|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I'd rather he suffer some pain and humiliation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news.
|
Funny, I'd rather detainees be put through procedural due process and interrogated properly, rather than have them tortured and be later released to blow up my loved ones on the six o'clock news. |
It's only funny because not only did you take my quote out of context you also edited it to remove the most relevant part.
I said " when it comes right down to it,I'd rather he suffer some pain and humilation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news."
In other words if waterboarding was the only thing to make him talk and the threat was immediate and critical, then I would support waterboarding.
I also pointed out this should only take place if we have grounds for believing this guy is a terrorist (in other words proof).
If you have proof that someone is a terrorist...he isn't going to be let free to blow up anyone. |
Well, the ticking time-bomb canard has been dealt with well by John McCain. You set the law to allow no torture, under any circumstances. If someone is in a ticking time-bomb scenario, they can break the law and be forced to justify their behavior in a court of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like that way of thinking. The more I hear about John McCain after the election the more I've started to respect the man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I'd rather he suffer some pain and humiliation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news.
|
Funny, I'd rather detainees be put through procedural due process and interrogated properly, rather than have them tortured and be later released to blow up my loved ones on the six o'clock news. |
It's only funny because not only did you take my quote out of context you also edited it to remove the most relevant part.
I said " when it comes right down to it,I'd rather he suffer some pain and humilation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news."
In other words if waterboarding was the only thing to make him talk and the threat was immediate and critical, then I would support waterboarding.
I also pointed out this should only take place if we have grounds for believing this guy is a terrorist (in other words proof).
If you have proof that someone is a terrorist...he isn't going to be let free to blow up anyone. |
Well, the ticking time-bomb canard has been dealt with well by John McCain. You set the law to allow no torture, under any circumstances. If someone is in a ticking time-bomb scenario, they can break the law and be forced to justify their behavior in a court of law. |
Well now we are getting away from the original question...but to answer this:
Sound in theory, but not so much in practice like much of McCain's ideas (see his platform when he was running for president)
If the law allows for NO torture under any circumstances then it doesn't matter what justification the person had...he's going to jail. Even if the torture was done in order to find a nuclear device and save a few million people.
Remember this law says "no torture under ANY circumstances."
I'd rather go with something that says torture is permissible under extenuating circumstances AND that spells out clearly what these circumstances are. That's likely what such a law as McCain proposed would end up doing in practice anyway.., Hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I'd rather he suffer some pain and humiliation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news.
|
Funny, I'd rather detainees be put through procedural due process and interrogated properly, rather than have them tortured and be later released to blow up my loved ones on the six o'clock news. |
It's only funny because not only did you take my quote out of context you also edited it to remove the most relevant part.
I said " when it comes right down to it,I'd rather he suffer some pain and humilation at the expense of his civil rights then watch my loved ones being blown up on the six o'clock news."
In other words if waterboarding was the only thing to make him talk and the threat was immediate and critical, then I would support waterboarding.
I also pointed out this should only take place if we have grounds for believing this guy is a terrorist (in other words proof).
If you have proof that someone is a terrorist...he isn't going to be let free to blow up anyone. |
Well, the ticking time-bomb canard has been dealt with well by John McCain. You set the law to allow no torture, under any circumstances. If someone is in a ticking time-bomb scenario, they can break the law and be forced to justify their behavior in a court of law. |
Well now we are getting away from the original question...but to answer this:
Sound in theory, but not so much in practice like much of McCain's ideas (see his platform when he was running for president)
If the law allows for NO torture under any circumstances then it doesn't matter what justification the person had...he's going to jail. Even if the torture was done in order to find a nuclear device and save a few million people.
Remember this law says "no torture under ANY circumstances."
I'd rather go with something that says torture is permissible under extenuating circumstances AND that spells out clearly what these circumstances are. That's likely what such a law as McCain proposed would end up doing in practice anyway.., Hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families. |
Exactly. Its hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families.
The lawyer is going to invoke justification, and although self-defense is the most common form of justification, you can be confident that national security is even more compelling.
And if that fails, there's always a Presidential pardon.
