It’s quite adorable seeing the US trying to deal with the power it has. “Are we a shining beacon on a hill or are we, maybe, the baddies?”
Tricky, eh? Good luck!
Consider Scalia citing 24, saying that no jury would convict Jack Bauer. They wouldn’t because, in that universe, it actually works.
Most strict constructionists use tv characters/situations to bolster their arguments, *just like the Founding Fathers did. *
But there was no such “24” scenario. It didn’t happen. What is the source of my confidence that it didn’t? The dog that did not bark in the nighttime. If it had happened they would have* told* us that it happened, they would have found a way to tell us that it happened.
All those desperately important reasons they can’t tell us shit would have been suspended, an exception would have been made.
And they would have told us. They did not. Quod erat dumbonstrum.
(Latin for even a total 'tard can see that.)
I never understand this idea. Someone breaks into your home and starts to torture you to get the combination of your safe. How long before you tell them? Torture may not work in some situations, but it clearly does in others.
You actually think the BoR applies to non-US citizens outside the US?
Scalia was addressing a hypothetical. No one is claiming there was a nuclear bomb in LA.
When I read it, since the headline was pretty declarative, I assumed the article I was reading was a validation of that headline. It seemed that way, but I could see that the sheer totality of the redacted names means that there is no way to be 100% sure, and perhaps that is all the author was alluding to with that last bit. I agree it seems strange that the headline is so forceful and then the ending is weasely. My feeling is that perhaps the author didn’t write the headline; headlines are notoriously misleading and sensationalist and often written by an editor.
You ask this as if it were a settled question. The D.C. Circuit thinks that non-citizens in Gitmo are indeed entitled to certain rights in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has already rules that at least some constitutional protections apply to them, including the right of habeas corpus. Scalia disagrees, but Scalia only gets one vote.
Well, thanks for that, John. I appreciate your generous tolerance of my cognitive impairments.
I was talking about the BoR in its entirety as that poster was assuming. Just because something is in the BoR does not mean that it applies to non-citizens outside US borders.
What’s interesting about the Daily Kos article is that it claims:
And, of course, its loyal readers are going to assume that he says it isn’t. Most probably don’t go to the actual source reference to see:
So, Scalia “weighs in” on whether it’s legal to torture prisoners… and agrees that it is illegal. News at 11?
Depends on the type of information, I suppose.
I think torture is morally repugnant. I’m just saying, its effectiveness probably depends on the type of information.
nm
Quite possibly never, since you may well end up too incoherent or dead to answer them, kill yourself, or suffer torture induced memory loss.
That is the opposite of the ticking time bomb scenario being discussed, because the terrorist controls the timeline. Even if the terrorist and the torture victim are the same person, this means they know your capacity to inflict pain is finite. That’s the worst possible scenario for the torturer - all the terrorist needs to do is hold out for a few hours and they win.
Having had the misfortune to talk to people who were tortured and did break under it, I’d say a better way to put it is that there are a limited number of circumstances and ways it works.
For example were the Nazis quite good at breaking members of the French resistance into giving up the names of other resistance members? Yes, though I sometimes wonder how often those being tortured may have lied and given up the names of non-resistance members. One stat I heard was that most members of the French resistance were active less than a week before being captured and usually the evidence that got them captured was aquired via torture.
Also of course both the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam tortured people to get false confessions of war crimes and/or terrorism from captured POWs or dissidents, but that’s hardly comparable to the gaining of “actionable intelligence” and even then, in both the Vietnam and Korean War some of the POWs turned the tables by filling confessions with phrases like “squad leader Captain Clark Kent” or “Lieutenant Joe Palooka” or having pictures of smiling American POWs giving the finger to the camera next to North Korean guards unaware of the nature of the gesture.
I would think that it’s pretty ineffective if they had to do it 125 times. At some point you’d think either he’d told everything he knew or he was never going to, at least by the use of that tactic.
This has become a new litmus test for me. If you support torture under any circumstance, or if you deny what the US did was torture, you are an asshole beyond any redemption.
I am surprised. You can call me naive. This has been a rude awakening.
The thing is, NOBODY deserves torture. Not even the torturers themselves. It’s not about them, It’s about you.
It would be nice then if your politicos stopped shouting that you’re the greatest nation on earth.
I have noticed that many assholes like that also support coups in other nations if the ones making the coups are right wingers (and then when those right wingers use torture against their people they are excused by those assholes in the USA). Their lack of humanity is observed on how that group also seems to match the ones opposed to health care reform.
It is a more harmful form of crank magnetism, and unfortunately many independents and moderate Republicans are not aware that virtually the same kind of people are being sent to congress thanks to their own votes.
There’s a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in LA. You have the person who planted it but you don’t know where he did it.
Is torture a reasonable solution to this problem?
I think so. I think what the CIA did was abhorrent, because we were never facing anything quite as clear-cut as that (a combination of the information being easily checked so that they couldn’t really lie their way out of it, and vital to the survival of innocents). But let’s not draw our lines quite so deep in the sand.