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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If he saved a lot of lives, ending his career seems like a small price to pay.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are you being an idiot? Have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
QFT
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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".
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I know this guy is black but
This is why you are a racist.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
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...
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Think of a politician like a parent...
No thank you. Elected representatives are our peers, not our parents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
At times I really wish the government acted more like a peer than a parent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I don't think that's particularly unreasonable. First degree torture vs. second, or whatever you prefer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What do you mean "not allowed"?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I mean sometimes there are mandatory minimums, 'sentencing guidelines', that sort of thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Which generally still leaves quite a bit of leeway, neh?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which generally still leaves quite a bit of leeway, neh?
How do mandatory minimums leave quite a bit of leeway?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The leeway is the amount between the minimum and the maximum.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, it does limit it.
But wouldn't you say that there is generally quite a bit of leeway that a judge has for sentencing?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In certain types of cases, no, there really isn't. Mandatory minimums and "3rd stike" laws in some cases allow no discretion at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But wouldn't you say that there is generally quite a bit of leeway that a judge has for sentencing?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Porter, no I really wouldn't.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I've got to go with dkw.
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
[ December 09, 2009, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Better 100 guilty men, et cetera.
I know that this is often touted as a truism. I've been wondering lately whether or not it actually is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup, definitely true.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
[ December 10, 2009, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 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.
Yup. That is what I am saying. No torture ever. Since I don't know everything, however, I am willing to let a jury decide if it really was necessary to prevent great harm and that there were no alternatives. If that isn't crystal clear enough to convince a jury, we shouldn't be using torture.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders -- taking anything Mal says seriously.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yup. That is what I am saying. No torture ever. Since I don't know everything, however, I am willing to let a jury decide if it really was necessary to prevent great harm and that there were no alternatives. If that isn't crystal clear enough to convince a jury, we shouldn't be using torture.
I can live with that, but I'd amend it to "If it's not crystal clear enough to convince a judge/jury, or if you're not willing to pay the price of being found guilty, don't use torture."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am okay with that as well. In fact, I almost included the "or pay the penalty" part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: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.
Yeah, because after all, all of our enemies can be found out on the battlefield where it's a straightforward matter to kill them outright.
Wait a minute, that's not true at all. Come to think of it, aren't our enemies spread out and hidden all over the world in order to avoid just that sort of outcome? And aren't those enemies recruiting new enemies to join them, aided in part by pointing at us and saying to their dimwitted followers, "Lookit what the Great Satan has done now!"
Yeah, come to think of it, that is something like what actually happens. Someone might almost say this war is...*gasp!*...political! And therefore political considerations such as questions of reputation need to be asked! And therefore, "Just kill them all," is, aside from being impossible, an incredibly stupid suggestion!
Not that I'm surprised.
----
Mucus, that's malanthrop talking. Who here is even discussing that besides him?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yup. That is what I am saying. No torture ever. Since I don't know everything, however, I am willing to let a jury decide if it really was necessary to prevent great harm and that there were no alternatives. If that isn't crystal clear enough to convince a jury, we shouldn't be using torture.
Frankly, there's something dishonest in saying, "I don't know everything, so I'm willing to let a jury decide," but set the bar for that decision impossibly high. It's not 'letting the jury decide' if the conditions for that decision are set before the question is even asked to predetermine the answer. Better to just cut out the middle-man.
Here's the thing: it's one thing to say it's the right thing to do for a person to use torture in extraordinary circumstances to save a large number of lives, or at least to say it was necessary, and that a person, when presented with that event, ought to do the hard thing and take the punishment if that's what it takes to save those lives. But that's a separate issue from the decision as to what the punishment should be beforehand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think the bar to convince a jury is impossibly high. I think it is very high. I think the bar for torturing people should be at least as high.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm OK with that bar being extremely high.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Mucus, that's malanthrop talking. Who here is even discussing that besides him?
