail. We know that the person is guilty of torture. If it was so obviously necessary that can be proved.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truism? I've known many people who don't consider it true. I just knew I didn't have to type it out
It is a very strongly held opinion of mine. I don't feel that it is absolute -- there will always be a chance of innocents being jailed, and there is definitely a need for a judiciary -- but I do feel that the ratio should be quite high.
Trying for standards that stringent is an extremely important part of protecting individuals from a tyranny of the state, as we see in things like our evidentiary standards. Sure, it would be great to use inappropriately obtained evidence against whatever current criminal is on trial; the evidence is almost certainly real. But once it becomes possible to do so, abuse of the system creeps in (I also believe that there are important objective rights involved, but even someone who doesn't believe in those objective rights should support the standard for the purposes of preventing abuse by authority).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is pretty vague as (after a few postponements and continuances) the charges were dropped so I didn't see this play out. I could see this as a scenario for someone indicted for torture. Go before a jury and let them decide. If you are that sure you need to torture, you should have confidence that you can make that case to a jury.
Except you don't want the jury asking and answering in the forum of a verdict, "Did this guy need to use torture?" or am I mistaken?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I think I do. The necessity defense, if I understand it and IANAL, needs to prove three things: the harm prevented by breaking the law would have been greater than the harm of breaking the law, the defendant was not responsible for the circumstance, and that there was no alternative to breaking the law. As it is an affirmative defense, I think the burden of proof is on the defendant.
If he can prove to a jury those things - especially that there was no alternative and that the harm if he didn't break the law was greater than the harm he did (which is not negligent, including harm to the US reputation and so forth) that is better than changing the law to accommodate an extreme case and allowing torture in less extreme circumstances.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many lives, potentially, is US reputation worth, exactly? While that's certainly a real, serious cost, it pays to remember what it's being measured against, I think.
The problem I'm having with what you're suggesting is that it sounds extremely difficult if not impossible to me to prove all three of those things in a court of law. How can it possibly be known what the harm would have been from, say, a car bombing? How can it be known there was no other alternative to prevent the bombing than torture?
It sounds very much as if the solution you're proposing is not much different from 'no torture, ever'-except it claims to acknowledge the occasional necessity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many lives, potentially, is US reputation worth, exactly? While that's certainly a real, serious cost, it pays to remember what it's being measured against, I think.
Balanced, of course, is the question of how many lives, potentially, could a lost US reputation cost, exactly?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We wouldn't have to worry about harming our reputation if we'd just kill them on the battle field instead of treating a war like a police action.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It saddens me that American reputation has dropped to the point that killing prisoners on the battlefield would cause less worry than, well, not killing them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