The rule of law is pretty nimble, if only we would recognize it has served us best this far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The idea behind torture is based on a false premise - that intelligence gathering is already near 100% efficiency and just needs a little tweak here and there in order to get the extra information needed. What is really needed is quite simple - better intelligence gathering. There's a reason the CIA is offering hiring bonuses of up to $35,000 for those fluent in "mission critical" languages.
Debating the odd use of torture here and there before this is taken care of is like an overweight boxer debating whether it would be possible to win more by getting a few low blows in when nobody's looking when really what he needs to do is start working out and training again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
OTOH poses a really good question.
If it was quite OK to perform 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on loonie religious fundamentalists who were a danger to Americans, shouldn't it be OK to do the same to this other loonie religious fundamentalist? After all, there's supposedly a 'ticking bomb' with a whole terrorist cell out there with plans to perform Christian jihad on American medical practitioners. If you believe the former scenario was justified, then you are a hypocrite if you believe it is not justified in the latter case. In fact, at least with the latter there's even more justification, because we have a fairly good inkling that the guy is guilty, whereas with many of the poor sods incarcerated in Guantanamo, the chances are they'd been picked up mistakenly.
My own take (just for those idiots who will now assume I'm endorsing torture) I don't believe we should ever go down the path of torture, because even though this guy no doubt deserves it, in the end it isgenerally ineffective anyway and too many innocents will get burnt. |
Big_Birds justice: Innocent babies okay to torture. Guilty terrorists, no way. |
Chris2007's justice: 9 year old girls OK to torture.
| Quote: |
The 9-year-old girl had been raped by her father. She was 18 weeks pregnant. Carrying the baby to term, going through labor and delivery, would have ripped her small body apart.
There was no doctor in her rural Southern town to provide her with an abortion. No area hospital would even consider taking her case.
Susan Hill, the president of the National Women�s Health Foundation, which operates reproductive health clinics in areas where abortion services are scarce or nonexisistent, called Dr. George Tiller, the Wichita, Kan., ob-gyn who last Sunday was shot to death by an abortion foe in the entry foyer of his church.
She begged.
�I only asked him for a favor when it was a really desperate story, not a semi-desperate story,� she told me this week. Tiller was known to abortion providers � and opponents � as the �doctor of last resort� � the one who took the patients no one else would touch.
�He took her for free,� she said. �He kept her three days. He checked her himself every few hours. She and her sister came back to me and said he couldn�t have been more wonderful. That�s just the way he was.� |
Dr. Tiller�s Important Job
I bet you care about the babies until they are born. Then you don't give a toss. Most of the babies who Tiller aborted were unviable. Babies who were not compatable with life. In other words, although in most cases their parents dearly wanted them, these babies were dying. They were expected to die before birth, or shortly after. Some mothers chose to have their babies die peacefully, warm and cosy inside them, rather than let them out into the world to die a cruel death, gasping for a life that they could never have. I have great sympathy for all involved.
You on the other hand sit in judgement of what you don't understand, and have never had to face. Shame on you.
Read these stories of mothers (and some fathers) who still grieve for the little babies they had to abort. Babies they loved and wanted, but could not have because the babies were not properly formed.
Warning: following this link may cause you to cry.
A heartbreaking choice
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| �Late abortion is not a failure of contraception. It�s for medical reasons,� Eleanor Smeal, the president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who has worked to defend abortion providers like Tiller against harassment and violence since the mid-1980s, told me this week. �We�ve made pregnancy a fairy tale where there are no fetal complications, there�s no cancer, no terrible abuse of girls, no cases where to make a girl go all the way through a pregnancy is to destroy her. These are the realities of the story. That�s what Dr. Tiller worked with � the realities.� |
| Quote: |
Most Americans, I�m sure, do not believe that a 9-year-old should be forced to bear a child, or that a woman should have no choice but to risk her life to carry a pregnancy to term.
By averting our eyes from the ugliness and tragedy that accompany some pregnancies, we have allowed anti-abortion activists to define the dilemma of late abortion. We have allowed them to isolate and vilify doctors like Tiller.