I'm not sure what you're saying. Why would I have to wait for someone else to respond to him before I can? In any case, there is some truth to what he says (and some special poignancy since he's actually American).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think the bar to convince a jury is impossibly high. I think it is very high. I think the bar for torturing people should be at least as high.
Can you imagine any circumstances under which that bar would actually be met? For example, are there any circumstances under which you, personally, serving on a jury, would say, "It's been proven that there was nothing else he could've done, and that it prevented a deadly attack."
Mucus, it just sounded from your post like you were speaking to and about more than just malanthrop was all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Can you imagine any circumstances under which that bar would actually be met? For example, are there any circumstances under which you, personally, serving on a jury, would say, "It's been proven that there was nothing else he could've done, and that it prevented a deadly attack."
I can.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that most American juries would (unfortunately) be pretty open to that argument right now. Wouldn't you if you were on such a jury?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Mucus, it just sounded from your post like you were speaking to and about more than just malanthrop was all.
Well, I was speaking to that bit of truth in what he said.
The sentence was shorthand for*:
It seems within the realm of plausibility to me that if the Americans started out with an under-the-table policy to *wink, wink, nudge nudge* kill questionable prisoners rather than taking them captive, they might actually be ahead of (reputation-wise) the current policy which is a systematic top-down directive to indefinitely detain prisoners, torture them (in some cases to death), and then slowly release the evidence at awkward times.
Thats kinda screwed up.
Contrast this with the experience of POWs during WWII, when it was best (if you had to be captured) to be captured by Americans first, failing that then Germans, and failing that then the Japanese. Why? Because the Japanese were known for mistreating prisoners, torturing them, in many cases to death.
The fact that we now live in a world where that order is probably reversed (if you're a Muslim fighting in the war on terror), being best to be captured by the Japanese, then the Germans, then the Americans speaks to how screwed up our current world is.
(Although to be fair, there was the mass detention of Japanese-Americans so maybe in this regard, stuff has gotten better (Although to be fair to being fair, who knows how far racial profiling of Muslims would get with a "real" war and a Pearl Harbour-like event on top of 9/11))
* but I didn't really feel like writing it out
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that most American juries would (unfortunately) be pretty open to that argument right now. Wouldn't you if you were on such a jury?
So, saying that, can you understand why I'm skeptical that there are any actual circumstances under which you think someone shouldn't be punished by the criminal justice system for torture?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not sure that there are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think that most American juries would (unfortunately) be pretty open to that argument right now. Wouldn't you if you were on such a jury?
So, saying that, can you understand why I'm skeptical that there are any actual circumstances under which you think someone shouldn't be punished by the criminal justice system for torture?
Rakeesh, is this another one of those times when I allow a small possibility that in extreme cases my principle might not apply and you use that as a wedge and I have to take an even harder line?
See: TSA and abortion conversations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, this is one of those times when you claim to allow for something when in fact the course you suggest doesn't really allow for it at all, kmbboots. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you said, "No torture, period," but instead you're offering up a polite prevarication that makes everyone feel better about our stance on torture. If we're to be against it, we ought to actually be against it. If we think there are rare occasions when it should not be punished by prison time or something, we ought to take an approach that doesn't treat all occasions the same way.
And of course...extreme cases. It's wartime, and we're talking about what soldiers do in the field in a moment of desperation. Of course they're extreme cases.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We should not allow torture. Anyone who does should be in jail. There. NO exceptions.
Since you insist on absolutes.
[ December 10, 2009, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The sentence was shorthand for*:
It seems within the realm of plausibility to me that if the Americans started out with an under-the-table policy to *wink, wink, nudge nudge* kill questionable prisoners rather than taking them captive, they might actually be ahead of (reputation-wise) the current policy which is a systematic top-down directive to indefinitely detain prisoners, torture them (in some cases to death), and then slowly release the evidence at awkward times.
Thats kinda screwed up.
