For civil libertarians, the decision by President Obama to bar the prosecution of Bush officials for the torture program was always a flagrant choice of politics over principle. Now a poll ratifies that decision. A poll commissioned by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that Americans are accepting torture in greater numbers. The study also shows a decrease in support for Israel in any military conflict and two-thirds saying that they would like the U.S. to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On torture, Americans still reject its use for terrorists by a margin of 56 percent to 42 percent. However, the support for torture “has increased by 6 points since 2008 and by 13 points since the ques tion was first asked in 2004.”
This has always been the concern among civil libertarians: that the Bush program would make torture less of an obvious taboo. This problem has become magnified with Obama who has shielded Bush officials from prosecution while people like Dick Cheney proudly speak publicly about their use of waterboarding. The result is an implied message that torture is allowed or tolerated under some circumstances.
The poll seems to reaffirm a famous passage from Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928):
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
Source: Rawstory
W=c,
A little something for the cranky . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&fs=1&hl=en_US]
And an extra dose just in case you need to escape . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoafAdcDq8&fs=1&hl=en_US]
The failure to understand (let alone read) the law as presented and as it is written is such a lovely trait when someone is going to claim torture isn’t against the law.
And more argument by non-sequitur. How utterly . . . ridiculous.
“Torture has been used by most nations historically (prove me wrong Toady)”
That doesn’t mean it is either right, effective for gathering information or legal by today’s laws as proven multiple times. It used to be legal to buy and sell people like chattel or for the monarch to sleep with your wife if he wanted even if it was against her will. As stated “we’ve always done it” is a childish argument and will not be addressed in depth again.
“Torture has historically been accepted as a method of extracting information (prove me wrong Toady)”
See the above. It also used to be historically accepted that the Earth was flat. Then again, you personally seem to value extracting incorrect and valueless information. Decisions, much like arguments, are only as good as the accuracy of the information they are based upon. Even then, one must correctly and logically apply the information. Something you’ve demonstrated time and again you’re incapable of doing.
“Torture has been used historically by many as a method of making them do things they dont want to do = coercion (prove me wrong Toady)”
Yes it has. Like make people confess to crimes they didn’t commit or lie about information to get their torturers to stop torturing them. That’s why torture is illegal.
“Torture has been used historically by leaders to send out a message to their enemies (prove me wrong Toady)”
Yep. By barbarians such as yourself. Winning conflict isn’t about sending a message. It’s about winning a conflict without becoming that which you fight. If you are to become that which you fight, there is no point in fighting them. Skip the middle man of war and just change sides.
“These acts have occurred throughout history up to the present day(prove me wrong Toady)”
There is nothing to prove. The arrow of time moves in one direction. However, if this is your weak attempt at restating “we’ve always done it”, it fails for the same reasons your other attempts at it fail.
“Military conflict places individuals and groups thereof into circumstances that they would not normally encounter in their every day existences (prove me wrong Toady)”
And millions upon millions of them managed to fight honorably without torturing captives.
“Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of culture shock as being – a sense of confusion and uncertainty sometimes with feelings of anxiety that may affect people exposed to an alien culture or environment without adequate preparation (prove me wrong Toady)”
Culture shock is not an excuse for breaking the law, but especially not for torture. Someone from the West who has never been to Japan before will experience culture shock. By your “reasoning” then they should be able to go torture the nearest Japanese national they can find. Because they’re somehow ‘different’. It is a common propaganda tool to demonize and dehumanize those you wish to commit atrocities upon. But at least you’re in good company with those torturers of the past . . . http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Antisem
“It is acknowledged that Soldiers in stressful situations can act out of character (prove me wrong Toady)”
In law, acting out of character is a mitigating circumstance at best, but still not an excuse for violating the law. Murderers who kill in a moment of passion are still punished as murderers.
“Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of “out of character” as bein – not in accord with a person’s usual qualities or traits (Prove me wrong Toady)”
See above.
That was more pathetic than your usual drivel, sport, but then again, desperation often drives the weak minded to irrational and illegal acts. Like arguing by non-sequitur or torturing when it is manifestly a bad way to gather intelligence and specifically against the law.
prove it
…ta-ta Toad-licker…
Bakersfield waves that “hypocrite” card right back at a brother “name caller”
this game is easy, lets play another one.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Elaine, I haven’t seen a paragraph on this forum that I have agreed with more
“As you may have noted from some of my comments to trolls in recent days, I’m not a fan of the nasty stuff either. I also like a good argument–especially with someone who has a sense of humor. I don’t enjoy vulgar verbal brawls”
I was “waitin for a bus an mindin my own business”, not cussin, nor name callin nor talkin trash an certainly not trollin anyone, just mouthin an opinion an playin devils advocate to keep a lil discussion goin. I did not cast the first stone on this thread. I prefer to see someone speak their mind in clear terms, without any ulterior motive nor agenda.
