|
Shock jock who supported torture changed by being waterboarded... (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
*ahem* 22 yr old. :)
well 17sss- what do you suggest is the answer to everything? i just want to know really bad. |
ask your boy. he's the one with all the answers. I'm sure you've noticed by now. ;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
The article is actually titled "On Torture, Holder undoes Holder." It was written by former NY Assistant U.S. State's Attorney Andrew McCarthey... he lead the prosecution against the 1993 WTC bombing suspects Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, and also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He's also the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center for Law and Counterterrorism. |
AND? I don't care who wrote it.
| quote: | Sorry if I put more stock in the legal knowledge of that guy over Krypton the 21 year old glowsticker.
You're terrified to admit that he makes more sense than you do. |
Yea right. Is that all you'v got? We should end the debate now...:stongue: |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
AND? I don't care who wrote it. |
You should care who wrote it... the person writing it and their credentials gives the level of credibility and knowledge to what they're saying.
| quote: | | Yea right. Is that all you'v got? We should end the debate now...:stongue: |
Well, we should. Because you obviously didn't read or understand the difference between specific intent vs. general intent, which is the basis for the legality of waterboarding. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is... the law is very clear:
With a general intent crime, "To find guilt, all the jury (the “neutral trier of fact”) has to determine is (a) that you knew what you were doing (i.e., you intended to shoot the gun or rob the bank — you didn’t do it by mistake), and (b) the result was the logical outcome that anyone who performed such an act should have expected."
| quote: | Torture, however, is not a general-intent crime. It calls for proof of specific intent. As I recently recounted, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals explained the difference in its Pierre case last year: to establish torture, it must be proved that the accused torturer had “the motive or purpose” to commit torture. Sharpening the distinction, the judges used an example from a prior torture case — an example that thoroughly refutes Holder’s attempt to downgrade torture to a general-intent offense: “The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”
To state the matter plainly, the CIA interrogators did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so. The law of the United States holds that, even where an actor does inflict severe pain, there is still no torture unless it was his objective to do so. It doesn’t matter what the average person might think the “logical” result of the action would be; it matters what specifically was in the mind of the alleged torturer — if his motive was not to torture, it is not torture. One might have expected Holder to know that. |
And that's the point... you're going based on what you think the logical result of the action of waterboarding is, not the legal definitions. The objective/intent was to obtain information, NOT to inflict lasting physical or mental harm. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law. Like the other poster said, Mankow was back in his chair 10 minutes later doing his program. Are you telling me he has endured psychological damage? |
|
|
| yukii |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
The objective/intent was to obtain information, NOT to inflict lasting physical or mental harm. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law. |
there's a 50/50 chance that information is even correct when you're torturing- what gives?  |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
there's a 50/50 chance that information is even correct when you're torturing- what gives? |
Is that the statistic? 50/50? Well, if you ask George Tenant, the CIA director appointed by Clinton, even he said the information obtained by waterboarding KSM and the other 2 people lead to more real, valuable information on their plans and Al Qaeda than anything the FBI, CIA, and NSA had COMBINED. Even if it didn't fit within the legal boundaries, which it does, I see no issue doing that to a guy who bragged about beheading journalist Daniel Pearl with a knife so dull, it took a while to saw it off. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I'd imagine that the psychological effect on Mancow would have been quite different if he weren't able to tell them to stop whenever he wanted. |
|
|
| yukii |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Is that the statistic? 50/50? Well, if you ask George Tenant, the CIA director appointed by Clinton, even he said the information obtained by waterboarding KSM and the other 2 people lead to more real, valuable information on their plans and Al Qaeda than anything the FBI, CIA, and NSA had COMBINED. Even if it didn't fit within the legal boundaries, which it does, I see no issue doing that to a guy who bragged about beheading journalist Daniel Pearl with a knife so dull, it took a while to saw it off. |
i know torturing KSM lead to valuable information, but the question i find myself asking is, should we really sink down to their level?
ffs, i couldn't watch the daniel pearl vid- if they want to play the game dirty then let them :mad: i dont want my gov torturing people- forget laws & legal boundaries, what happened to the respect & morals of being a ing fellow human being? :conf: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You should care who wrote it... the person writing it and their credentials gives the level of credibility and knowledge to what they're saying. |
That's great. Doesn't make the article any more right.
| quote: | | Well, we should. Because you obviously didn't read or understand the difference between specific intent vs. general intent, which is the basis for the legality of waterboarding. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is... the law is very clear: |
Right, water boarding some one 183 times does no psychological damage. If we wouldn't do it to our own citizens, then we shouldn't be doing it to anyone, and then claim we hold the moral high ground.
| quote: | | With a general intent crime, "To find guilt, all the jury (the “neutral trier of fact”) has to determine is (a) that you knew what you were doing (i.e., you intended to shoot the gun or rob the bank — you didn’t do it by mistake), and (b) the result was the logical outcome that anyone who performed such an act should have expected." |
Bull. We charge people all the time for doing things they didn't "intend" to do.
| quote: | | And that's the point... you're going based on what you think the logical result of the action of waterboarding is, not the legal definitions. The objective/intent was to obtain information, NOT to inflict lasting physical or mental harm. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law. Like the other poster said, Mankow was back in his chair 10 minutes later doing his program. Are you telling me he has endured psychological damage? |
I'm going on the fact that water boarding is torture. PERIOD. If it was so useful, then the police should use it when they question suspects. I'm sure this country will be a much better place.
Mancow was water boarded for what...2 seconds? No surprise he was back in the chair. Is that really that surprising to you? Not to mention the fact that such an argument in no way justifies water boarding. A dj gets back on the air after a 2 second water boarding. Big whoop...Maybe if they did it for 1 minute, then he'd be crying his heart out. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
:) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop:
Thats much how this thread is. |
|
|
| yukii |
i think he should've done it 183 times & then sat back on the chair :gsmile:
different outcome perhaps? :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
It's the difference between voluntarily holding your hand over a flame for as long as you can and having someone much stronger than you hold your hand over it for the same amount of time, except while they're doing it you have no idea when they'll let you go.
;) |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
i know torturing KSM lead to valuable information, but the question i find myself asking is, should we really sink down to their level?
ffs, i couldn't watch the daniel pearl vid- if they want to play the game dirty then let them :mad: i dont want my gov torturing people- forget laws & legal boundaries, what happened to the respect & morals of being a ing fellow human being? :conf: |
When you're dealing with people who blow themselves up to advance a ed up religion, saw off heads, fly planes into buildings, etc... sitting down to tea and trying to be their friend won't make them become more understanding. My pervious sig pretty much summed up a hard to deal with truth of life that most people don't want to believe:
"It must be understood that a Prince cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."
You should read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. |
|
|
|
|