That's totally not how I interpreted the statement. I interpreted it as being critical of not declaring a "real" war and just killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield. I didn't think it said anything about killing *prisoners* on the battlefield (because if you kill an enemy on the battlefield they aren't a prisoner)...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we think there are rare occasions when it should not be punished by prison time or something...
I think there are rare occasions where, in sentencing for the crime of torture, a judge might choose to minimize the time served. But I believe that even that minimum should represent a few years in prison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Since you insist on absolutes.
Sure, that's what I'm doing.
----
quote:I think there are rare occasions where, in sentencing for the crime of torture, a judge might choose to minimize the time served. But I believe that even that minimum should represent a few years in prison.
Which is all well and good, unless you also believe there are certain circumstances when it's the right thing to do-torture someone, that is.
It's a strange dissonance here. On the one hand, y'all believe (I think it's a solid guess on my part) that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than unjustly imprison one. We need that sort of certainty in our system-better than that, really. On the other hand, that reasoning doesn't appear to apply to torture-the one innocent or at least not wrong guy has to go to prison in order to make sure the next ten do, too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Which is all well and good, unless you also believe there are certain circumstances when it's the right thing to do-torture someone, that is.
I believe it's never the right thing to do. I believe it's occasionally justifiable, but that's not quite the same thing as "right." In the same way, stealing bread to feed your family is still stealing, and should still be punished -- albeit leniently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whereas I believe that if your family is starving to death, and there aren't any other options likely to feed them - when your desperation isn't for yourself but for those you have a responsibility towards, in other words, and when it's a matter of life or death - not only is stealing the bread the right thing to do, but not stealing that bread is the wrong thing to do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rakeesh, you're conflating "innocent" and "morally correct".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't really think so, Porter, because I think right and wrong, innocent and guilty, morally correct and morally incorrect, are things that depend on context in many cases, maybe all cases.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am suggesting that after the torturer is arrested and charged with breaking the law against torturing, he have the opportunity to go to trial. At that trial, he could use a defense that is sometimes used when people break other laws - that they did a bad thing which should remain against the law but, in this particular case was better than not doing that bad thing.
You seem to be suggesting that torture shouldn't be against the law if in some extreme cases it is the right thing to do.
The necessity is a difficult defense but not impossible. Remember it was the one I was planning on using had they not dismissed the case.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Whereas I believe that if your family is starving to death, and there aren't any other options likely to feed them - when your desperation isn't for yourself but for those you have a responsibility towards, in other words, and when it's a matter of life or death - not only is stealing the bread the right thing to do, but not stealing that bread is the wrong thing to do.
Yeah, I think you are, Rakeesh. Just because in some situations stealing bread is the right thing to do doesn't make it legally OK, and doesn't make it something that we shouldn't enforce/punish.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think a case involving battlefield conditions in a foreign, chaotic, faraway nation might be a little more complicated than a case of trespassing. I don't see how anyone could prove, "If I hadn't tortured this suspect, these other people would definitely have committed an attack against my men."
And no, I'm not suggesting that torture shouldn't be against the law because of the extreme-est cases. I'm suggesting that you're not actually for it going unpunished, because the defense you're talking about allowing would be impossible to prove to court standards.
What I am trying to point out is that if we're going to be against torture, we should be against it. If we think there are nuanced situations, though, that might deserve a more careful consideration...we should make our laws reflect that. Not just say, "Well, just untie this gordian knot here and everything's kosher."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm suggesting that you're not actually for it going unpunished, because the defense you're talking about allowing would be impossible to prove to court standards.
Actually, I'm wondering whether the defense here would simply rely on a judge's finding of fact, which is considerably easier to prove than, say, guilt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do you keep saying that it is impossible to prove? If whoever is doing the torture has enough evidence to convince himself that torture is the only correct action, why won't that work for a jury? And if he doesn't, he shouldn't torture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because to prove something according to the standards you gave, certain things have to happen. For one thing, the enemies involved aside from the person being tortured would have to be caught and questioned to determine what they would have done based on their testimony.