Not have someone who talks like they should know better, empty their bowels in an public attempt to overwhelm someone they see as their inferior.
I have found here as in so many other areas of life that the persons who make the biggest display of themselves are usually tryin to compensate for a shortcoming elsewhere in their lives
As you may have noted from some of my comments to trolls in recent days, I’m not a fan of the nasty stuff either. I also like a good argument–especially with someone who has a sense of humor. I don’t enjoy vulgar verbal brawls.
Elaine M. 1, September 22, 2010 at 8:57 am
Woosty,
The Rowan Atkinson in hell is one of my favorites!
——————————
me too, he’s one of my regular rescuers when i get ‘cranky’
hope I wasn’t too harsh this a.m…..but I like a good argument, not so much a fan of the nasty stuff
rue-d-barb
“can I evolve? sure can……can you? …..wow this one could go on forever”
—————————–
prove it
…ta-ta Toad-licker…
Woosty,
The Rowan Atkinson in hell is one of my favorites!
“That wholoe 1800’s blanket throwing crap”
again, not one of my quotes, I just plagiarised it from one of “your regular” friends
can I evolve? sure can……can you? …..wow this one could go on forever
…huge difference between someone whose argument is thought out and sound and one whose argument is based solely on name-calling and now my pleasant morning is ruined and you have made me cranky…
that’ll be mission accomplished then *snicker*
what are you….12?
…how’d that feel?
is that a question you normally ask of 12 year olds?
Good luck with that
Ruebarb,
‘Then using a British comedian to make such a point when there are documented cases of small-pox infected blankets being distributed to Indian villages during the 1800s, a practice which was popular with British troops in their dealings with American Indians prior to the revolution.’
————–
“…during the 1800s….”
the world has evolved…can you?
——————————
“no probs tho, its no wurs than u callin Bakers a name-callin sob wen it was ur bud Toady who startd it like he dus.”
…huge difference between someone whose argument is thought out and sound and one whose argument is based solely on name-calling and now my pleasant morning is ruined and you have made me cranky…
——————————
“*snicker*”
what are you….12?
…how’d that feel?
this conversation is over now go to the cornfield.
Hey Wooly, I am sorry bout that, I din mean nothin by that *snicker*
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/18/kettle-calling-the-pot-black-alcohol-lobby-pumps-money-into-anti-pot-legalization-campaign/
Its jus ol Toady ran amok with his cut and paste and wrote this long list of dopeheads, I cud of sworn ur name was on it.
no probs tho, its no wurs than u callin Bakers a name-callin sob wen it was ur bud Toady who startd it like he dus.
an as for me crappin up yo livin room, if you don like it, move out of the bus shelter son.
*snicker*
the torture thing? I reckn that ifn they aint got the comon sense 2 b on the right side, then they jus deserve what they git. I dun saw some pretty ol’ sights afore they got me dun and ah dint cry fur non of them as they wunt cry fur me had the shoe bin on the utgher foot. *snicker*
sorry strange faceless boneless person, I not only don’t use illegal drugs but I rarely use legal ones either…but you feel free…;)
go get a point and quit crapping up my living room.
It looks like only the regulars are allowed to name call.
Calling someone a War criminal apologist is tantamont to arms where I come from.
isn’t it ironic that Wooly who is a self confessed user of illegal drugs calling someone else a hypocrite
Then using a British comedian to make such a point when there are documented cases of small-pox infected blankets being distributed to Indian villages during the 1800s, a practice which was popular with British troops in their dealings with American Indians prior to the revolution.
Bakersfield 1, September 22, 2010 at 6:23 am
Yeah me too, you should aim your criticisms where they belong.
…..Yeah me too, you should aim your criticisms where they belong.
I am quite happy arguing a point here and there, but
Blouise posted a request to me as follows….
—————————-
namecaller
fingerpointer
blowhard
Yeah me too, you should aim your criticisms where they belong.
I am quite happy arguing a point here and there, but
Blouise posted a request to me as follows
“Bakersfield,
I was busy writing to Spamheed so didn’t read you till after I posted.
May I put the same questions to you? (see above)”
Buddhas response to my reply to Blouise was as follows
“I am sure you’ll be squeaking some more about it though.
Apologists for war criminals often do.”
So please feel free to complain to Buddha is laughing (or Toady as he is now affectionately known on account of his fat green face) as hew is the one who took this off subject and is also the originator of the name calling on this thread, so if you please Woosty, credit where it’s due
Bakersfield 1, September 22, 2010 at 4:01 am
There are a number of problems with your logic son, firstly, your taste for the ol’ copy and paste, why not simply reply to the point without resorting to the whole ten page essay on why your logic is superior to everyone elses. like your name calling and unecessary slurring of other people it isn’t conducive to discussion and only makes you look more of a dick than you already do. once again the point goes sailin over your overblown head without ruffling a hair on yo fat green head.
