Law Enforcment and Cameras

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I thought we were talking privacy? But silly me, it's <Always> be Bu$#itler's fault.

A man sold me a magic anti-terrorist rock.
There have been no attacks since I acquired it.
Therefore it must really prevent terrorist attacks.

Discuss.

Er, you come up with analogies that are spectacularly feces-stuffed?

As I said - torture is noted for producing ****ty intelligence, in no small part because people will say anything to get the torture to stop.

Correct. However, things like slapping, discomfort, truth serum, screwing with sleep schedules, Nine Inch Nails, and yes, waterboarding are not torture. They are to shock, scare, and disorient rather than to cause pain. They break down the will, not hurt and maim in order to extract information.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

if u do not oppose an action, u ARE supporting it.

No I'm not. I'm simply not doing anything.

if u let something happen, u do so because you agree and side with it.

No I'm not. I'm simply not doing anything.

if u truly disagree with an action, u WILL try to stop it.

There are many reasons why a person wouldn't try to stop something they disagree with.

Er, you come up with analogies that are spectacularly feces-stuffed?

You make a compelling argument.

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Correct. However, things like slapping, discomfort, truth serum, screwing with sleep schedules, Nine Inch Nails, and yes, waterboarding are not torture. They are to shock, scare, and disorient rather than to cause pain. They break down the will, not hurt and maim in order to extract information.

While I would agree with "truth serum" any of the others are indeed torture (the anguish of the body or mind). Torture is not limited to physical pain or discomfort. Anything negative to illicit information from an unwilling person is torture in my book.

Now coaxing and bribing on the other hand...

 

[Johnny]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

No I'm not. I'm simply not doing anything.

And not doing anything is something people can with all right judge you for.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

And not doing anything is something people can with all right judge you for.

*shrug*

Everyone has to do what they think is right. How could I do differently?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

While I would agree with "truth serum" any of the others are indeed torture (the anguish of the body or mind). Torture is not limited to physical pain or discomfort. Anything negative to illicit information from an unwilling person is torture in my book.

Sadly, this is the sort of definition which Progressives apply, causing the well-known accusations of kid-glove treatment and the resulting in human-rights groups' shenanigans when attempting to stretch the grossly distended definition to even more idiotic extremes.

I'm mentally anguished by the fact that you're not giving me $150,000 in gold bullion, and physically anguished because I'd be able to buy a sweet ride - you evil torturer, you! Hello, Amnesty International?

Factually, these are no more torture than being frightened, startled, or severely annoyed are. "Chinese water torture" is a case in point. One could make the case that these methods, throwing someone blindfolded out of a helicopter (which is hovering only a few feet off the ground), or dry-firing a pistol at someone's temple, or any other number of mind games are quite cruel.

They're just not torture.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I'm mentally anguished by the fact that you're not giving me $150,000 in gold bullion, and physically anguished because I'd be able to buy a sweet ride - you evil torturer, you! Hello, Amnesty International?

And you mock my analogies. :crazy:

Since you have some Libertarian leanings, surely you can see the difference between doing something and not doing something. It's the difference between "I shot a homeless man in the head", and "I didn't give a homeless man some food and he starved to death". One is murder, the other is not.

One could make the case that these methods, throwing someone blindfolded out of a helicopter (which is hovering only a few feet off the ground), or dry-firing a pistol at someone's temple, or any other number of mind games are quite cruel.

I guess my line-in-the-sand is "Would you do it to any regular criminal when you bring them in for questioning?"

(Of course, you might think it entirely permissible to sleep-deprive your average prisoner until he confesses, so that may not help, but it's a start.)

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I guess my line-in-the-sand is "Would you do it to any regular criminal when you bring them in for questioning?"

So you don't think civilian citizens deserve more rights than foreign irregular combatants?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

So you don't think civilian citizens deserve more rights than foreign irregular combatants?

The correct phrasing is that I don't think foreign irregular combatants deserve less rights than citizens. (These are rights we're talking about, yes? Not privileges of citizenship?)

Nice job on trying to spin that around, though. You could be a politican . . . or a major new outlet . . . ("This just in! Saro has been reported to say that citizens should definitely have less rights, and that they should be somewhere on par with terrorists. And we have the sound clip to prove it!")

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Since you have some Libertarian leanings, surely you can see the difference between doing something and not doing something.

The issue being that in either case, the claims of mistreatment are bogus and liable to hyperbole (as has obviously been the case in Guantanamo).

I guess my line-in-the-sand is "Would you do it to any regular criminal when you bring them in for questioning?"