For another, the very success made possible by any torture might easily destroy any possibility of proving its necessity after the fact in a court of law. Because, let's face it, if this guy West had come to you and said, "This man I tortured was known to be involved with these fighters, here's the evidence. These fighters are known to have been behind many attacks on our soldiers and government facilities in the area, here's the evidence. This guy wasn't cooperating with interrogation, here's the evidence. I tortured him and he gave evidence. We attacked based on that intelligence. They were where he said they'd be, and we stopped an attack."
If those things happened, and each piece in the chain was sound, would you, sitting on a jury, really say, "Well, that's good enough for me." Of course you wouldn't, or am I mistaken?
Anyway, the reality is quite different, of course. If this sort of thing actually did make it to court, as you acknowledged there's a very real chance the defense would be accepted by a jury...which is another reason I'm skeptical as to whether or not you actually want it to happen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't want the guy imprisoned without a trial.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:For another, the very success made possible by any torture might easily destroy any possibility of proving its necessity after the fact in a court of law. Because, let's face it, if this guy West had come to you and said, "This man I tortured was known to be involved with these fighters, here's the evidence. These fighters are known to have been behind many attacks on our soldiers and government facilities in the area, here's the evidence. This guy wasn't cooperating with interrogation, here's the evidence. I tortured him and he gave evidence. We attacked based on that intelligence. They were where he said they'd be, and we stopped an attack."
Would that be good enough for you, Rakeesh?
I don't consider that a situation where torture was warranted or the only resort. I think, given the facts I can see, Allen West got off very, very easily.
edit: There are exceedingly few cases where I'm willing to accept torture as justifiable. What you described seems to me like you're regarding torture in these cases as almost a routine activity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that West got off too easily, too. Looks like he basically did a military version of a plea bargain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know anywhere near enough facts, but my initial impression is that there was a sense that torturing people was something that was pretty much okay for our CIA agents and private company mercenaries to be doing and that it might be fine for our soldiers too and this sense led to him getting a slap on the wrist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I was abbreviating and distilling out of exasperation, it's true. I shouldn't have done that.
Lemme add in, then, that let's say this suspect is a known, say, planner in the ranks of our enemies. That is, he's been confirmed through multiple independent sources as one of the senior guys involved in choosing targets and planning attacks. His group attacks every few days at a minimum. It's been two days since the last attack. He's not talking. We know, as far as it's possible to know anything that isn't a simple mathematics problem, that he has the information needed, and no other sources have been able to predict attacks them with any success.
And yes, in this hypothetical, it is the last resort. Not the only resort-the other resorts have been tried. Surely that's not implausible, is it? Would that be justifiable?
And yet, if it was, it would be pretty much impossible to prove in a court of law-how do you prove it in a court of law when many if not all of the parties involved are either dead, the original suspect, American soldiers, or undercover intelligence assets?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you think that it's permissible to torture people because they have information about attacks that we want that they won't give us other ways?
You seem to be using a situation where torture is clearly not okay. Whether or not there are other ways to get the information (and you're assuming that torture is superior to other ways of getting information, which I don't believe is necessarily justified) is pretty much irrelevant.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I caught a few moments of Limbaugh the other day. He had a guest announcer doing his show. He reminds me of Mal's comments.
His answer to Afghanistan was simple--kill all the Taliban. Kill them all until there are no more. That, he believes, is what worked so well in Iraq. He suggested we up the forces in Afghanistan to the point that they could just kill all the Taliban.
How do you recognize the Taliban? He didn't say.
How do you stop the Taliban from recruiting outside Afghanistan? He didn't say.
His answer to winning the war in Afghanistan was just that--kill so many Taliban that they can't replace them fast enough.
Why do simple answers and bloody answers seem to be so popular? Wrong, but Popular
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you think that it's permissible to torture people because they have information about attacks that we want that they won't give us other ways?
