Would you support torture in certain situations in prison

I've been asking the same question for a lot longer than this. I'd guess the survivors of 9/11 want to know too.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...k-mohammed-still-alive-youve-got-kidding.html

 

There certain things which are undeniably "torture". Other methods of extracting information are subjective, and may or may not be considered ""torture". Same situation exists with the word tyrannical. Sometimes sure. Other cases, not so sure.

 

Two simple reasons, one legal and the other based upon the ideals upon which America was founded.

First of all KSM has never been convicted of any offenses in a court of law and people admit to crimes they didn't commit all of the time. We could also note that if KSM had been extradited from a country like Great Britian as opposed to Pakistan then the death penalty couldn't even be imposed as it would violate our extradition treaty with Great Britian that prohibits the death penalty for anyone extradited from Britian to the the United States.

Next is that clause in the Declaration of Independence which states:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The expressed purpose of our government is to protect the inalienable Rights of all People and the death penalty, which violates the unalienable Right to Life of the Person, is completely unnecessary to protect us from even the most heinous of actions by individuals. The death penalty is an unnecessary and therefore a tyrannical act of government that violates the inalienable Rights of the Individual person and violates the ideals upon which America was founded as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

I find it both sad and inexcusable that so many Americans simply don't understand how important the ideals upon which America was founded really are. They've never taken the time to understand what inalienable Rights really are and, because of ignorance, often advocate violating them by tyrannical acts of government. The don't understand that the purpose of our government is to protect the Rights of Every Individual and that any infringement upon those Rights must be based upon the pragmatic requirements related to protecting these Rights. Incarceration to prevent a person that has demonstrated they would violate our Rights by committing heinous acts is a pragmatic infringement but the death penality is not because incarceration provides all of the protections required.

We don't need to allow our government to commit premeditated murder to Protect the American People from even the most heinous criminal actions of individuals.

 

It is a good question.

Because there's been no real proper trial process, we can only speculate.

As was mentioned by ShivaTD, people do admit to things they didn't do all the time.. For example, why did many different people claim to have abducted baby Lindberg? Why did a man allow himself to be hung, in England, for starting the fire of London, when he didn't? There's many reasons and you must start considering psychology and other factors.

Since all we have is speculation, I'll offer my thoughts on this case.

KSM seems to be a part of AQ, and hostile towards the United States, even prior to his capture in 2003.

The 9/11 commission report claims he was the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attack, and that his plot was even an adaptation made to his previous Bojinka airline plot, " the planes operation".

This account is fully based on what the CIA claim they got him to say after having subjected him to the psychosis inducing procedures like long term sleep deprivation (the waterboarding was a part but is not the biggest IMO).

Nevertheless, 9/11 prompted the biggest and most expensive and manpower intensive criminal investigation in the history of the world.

Yet, there's simply no evidence confirming the story told by KSM.. There's more hard evidence against Mohammed Atta regarding plotting of the operation. We have a phone call between these two, on 9/10, which we don't know what was being said. It's possible that KSM as part of AQ at the higher levels was aware of the plot, and was giving a "good luck Allahu Akbar" type call.

KSM most likely knows that, irrespective of what happens in any trials or proceedings, he won't ever be released. He's caught by the enemy. There are any number of reasons why he might want to boast about how he was behind the plot from "A to Z".. Perhaps to take the heat off of the REAL plotters, who are busy plotting further attacks (remember KSM isn't likely to know what's going on in the outside world at any point), perhaps to cement his own legacy, make himself be a martyr and exaggerate his accomplishment (for him this would be a big accomplishment, and remember him and his codefendents actually tried to plead guilty at one point to be martyred and receive death) or perhaps he actually genuinely believes a past that isn't even really true thanks to CIA psychological reprogramming techniques that were used on him, as originally designed in the now disclosed "MKULTRA" program.

Who knows.. The point is, the clamoring for extrajudicial executions, often comes from outside, thanks to government sponsored confirmation bias in the general population. The tale that they want people to believe, is being told, and history is being written, in real time.

 

One point I would bring up related to KSM and other's that are going to be subjected to a trial by a US military tribunal. Convictions based upon the decisions of a military tribunal will always be questionable because the military has an inherent bias. They will not be "fair" trials regardless of how fair those on the tribunals attempt to be because of the inherent bias of those judging the accused. It would be hard enough to achieve a fair trial in a criminal court in the US but the odds are far better in a criminal court than a trial by a military tribunal.

We can also note that Osama bin Ladin was never found guilty of any criminal offenses. People assume he was guilty but that was never determined by a court of law. At best we can say he was killed resisting arrest but never found guilty of any criminal offense. We don't even know what evidence the US Justice Department had that he was a co-conspirator in the 1998 African Embassy bombings which was the only criminal indictment against bin Ladin.

