Skip to main content

View Diary: DiFi and Jello Jay Feeling Unappreciated (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can I agree and disagree at the same time? (0+ / 0-)

    We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances.

    I can think that most situations this is correct, but I can also think of a few, and only a few where I would disagree.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:25:16 AM PST

    •  If you find exceptions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, jds1978, DHinIA

      then you approve torture and oppose the rule of law.

      •  I have to be honest (0+ / 0-)

        I do find exceptions.

        I don't say I like it, but I really do.

        I'll give you one example - if there was video surveilance of someone abducting my child, and I caught this person and asked them to tell me where my child was and was met with silence, I would stop at nothing to get the person to talk - and I mean nothing.  Would it be illegal - you bet.

        I would also promise that given the same set of circumstances most would do the same - and I would add that if I was sitting on the jury, worst case scenario would it would be ahung jury - no way I could convict a person for that - no matter how wrong it may be.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:33:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  By you wouldn't get correct information that way. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mjd in florida, dotster

          If you want to get correct information through interrogation, trickery and persuasion are proven to work better.
          If you want misinformation, torture works.

          Impeachment is a duty, not an option that can be taken off the table.

          by bushondrugs on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:37:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, it still doesn't work (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jds1978, DHinIA

          Cops run into this kind of dilemma. Beating the shit out of the defendant means no conviction.  Plus, how do you know your kidnapper is telling you the correct location? Are you going to come back and beat the shit out of him again when your child is NOT there?

          There are better ways to get information.  Good detectives know that. Some of the best interrogators I have ever met don't have to use their fists.

          We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

          by Mary Julia on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:38:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not looking for a conviction (0+ / 0-)

            in this case.

            And I do agree, that there are better ways to get info however, I was citing an example where I would make an exception - I'm not waiting - and not to sound crazy, but, to your example, I would bring the suspect along with me to the location - plus, I was thinking something more along the lines of some private parts in a vice.....not beating the sh*t out of them.

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:46:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry, but your position (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tmo, Plox

              isn't well thought through.  There is the bottom line - No torture is the law. There is the fact that torture doesn't work. And, what you are suggesting is that you, yourself get to decide when your emotional connection to the situation makes torture OK. Nope!

              Are you Dick Cheney?

              Just askin'....

              Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Be yourself. Do for others.

              by DHinIA on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:29:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No (0+ / 0-)

                Not Dick Cheney, just a parent - I would be very supprised if you are one and would not do anthing to find your child.  If you're not a parent, someday, you may just agree with me.

                There are many unjust laws, as President-Elect Obama said, "you need to use a scalpel" - it would work in this case - laws are made to be vague and leave room for interpretation - the more specific a law, the worse the law is - that is the reason we have courts, jurys and judges - to interpret the law for a given situation.

                The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                by ctexrep on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:43:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand your point of view. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ctexrep

                  I really do.  The constitution is a generalized document, at least in the way that courts have interpreted it. However laws are not supposed to be vague.  Vagueness is one of the reasons courts strike down some laws. The concept you may be referring to when you say,

                  that is the reason we have courts, jurys and judges - to interpret the law for a given situation.

                  is called jury nullification, the concept that a jury can and should overrule a judge's instructions about how the jury must consider a case at trial.

                  A parent that can't think of a more appropriate response to the situation you describe is a person at risk of making a terrible blunder with far-reaching consequences, most of them unintended.

                  Sorry not to validate your point. Children are the most important thing in most peoples' lives.  But the laws don't allow what you suggest.

                  Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Be yourself. Do for others.

                  by DHinIA on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:32:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Break the Law Then (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rlochow

          Torture should be illegal and severely punishable. If you really want to be "heroic" and torture someone into giving you info that you think will protect someone you care about, then go ahead and take the consequences. Let a jury hear you appeal to them with "you'd have done it if it were you". And if they disagree, either because your torture weren't necessary or just because they're wrong in convicting you, then you take the penalty. Because that is actually heroic.

          Just leaving the torture legal, as decided by some government officer, without any consequences, merely encourages the torture. There's no heroism to it.

          Let a jury acquit real heroes who took the risk - or let real heroes take the hit, the way real heroes do.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:24:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no problem with that (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't say what it would be legal - but it would be my choice - and I would be willing to sit in front of a jury and say why I did what I did.

            And it may go against the law, but in a similar situation, if I was on the jury, I would not vote guilty - my statement would be the worst case would be a hung jury.

            I might ass that if convicted, I would do my best to escape - because in my mind, in that situation, I really don't care what someone else thinks - I believe I would be correct, regardless of the law.

            Just becasue something is "the law" does not make it just.

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 09:39:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with gchaucer (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jds1978, bushondrugs, DHinIA

        You can always find exceptions to anything.  It doesn't remove the moral, legal and ethical issues surrounding torture.  And the most practical reason not to use it? It doesn't work, your "detainee" is going to tell you anything to make the pain stop.

        As for Feinstein, is this because she wanted Jane Harman in the job and it didn't happen?  Which seems to me to be a good thing.

        We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

        by Mary Julia on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:34:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site