We can no longer be complicit � through our muted disapproval or our complacency � in domestic terror.
|
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/george-tiller/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Exactly. Its hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families.
The lawyer is going to invoke justification, and although self-defense is the most common form of justification, you can be confident that national security is even more compelling.
And if that fails, there's always a Presidential pardon. |
Let's not forget jury nullification which essentially gives the jury the right to judge the law as well as the defendant in any particular case.
More info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Exactly. Its hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families.
The lawyer is going to invoke justification, and although self-defense is the most common form of justification, you can be confident that national security is even more compelling.
And if that fails, there's always a Presidential pardon. |
Let's not forget jury nullification which essentially gives the jury the right to judge the law as well as the defendant in any particular case.
More info. |
But we want laws prohibiting torture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I bet you care about the babies until they are born. Then you don't give a toss. Most of the babies who Tiller aborted were unviable. Babies who were not compatable with life. In other words, although in most cases their parents dearly wanted them, these babies were dying. They were expected to die before birth, or shortly after. Some mothers chose to have their babies die peacefully, warm and cosy inside them, rather than let them out into the world to die a cruel death, gasping for a life that they could never have. I have great sympathy for all involved.
You on the other hand sit in judgement of what you don't understand, and have never had to face. Shame on you.
|
Yep, thats right Big_Bird...doctors always have it right. Their prognosis is never wrong and NONE of those babies stood ANY chance at life, much less a good life. 
Dr Tiller was a monster who even bragged about aborting babies just one day before the due date. A monster you �greatly admire� if I remember correctly. He committed acts you wouldn't dream of committing against your own children, no matter what their health condition. Yet you advocate it for those kids who don't even have a voice. Instead of giving the kid a chance at life you actively support its dismemberment, when you should at least err on the side of life - like you would with your children who are already born. But touch a hair on the head of known terrorist � heavens no! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You must be some rigid fanatic, ignorant of reality, or some idiot troll. Either way, you are a waste of my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| You must be some rigid fanatic, ignorant of reality, or some idiot troll. Either way, you are a waste of my time. |
Good thing there's no TOS on this board...oh wait... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Should Christian terrorists get enhanced interrogation? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Exactly. Its hard to imagine a jury convicting someone who's saved their lives and their families.
The lawyer is going to invoke justification, and although self-defense is the most common form of justification, you can be confident that national security is even more compelling.
And if that fails, there's always a Presidential pardon. |
Let's not forget jury nullification which essentially gives the jury the right to judge the law as well as the defendant in any particular case.
More info. |
But we want laws prohibiting torture. |
When jury nullification is invoked, it is specific to the case. Thus someone who may have violated the terms of the law can be found not guilty if the jury feels it wold be a miscarriage of justice to find otherwise. It does not inactivate the law for any other case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| You must be some rigid fanatic, ignorant of reality, or some idiot troll. Either way, you are a waste of my time. |
Good thing there's no TOS on this board...oh wait... |
Interesting that in your book calling someone an idiot troll is worse than accusing someone of finding it acceptable to torture babies. Well, I wouldn't expect any better from you, TUM.
And if you check chris2007's posting history, you'll find he hasn't posted much in the two years since he's joined. Very likely a sock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| You must be some rigid fanatic, ignorant of reality, or some idiot troll. Either way, you are a waste of my time. |
Good thing there's no TOS on this board...oh wait... |
Interesting that in your book calling someone an idiot troll is worse than accusing someone of finding it acceptable to torture babies. Well, I wouldn't expect any better from you, TUM.
It seemed to me that when he mentioned torturing babies he was talking about ABORTION...I highly doubt he or anyone else believes that you find it acceptable to waterboard infants. Yes, I am not capable of any better behaviour, such as when I backed you on that pirates thread...I must admit that was really low.
And if you check chris2007's posting history, you'll find he hasn't posted much in the two years since he's joined. Very likely a sock. |
Or maybe he has better things to do, and only pops in the odd time when there's a thread that interests him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