We do know that our government is violating the US Constitution in it's actions related to suspected terrorists at GITMO. The US Government is not following the Constitution in the detention and prosecution of those being held at GITMO. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and/or 14th Amendment have been violated related to all of the criminal suspects being held at GITMO by the US government. Why are we, American citizens, allowing these Constitutional violations? The violation of "due process of the law" of any person by our government violates that Right for ALL Americans and not just those that are being denied that due process.

 

In KSM's case, not only is it the problem with the inherent bias as you suggested, but also the fact that he's been tortured, and also the fact that it will be a subsequent attempt.

Basically, he was being tried by a tribunal.. While political reasons were officially cited, the trial ceased. Now it's a "do over" trial, if this new one actually ever gets underway that is.

So basically, we are allowing a precedent where, if we don't like the way a trial is going, we can stop that trial, and start a brand new one later, and try again.. Basically a mulligan.

Unfortunate as it is, the suggested historical lesson would be the witch trials of Salem Massachusetts. We seem to be moving backwards towards that mentality.

 

I believe that the reason the first trial was aborted is because it was unconstitutional and not supported by the laws of the United States. Congress had to address the issue of "legality" because military tribunals had no authority to hear a criminal case.

It can also be noted that evidence that would be prohibited by any criminal court is being allowed. Generally speaking if the government violates the law or the US Constitution evidence obtained from those violations is excluded from use by the prosecution. That has been safeguard against the tyranny and abuse by government, but under some conditions, this has protection has been denied to KSM and others being prosecuted at GITMO. Some "evidence" that was obtained using torture is being allowed and that is a gross violation of the US Constitution IMHO.

The results are going to be tainted and we all know that. Terrorists around the world will refer to these trials as being the decisions of kangaroo courts and they will be truthful in saying so, Even I, a person that advocates justice, will call these the decisions of a kangroo court because they really are. Everything is stacked agains the accused and there will be no justice. The sole purpose of the tribunals is to reach a verdict of guilty.

 

The current version of the Estados Unidos isn't capable of fighting this quasi-criminal/quasi-military struggle because its judicial system and military are not organized philosophically or practically to deal with people who are neither soldiers nor criminals. That's why Uncle Sam is losing this struggle.

Obama promised to close Gitmo. He could do so easily by exercising the pardon power. Pardon KSM and all of the other detainees held at Gitmo and send them to Mali or Yemen where they will be welcomed.

 

1. One of our founding fathers, George Washington, ordered the firing squad execution of not only British soldiers but some Americans too. Executions have been done under every presidential administration in America.

2. That KSM has not been convicted is because he hasn't yet even been tried. The question is why not ??? (when other radical Muslims accused of murder years after KSM, have been tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed - example: the beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad)

3. You say the death penalty is completely unnecessary to protect us from even the most heinous of actions by individuals. I disagree. I say it is necessary.

4. You say "We don't need to allow our government to commit premeditated murder to Protect the American People from even the most heinous criminal actions of individuals." Other than executing them, how could you protect the American people from them ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Partly because wherever he would be tried pseudo-conservative groups throw up a storm and demand his immediate torture for all eternity in an unconstitutional prison.

The death penalty is unnecessary just like the entire system of government enforced law and order is.

If you want the death penalty as a deterrent then establish it as a condition of entry to your property. For example, make it a condition that anyone found breaking the following rules as determined by arbitration agency A will be executed by whatever method you prefer. Don't go on other people's private property unless it stipulates the same.

This would be an entirely fine and non-coercive manor of carrying out the law of the land (your land) without worrying about ethical considerations: they already agreed to this.

Of course, this is impossible due to government force.

Why protect the American people? Let them choose for themselves which penalties are valid as outlined above. Then everyone is happy.

 

Before addressing a response I would remind everyone of the ideal upon which American government was founded as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Two simple but eloquent sentences that we have always strived for but never achieved. In fact, as the founders soon learned, it is an impossible ideal to met as individuals are inclined to violate the inalienable Rights of other individuals which drives a pragmatic infringement upon our inalienable Rights merely to provide the protections of the Rights of the many individuals over the absolute protections of the Rights of individuals that would violate the Rights of others. It is a pragmatic necessity but, logically, this necessity needs only impose the least infringement necessary to achieve the protections of the Rights of others. It also establishes that the powers of government are derived from the powers of the individual. We cannot delegate a power to government that we don't inherently possess as individuals.