So what would be one of those very rare situations you believe it's justifiable, if not a situation where the lives of soldiers or citizens are at imminent risk?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, presumably the defendant would testify at his trial. "Here is what I knew. Here are other ways I tried unsuccessfully to get the information. Here is how torture was successful in getting the information. Here is what was prevented because I got the information." If his testimony is uncontroverted and he is convincing, why wouldn't a jury buy it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The prosecutor wouldn't be able to controvert it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He would have to have witnesses and evidence, too, right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So you think that it's permissible to torture people because they have information about attacks that we want that they won't give us other ways?
So what would be one of those very rare situations you believe it's justifiable, if not a situation where the lives of soldiers or citizens are at imminent risk?
If your criteria is "our soldiers could be at risk", I don't see how that would never not be the case.
You're looking at this differently than I, I think. You seem to be trying to set up a set of criteria under which it's okay for people to torture.
I think that is morally abhorrent, especially because you seem to want to make it a commonplace occurrence. I'm just not willing to say that there is no case where I'd always consider torture unjustified. I see the very act of setting up standards as being tempting evil.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If we allow torturers to go unpunished, how many innocent men, women and children will be tortured? I include children because some of those enemy combatants were under 16 and still held for several years.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 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.
They aren't prisoners if they are killed. They are proud martyrs for their cause, in the midst of a war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He would have to have witnesses and evidence, too, right?
No, not really. You don't always need witnesses and evidence of your own to take down someone else's witnesses and evidence, do you?
quote: I think that is morally abhorrent, especially because you seem to want to make it a commonplace occurrence. I'm just not willing to say that there is no case where I'd always consider torture unjustified. I see the very act of setting up standards as being tempting evil.
Well, no, what I'm actually trying to do is to point out that if someone wants to say, "It's not always wrong," (or 'unjustifiable, and I wonder what the heck the difference is, really) then our law ought to reflect that it's not always wrong, as opposed to setting up a convenient prevarication that lets us on the one hand acknowledge that sometimes awful decisions have to be made, but on the other hand we're the good guys standing for truth, justice, and apple pie just the same.
Is it justifiable sometimes? I'm think it probably is. And I believe folks who also think that way ought to want the law to reflect the actual realities involved, as opposed to saying, "If the guy thinks it's the right thing to do, he should do it and accept the consequences," because that strikes me as a species of cowardice when the person saying it also thinks it might sometimes be the right thing to do.
It isn't right to make a person sacrifice something just to make ourselves feel better. I'm not saying it happens often or even anything but rarely, and I'm definitely not saying that it characterizes a lot of the scandals we've been dealing with as a country for the past, ugh, six or seven years or more.
So, no, I don't want to make torture commonplace. That would certainly make things easier when it comes to criticizing me though, wouldn't it?
----
quote:They aren't prisoners if they are killed. They are proud martyrs for their cause, in the midst of a war.
If someone surrenders on the battlefield and are then killed, they aren't 'not prisoners', they're 'murdered prisoners' and martyrs for their cause. And hey, if there's one thing America needs, it's to really infuriate everyone across the planet, sparking massive boosts in recruitment and fundraising. Dumbass.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, the law already does allow for torture to not always be wrong - just like it allows for homicide to not always be wrong. That is what I am saying. The way the law allows for "not always wrong" is an affirmative defense like self defense or necessity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I get that. What I'm trying to question is whether the affirmative defense is something you could actually believe in in a case involving torture. Whether it's something you actually buy into, or it's just something you have to live with being a part of a democracy and all that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that an affirmative defense could be as appropriate for torture as it is for murder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Then do you also think that there are circumstances under which a torturer should not be punished at all? Sometimes affirmative defenses work out that way.,
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Which generally still leaves quite a bit of leeway, neh?
Sentencing guidelines DO allow wiggle room, although often not much.
Minimums do NOT, and quite a few judges publicly oppose those minimum sentencing laws specifically because of that.
