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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think there should be legal remedies? Do you think torture is one of those crimes which may sometimes be rarely justified?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Ugh. The Constitution specifically allows for changing the rules. That the rules will change is literally in the rules, you dummy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
