this is refuted by my strong advocation of due process for the use of torture.
Were you talking about something like a FISA court? If so, that's not due process at all. Due process requires legal representation and a right to appeal a ruling.
Due process - legal proceedings carried out fairly and in accord with established rules. Affording due process does not necessitate a trial or even legal representation.
Due process is a difficult thing to define, and the Supreme Court has not been much help over the years. Here's what we can say about due process:
In the Magna Carta, due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of peers." Some state constitutions continue to use these phrases.
The reference in the 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government and its courts and agencies. The reference in the 14th Amendment extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts.
Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.
In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.
The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.
Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):
* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated
"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).
"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).
"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
There exists no due process in regards to water boarding, sleep deprivation and other interogative techniques that I'm aware of other than getting the thumbs-up from a superior. My whole argument has been that I want to ESTABLISH rules, regulations, oversight, and accountability for such actions. This would help ensure stronger accountability and scrutiny than exists now.Oh I beg to differ. When it involves U.S. courts issuing warrants to torture a person then it mandates legal representation. There must be a mechanism for the defense of potentially innocent people from being subjected to torture.
You obviously disagree, I'd like to hear more about your theory on what due process actually constitutes. You've obviously given this some thought so please expand so that I can intelligently digest your argument.
That's exactly what I've been saying. How exactly claim the moral high ground when we engage in such activities? And I know a lot of people use 9/11 as an excuse and say that it was a game changer, but it's a slippery slope. When we get rid of a lot of the core values that make us great, before long there is little to separate us from our enemies.
From a moral standpoint I absolutely cannot agree that we use torture for any reason.There exists no due process in regards to water boarding, sleep deprivation and other interogative techniques that I'm aware of other than getting the thumbs-up from a superior. My whole argument has been that I want to ESTABLISH rules, regulations, oversight, and accountability for such actions. This would help ensure stronger accountability and scrutiny than exists now.
.Though rarely occuring, there are compelling reasons why water boarding, sleep deprivation and other interogative techniques must remain available tools to protect and fight crime and terrorism. As long as due process is established and given when such techniques are used then I find no room for complaint
I will not play "step into my hypothetical trap." I will not compromise my position on this due to "mushroom cloud" type fear tactics. There is no evidence to suggest that torture is consistent or effective in gaining actionable information from suspects. Legalizing the use of such a mechanism is certain to result in unnecessary torture and abuse of the authority. We've already seen clear and convincing evidence of this. No amount of due process will change the nature of this heinous practice.The only discussion left is what, if any, circumstances or scenarios allow for such techniques to be used. Obviously you think none exist. So we shall employ a thought experiment: if John Doe claims to have a bomb that is set to go off that will claim some unknown number of lives and there is suffcient corroborating evidence to believe this is true is it OK to water board him or sleep deprive him or use some other alternative interrogation technique in an attempt to extract information from him to avert his plan? At what number of lives lost or degree of certainty that john possesses such intel is required before such techniques are allowed?
It hasn't been a slippery slope.
They waterboarded suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri not long after 9/11 when we were still gathering info about Al Qaeda and were concerned another attack was imminent.
How long are Americans going to keep attacking other Americans over what they did to keep us safe? I don't get itThose Al Qaeda operatives got off *easy* relatively speaking. More harm has been done by blowing this all out of proportion, imo. (and THAT was largely anti-Bush partison attacks - not saying you, but that is what happened).
Your last line is just silly. Really.
CIA says used waterboarding on three suspects | Reuters
From a moral standpoint I absolutely cannot agree that we use torture for any reason.
.
And I disagree. We can't claim we are on the side of righteousness when we do things like this.
I will not play "step into my hypothetical trap." I will not compromise my position on this due to "mushroom cloud" type fear tactics. There is no evidence to suggest that torture is consistent or effective in gaining actionable information from suspects. Legalizing the use of such a mechanism is certain to result in unnecessary torture and abuse of the authority. We've already seen clear and convincing evidence of this. No amount of due process will change the nature of this heinous practice.
Wallow in denial if you wish. Intel extracted from coersive interrogation techniques have been effective despite the inherent level of uncertainity in their effectiveness. If an example was provided would that sway your view? No, it wouldn't so don't waste our time peddleing disingenuous red-herrings.
Your inability to engage in a simple thought experiment is proof enough of your mental cowardice. No mushroom clouds of traps necessary, just a simple question to highlight your myopic position.