Sleep deprivation aside, you're your own worst enemy with analogies. A suspect is a citizen, who may or may not be found guilty of a crime. War, OTOH, is not a criminal matter, no matter how many leftist Progressives keep it in their hope chest.

The correct phrasing is that I don't think foreign irregular combatants deserve less rights than citizens. (These are rights we're talking about, yes? Not privileges of citizenship?)

I think they quite specifically deserve less rights than citizens. They are not members of our nation, and our rights do not apply to them - nor am I overly wild about applying international opinion... er, law to them outside of ones which we are signatory to. While I'm well aware of the disgraceful decision by the Supremes regarding habeus corpus and Guantanamo, we still aren't supposed to grant legal rights to enemies (even legitimate ones, unlike those we fight currently).

After all, that's where most of this bullcarp sprung from - anti-American lefties like our good pal in the other thread screamed bloody murder about the same laws which were used in previous wars, because their tender political sensibilities finally had something to nurse a grievance against: manufacturing Geneva violations against enemy PoW's out of detention of unlawful combatants (i.e. those who fight in violation of conventions).

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

taking prisoners is messy, much better to just kill them. it is war after all and they are our enemies. you kill an enemy.

the problem is the need for information. which means taking prisoners and than how to extract that information, humanely or torturously.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

War, OTOH, is not a criminal matter, no matter how many leftist Progressives keep it in their hope chest.

That doesn't really matter from my standpoint, as the issue is "What is a right, and who has them?"

If people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", then regardless of whether or not they are accused citizens or unlawful combatants, they have those rights.

If you're fine with torturing (or "coercing" depending on your view, I suppose) enemy combatants, then in my mind you've put a US citizen's protection against such things into the "privilege of citizenship" category, which doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

our rights do not apply to them

I thought the point of rights was to have them because they are just plain right. Basic rights that people are supposed to have and the country that has them gets to claim a kind of moral superiority over other nations (ie China, Iraq, North Korea)

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

No I'm not. I'm simply not doing anything.

No I'm not. I'm simply not doing anything.

There are many reasons why a person wouldn't try to stop something they disagree with.

You make a compelling argument.

you ARE making a decision. choosing to do nothing is the same as choosing to do something. choosing is choosing. you ARE making a decision.

if you wanna disillusion yourself, obviously keep continuing to do so, it doesn't change the fact that u ARE deciding that the action is okay and thus allowing it to happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i do agree that human rights are universal (international). people who violate human right have indeed commited a "crime against humanity" and should be punished.

human rights should apply to anyone who folows them, themselves. HOWEVER, once u yourself break human rights, than u no longer deserve those same human rights.

for example:

a country and it's military personnel that folows the rules of war (wear uniform, take orders from a country, targets military targets, doesn't torture, etc...), shall be granted the same rights.

a country and it's military personnel or non-state groups that which do NOT folow the rules of war, shall get NO same rights. human rights are actually privledges, not rights, u must earn it.

fight a war, u earn human rights. commit terrorism, u do NOT earn human rights.

the U.S. has the RIGHT to torture terrorists. the U.S. does NOT have the right to torture legal soldiers under command of a specified country engaging in and folowing the rules of war. terrorists failed to earn human rights. legal soldiers have earned human rights.

when you blow up a wedding, you yield your human rights' protection.
when you blow up a bus, you yield your human rights' protection.
when you decapitate a journalist, you yield your human rights' protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
human rights apply to HUMANS, not to monsters who blow up weddings, busses, intent/desire of using biological/chemical/nuclear weapons, and decapitates journalists.

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

you ARE making a decision. choosing to do nothing is the same as choosing to do something. choosing is choosing. you ARE making a decision.

if you wanna disillusion yourself, obviously keep continuing to do so, it doesn't change the fact that u ARE deciding that the action is okay and thus allowing it to happen.

Choosing not to intervene is not the same as deciding that the action is "okay" or appropriate. I don't think that smoking is "okay" but you don't see me swatting cigarettes from the mouths of any person I see lighting one. Deciding not to act is not the same as condoning the action. There are times when it really just isn't your business.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Choosing not to intervene is not the same as deciding that the action is "okay" or appropriate. I don't think that smoking is "okay" but you don't see me swatting cigarettes from the mouths of any person I see lighting one. Deciding not to act is not the same as condoning the action. There are times when it really just isn't your business.

And deciding not to save someone from themselves is certainly not the same as deciding not to save someone from someone else. Especially when it can be done without risk of harm to yourself.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

That doesn't really matter from my standpoint, as the issue is "What is a right, and who has them?"

Which is exactly the muddy-minded confusion which Progressives hope to create. What point citizenship if not for this protection? You think we should be eager to pay taxes for the hell of it?