——————————————
hypocrite
this used to be a place for intelligent discussion.
you name calling derider of fact presentation.
y’all let me know when you’re done pissing all over each other because I used to enjoy my morning coffee with intelligent people…….
There are a number of problems with your logic son, firstly, your taste for the ol’ copy and paste, why not simply reply to the point without resorting to the whole ten page essay on why your logic is superior to everyone elses. like your name calling and unecessary slurring of other people it isn’t conducive to discussion and only makes you look more of a dick than you already do. once again the point goes sailin over your overblown head without ruffling a hair on yo fat green head.
We already know that its against the US law to torture, the perps of such an act are breaking the US law if they are US citizens or if they do it on US territory, the US law says they shouldn’t do it and while a whole heap of people agree with it – they are still in the minority – but still a lot of people don’t like it and its cruel etc and so on …..blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah – it states all of that in the header son, you aint winning no points by simply spewing up the same stuff over and over again.
My point was and remains the same before the bluster of Toady intervened
Torture has been used by most nations historically (prove me wrong Toady)
Torture has historically been accepted as a method of extracting information (prove me wrong Toady)
Torture has been used historically by many as a method of making them do things they dont want to do = coercion (prove me wrong Toady)
Torture has been used historically by leaders to send out a message to their enemies (prove me wrong Toady)
These acts have occurred throughout history up to the present day(prove me wrong Toady)
Military conflict places individuals and groups thereof into circumstances that they would not normally encounter in their every day existences (prove me wrong Toady)
Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of culture shock as being – a sense of confusion and uncertainty sometimes with feelings of anxiety that may affect people exposed to an alien culture or environment without adequate preparation (prove me wrong Toady)
It is acknowledged that Soldiers in stressful situations can act out of character (prove me wrong Toady)
Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of “out of character” as bein – not in accord with a person’s usual qualities or traits (Prove me wrong Toady)
On the subject of group experiences, I would use the following link to highlight my claim, look at the first paragraph below the image and take on board the words “Soldiers know better than anyone how a shared experience can forge strong bonds.”
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/05/20/39540-3rd-bstb-soldiers-forge-bond-while-whitewater-rafting/
Good luck with that Toady
You have been presented with numerous examples of what law you are breaking by torturing someone in a foreign jurisdiction. Consent of a foreign jurisdiction doesn’t mean a damn thing. Torture violates the Constitutional civil right found in the 8th Amendment that prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment as does the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340-2340A which reads:
“Sec. 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.–Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.–There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if–
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.–A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”
Your failure to understand black letter law is your failure. You saying there is no law being broken doesn’t make it so. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one)is a legal principle applied in and by the U.S. and with very narrow exceptions – that do not include torture – ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.
I could explain the nuances of personal jurisdiction as contrasted with subject matter and territorial jurisdiction, but past experience shows you are learning proof, Bakersfield. Just like you saying “[w]e have no examples of what US law am I breakin if I shoot or torture someone in Cuba when the Cubans don’t say nothin” when you have the plain letter of the law to the contrary provided above – more than once – before you asked your insipid “question”.
The short brutal truth of it is that if you are a U.S. citizen, there is personal jurisdiction over you no matter where you go to torture or go to conspire to torture and under multiple laws.
You have been shown the law . . . again.
But please continue to be obtuse and say evidence hasn’t been provided when it has been provided more than once. It really highlights your logically fallacious specialty: argument from ignorance.
We have loats and lots of examples which state that US forces participation in Turture, or that the act of torture on US ground or Airspace is unlawful, against the law, people don’t like it etc and so on.
We have no examples of what US law am I breakin if I shoot or torture someone in Cuba when the Cubans don’t say nothin?
To avoid any doubt as to the meaning of that phrase, it means “with the consent of the cubans”or have the sovereign state of Cuba suddenly become a “state of the USA”
or in Iraq when the Iraqis dont say nothin? “with the consent of the Iraqis” or have the sovereign state of Iraqi suddenly become a “state of the USA”
or in Afghanistan when the Afghans dont say nothin?”with the consent of the Afghans”or have the sovereign state of Afghanistan suddenly become a “state of the USA”
or on a British or French military aircraft circling over Europe? “with the consent of the British or French” or have the sovereign states of Iraqi suddenly become a “state of the USA”
who’s jurisdiction does this fall under?
I note the use of phrases like “Turture lovers” and “supporters of Torture” this practice is beneath contempt, as is the practice of picking out the points you can argue but ignore the parts you cannot.
In order to remove torture as a tool from society one must first understand the motives behind its use, I have never condoned the use of torture, I have never participated in an act of torture, but I have witnessed first hand the aftermath of such acts
I have also seen how the circumstances can take over the group and lead them down to a host of strange and nasty deeds. and no, that kind of group “completely losing control is not that common, but the act of torture does happen all the time, the act of torture has happened throughout every society in every arena around the world, this is a fact but it doesn’t make it right.