As far as I know, as a former soldier, torture is not allowed, condoned, or acceptable for members of the US armed forces. I know that some of the interrogation methods used sound like torture, but compared to ACTUAL torture they are mild in comparison.
I don't believe that under current UCMJ there IS a legal excuse/justification for torture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As opposed to what? Being punished after being found not guilty?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you get that the law allows for torture to not always be wrong, why are you saying that the law needs to be changed to reflect that torture is not always wrong?
---
boots brought up a point I was actually planning to. I view this similar to first degree murder.
There are a very limited set of circumstances where I think that premeditated murder may not be the wrong thing to do. But there's no way you should qualify this circumstances into law.
Setting up rules for when something is okay makes it so that thing is more likely to happen outside those rules.
If someone is making the decision to torture, the only way I see to keep a leash on it, is to have them have serious consequences that they will have to face. If it is still worth it given these consequences, then that's the choice they make.
If you standardize the use of torture, especially with as commonplace standards as you keep presenting, and you're going to have a lot of people thinking that whatever situation they're in fits or can be made to seem like it fits those standards.
A desire to torture an enemy who isn't telling you want you want to know is a pretty common thing. And hurting people to get them to say things makes a lot of sense if you don't examine it.
Introducing standards for when it is okay loosens the taboo on it, gives people an excuse to follow their inclinations towards it, and adds to the erroneous assumption that it is a superior form of interrogation to more restrained and complex ones.
Given that in the incredibly rare cases where it might actually be justified, there are mechanisms for exceptions to be made both through judicial and executive means, I don't see any benefit for what you seem to be asking. What benefit do you see to doing so that doesn't already exist, let alone outweighs the pretty terrible things I noted?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you get that the law allows for torture to not always be wrong, why are you saying that the law needs to be changed to reflect that torture is not always wrong?
I think we were talking at cross-purposes somewhat. I meant that the law should reflect that it's not always wrong, in opposition to the idea I thought (think?) kmbboots had that the law should say it's always wrong and must always be punished. Unless I've missed something, she has said that there should be the 'possibility' for an out...but not that she ever thinks it should be attainable.
quote: Given that in the incredibly rare cases where it might actually be justified, there are mechanisms for exceptions to be made both through judicial and executive means, I don't see any benefit for what you seem to be asking. What benefit do you see to doing so that doesn't already exist, let alone outweighs the pretty terrible things I noted?
Well, you're mistaken about what I'm asking, which is mostly my fault. I'm not advocating for a slackening of standards, I'm arguing against a strengthening of those standards, something I think kmbboots is arguing for. That's a bit of a different thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, MrSquicky, for making that more clear than I have been able to.
Torture is a crime. In some rare instances a crime is justified. There are legal remedies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you think there should be legal remedies? Do you think torture is one of those crimes which may sometimes be rarely justified?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I loved the scene in Futurama where Nibbler tells Fry, it is the fate of the universe versus the life on one man. And Fry looks at him and says, "But it was my life."
I want the decision to not be is this nameless enemy's pain worth the gain, but is the cost to me personally worth it. Because when it is your life, what is justifiable is different.
Do I think that there is a situation where torture might be justified? Right now, no. I have not yet been convinced that it is an effective way of gathering information. However, put me on a jury, let me hear the facts and I will consider whether or not I would have done it or ordered it done. If I would have, I would be willing to vote in favor of no punishment.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I am completely opposed to torture but wonder about the shifting definition of torture. Now it's torture to not have your cell lights turned off and to have to listen to Brittany Spears over and over. When the constitution was written, it wasn't cruel or unusual punishment to shoot a murderer in the head, now we argue about the 3 or 1 drug injection method. When you can't change the rule, shift the definition....a common tactic in many areas of govt.
[ December 12, 2009, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ugh. The Constitution specifically allows for changing the rules. That the rules will change is literally in the rules, you dummy.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)