If people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", then regardless of whether or not they are accused citizens or unlawful combatants, they have those rights.

Again, we are not supposed to be conferring "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" on people we're shooting at. That claim is senseless.

If you're fine with torturing (or "coercing" depending on your view, I suppose) enemy combatants, then in my mind you've put a US citizen's protection against such things into the "privilege of citizenship" category, which doesn't sit well with me.

I do, but even if I don't it still applies. The category these people fall into is unlawful combatant, not illegal alien, tourist, or visa holder. By definition they do not have the protection which U.S. citizens are supposed to have, but they don't even have the protections which non-citizens would have. They're unlawful combatants.

I thought the point of rights was to have them because they are just plain right. Basic rights that people are supposed to have and the country that has them gets to claim a kind of moral superiority over other nations (ie China, Iraq, North Korea)

False reason strikes again. We're not talking about grabbing illegal aliens off the street and putting bamboo slivers under their toenails. You're talking about the rights granted to presumably innocent being granted to people caught <in the act> of fighting against the U.S. or its allies.

And while one can quite easily snivel and quibble about the circumstances of each capture, the point is that their trials should be through UCMJ tribunal, and nothing to do with U.S. civil courts. But Hege is correct; this will lead to a "no prisoners" approach which will also be decried by the hate-America left while they simultaneously bless the conduct of those who would disembowel them.

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

That really isn't the point. I'm not saying that I wouldn't intervene on someone's behalf if I had the opportunity to save someone; then again I can't say that I would, either. My point, contrary to HegemonKhan's, is that inaction does not imply agreement. Thing's are not always black and white. Not agreeing with one side does not automatically put you on the other side.

edit: responding to Johnny, btw.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

as i said, if u wanna keep disillusioning yourself, feel free to. if u wanna think the earth doesn't move, feel free to. if u wanna think u aren't allowing something, feel free to.

BUT, the earth DOES move, even if u think it doesn't.
BUT, not acting IS a decision and it IS a decision that, that act IS ALRIGHT, even if u think you're not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
as i said in a previous post, i think this satisfactorially ends the human rights/torture issue/debate:

human rights apply to HUMANS, not to monsters who blow up weddings, busses, intent/desire of using biological/chemical/nuclear weapons, commits/intent/desire genocide, and decapitates journalists.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

you ARE making a decision. choosing to do nothing is the same as choosing to do something. choosing is choosing. you ARE making a decision.

I never said I wasn't making a choice.

if you wanna disillusion yourself, obviously keep continuing to do so, it doesn't change the fact that u ARE deciding that the action is okay and thus allowing it to happen.

Again, just because I decide not to kill the one innocent person does not mean I condone the killing of the others who will die as a result.

See the train example from above. A train is about to run over a group of people on the tracks. If I pull a lever, the train will be diverted, but will run over just one person instead. What should I do?

According to you, if I pull the lever to divert the train, I should be tried for killing the one person, but if I do nothing and the group dies, I should be tried for killing all of them? How is that remotely logical?

human rights should apply to anyone who folows them, themselves.

a country and it's military personnel or non-state groups that which do NOT folow the rules of war, shall get NO same rights.

So which is it? Following human rights grants you human rights in turn, or following the law grants you human rights?

human rights are actually privledges, not rights, u must earn it.

Then you don't believe in the concept of rights.

the U.S. has the RIGHT to torture terrorists.

Governments don't have rights; they have responsibilities.

terrorists failed to earn human rights. legal soldiers have earned human rights.

The difference between a soldier and a terrorist depends largely on a person's point of view. If, as you say, the difference between having rights and not having rights depends on whether or not you wear a uniform, for example, when you shoot at opposing forces, I think your definition of "rights" is poor.

What point citizenship if not for this protection? You think we should be eager to pay taxes for the hell of it?

You pay taxes to the government so they will have mercy and grant you rights?

Here I thought we paid taxes so people with guns could defend the rights we have as humans.

Again, we are not supposed to be conferring "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" on people we're shooting at. That claim is senseless.

They're shooting prisoners in Guantanamo?

Sure, at one point they were shooting at us, but then you're into self-defense land and all bets are off. Once they are in your custody, murdering them, for example, is wrong. I guess it needs to be asked, then: If the military just went in and killed all the prisoners tomorrow, you'd see no rights issue?

I do, but even if I don't it still applies. The category these people fall into is unlawful combatant, not illegal alien, tourist, or visa holder.

All of which are humans with "inalienable rights".

By definition they do not have the protection which U.S. citizens are supposed to have, but they don't even have the protections which non-citizens would have. They're unlawful combatants.

You can re-bucket them and call them anything you want; they remain human at the end of the day.