Our government, including every president, has violated the ideals upon which America was founded as expressed in the Declaration of Independence which I've cited. Many, including Washington, also owned slaves which clearly violated the ideals upon which our government was founded. In the over 200 years since the founding of our government we have constantly strived to move towards the fulfillment of our ideals and it has been a rocky road generally with two steps forward and one step back but we do continue to move forward. We abolished slavery (with the exception of slavery imposed based upon criminal convictions), established the Rights of Women (although they are still infringed unon), and abolished racial discrimination under the law but there is still much more to do. We're a long ways from meeting the ideal or even coming close. Ending the death penality is one of the many remaining hurdles to reaching the goal established by the Declaration of Independence.

Of note I was unable to confirm that every president has presided over a federal execution. A state execution is not carried out under the authority authority of the President of the United States. The president, in Article II Section 2 does have the "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" but this, by it's wording, is related to violations of Federal law and not State law. An execution committed by a State government is beyond the authority of the president to stop based upon the US Constitution.

This is fundamentally true. President Obama attempted to bring KSM to trial in New York in a criminal court of law under the provisions of the US Constitution but Congress blocked that effort instead choosing to usurpt the Constitutional protections for all individuals in seeking to ensure conviction. This violation of "due processs of the law" with the protections afforded by the Constitution for those accused of a criminal act are the exact reason why no one in the world should be able to ever consider that KSM will receive a fair trial. Congress, by legal fiat, has created a kangaroo court comprised of little more than vigilantess waiving due process of the law and the Constitutional protections which are the foundation for justice in the United States. KSM will never receive a fair trial by a military tribunal and that is a known fact. The military is inherently prejudiced, as it should be, and should never be used in a criminal case because of this fact.

Life imprisonment without parole provides the protections for the inalienable Rights of the People necessary. It is the "least infringement necessary to achieve the protections of our inalienable Rights" and is therefore the maximum necessary infringement necessary under the ideals upon which America was founded. As I've also noted the government derives it's powers from the powers of the individual and no individual has the Right (power) to commit the premeditated murder of another individual. The death penalty clearly violates the ideals upon which America was founded as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and is an unnecessary infringement upon the inalienable Rights of the Person that cannot be supported based upon any pragmatic necessity. We can protect ourselves by incarceration and have no need to murder someone to protect our inalienable Rights.

 

That the people who write the rules are mentally ill.

 

I want to say yes, for them to know whow it feels, but NO because its the same as killing. let God be the judge.

 

no killing is killing, torture is torture. killing isn't murder but murder is killing. reasons behind matter.

And I don't believe there'll be a god who will judge, so i'd rather have it here on earth.

 

Well, I don't believe us saying yes or no to torture will ever really prevent the US from doing it anyway. It will still be done, it just won't be legal, so they'll keep it a secret or find some kind of legal loop hole.

But no, I wouldn't condone torture. I have never seen torture, but I could imagine it's as messy and horrible as reverse surgery, that is peeling the body of a human being apart explicitly to injure. The very process makes any information gained from it highly susceptible. If our country legalizes that kind of action, I think we can throw the rest of our so called morals and integrity out the window.

 

hopefully they'll develop cleaner methods than the one you described. The important thing in this case is that they get the information that they need to prevent attacks, it's well worth it in my view.

 

Cleaner methods, lol. Just because torture isn't messy doesn't make it better. But I get what your saying. Honestly, I really wouldn't want to make the call. While at some point the extremely good person might be absolutely compelled to use it, allowing it gives that same capability to lunatics and sadists to use to whatever means necessary for whatever means.

It may work, or it may not, but I would never legalize it. Ever.

.

 

Im pretty certain it works alright. Cant everything granred to the government be misused by lunatics? I dont see wjat special about torture.

 

Yeah, but other laws counteract the exact freedom a person has to pervade those laws, like no killing and stealing.

But torture...how can limit an unethical act with ethical laws? Allowing things like this seems to be an slow, incremental progress to even more abusive laws in the future. You know the saying...give them an inch, they take a mile.

 

for the same reason that the death penalty isn't used for shoplifting I believe torture can also be contained to what is reasonable. We've gots lots of slippery slopes that haven't happened yet.

 

And our point is that it's never reasonable.

 

not his, I believe he made the slippery slope argument. i think

and you, even under perfect circumstances ensuring that no innocent would ever be falsely convicted, would still not support either torture or death? geez, you can't really claim any moral highground you know.

 

Once you define torture (as the Spanish Inquisitors clearly categorized water boarding) you confront general principle - May any State arrogate to itself the right to torture people for whatever pretext it chooses? I would deny such a prerogative to any political regime. That some might still engage in the ancient practice is inevitable, but sanctioning such a recourse would only encourage their employing it, and not just covertly and under extreme and extraordinary circumstances.

Similarly, I would not surrender to any State the right to kill people in cold blood. China, together with Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the US (the only G7 country to still execute people) carried out the most executions last year.

Applicable apothegms: Lead by example. What goes around comes around. What's good for the goose...

 

Hey natty.

Good to see someone named after a character my Great Uncle Hugh created.