Wallow in denial if you wish. Intel extracted from coersive interrogation techniques have been effective despite the inherent level of uncertainity in their effectiveness....
Um, isn't that a contradiction?
Only very rarely, prove me wrong or prove yourself right. You cast that net, I'll side with the majority and say "no."Wallow in denial if you wish. Intel extracted from coersive interrogation techniques have been effective despite the inherent level of uncertainity in their effectiveness.
An example has already been provided. How do you gauge the effectiveness of a technique? Because out of 50 it worked on 2? Do you consider all the bad information you got as a result of people saying whatever they could to make it stop? Do you count all the experts whose experience says that it doesn't work? Or do you change the litmus test for effectiveness to mean "if it works even once or twice it's effective, regardless of how many we torture?"If an example was provided would that sway your view? No, it wouldn't so don't waste our time peddleing disingenuous red-herrings.
No, your inability to cite specific evidence to support your case is proof that you don't have a case. You rely completely upon hypothetical situations like "what if john has a gun to your pregnant daughters head and sam knows where he is would you endorse torture then?"Your inability to engage in a simple thought experiment is proof enough of your mental cowardice. No mushroom clouds of traps necessary, just a simple question to highlight your myopic position.
Such interrogation techniques have proven successful at extracting needed intel despite the fact that not every single interrogation attempt is guaranteed to extract needed information..
I.E., it works X% of the time and X > 0.
Does that make more sense to you?
Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
Wallow in denial if you wish. Intel extracted from coersive interrogation techniques have been effective despite the inherent level of uncertainity in their effectiveness.
See: David Danzig: FBI Interrogator: Waterboarding Does Not WorkAccording to Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator, waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" procedures caused a key Al Qaeda operative to clam up, not provide actionable intelligence as former Vice President Dick Cheney and others have claimed.
Soufan provided gripping Senate testimony today. He related in detail how he was able to get Abu Zubaydah, a suspect who was believed to play a lead role in Al Qaeda, to talk.
In my first interrogation of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah, who had strong links to al Qaeda's leaders and who knew the details of the 9/11 plot before it happened, I asked him his name. He replied with his alias. I then asked him, "how about if I call you Hani?" That was the name his mother nicknamed him as a child. He looked at me in shock, said "ok," and we started talking.
Soufan was well suited to interrogate Abu Zubaydah. He had been involved in hundreds of other interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects. He told the committee about his experience successfully "breaking" an Al Qaeda operative known as Abu Jandal and others.
Soufan told the subcommittee that after Abu Zubaydah was cooperating, a CIA team led by a contractor began to use increasingly abusive interrogation techniques - over Soufan's objections - and Abu Zubaydah stopped talking.
Soufan is one of many interrogators whose experience proves that using physical force to "break" detainees is not an effective way to obtain information.
But, that's from the FBI's best interrogator. I wouldn't expect his testimony to carry any weight. It's not like he signed his great grandmothers's Bible ... in blood. :2wave:
Such interrogation techniques have proven successful at extracting needed intel despite the fact that not every single interrogation attempt is guaranteed to extract needed information..
I.E., it works X% of the time and X > 0.
Does that make more sense to you?
why should I bother? We all know how it ends. Its not 100% and anything but that is too low for you. Even if it was 100% you'd reject it on other grounds. Its pointless to debate this aspect with you. Not that there is enough data available to justify any such certainty. Torture isn't exactly something you make public, successfull or not.Only very rarely, prove me wrong or prove yourself right. You cast that net, I'll side with the majority and say "no."
An example has already been provided. How do you gauge the effectiveness of a technique? Because out of 50 it worked on 2? Do you consider all the bad information you got as a result of people saying whatever they could to make it stop? Do you count all the experts whose experience says that it doesn't work? Or do you change the litmus test for effectiveness to mean "if it works even once or twice it's effective, regardless of how many we torture?"
Yet you rely on nothing but your personal subjective morals which are nothing more than the summation of hypothetical situations derived from logic and/or intuition and/or experience.No, your inability to cite specific evidence to support your case is proof that you don't have a case. You rely completely upon hypothetical situations like "what if john has a gun to your pregnant daughters head and sam knows where he is would you endorse torture then?"
What percentage of the time does torture/EITs get actionable intelligence, and what percentage of the time does conventional noncontrovercial methods get actionable intelligence?
25%....:lol:. Stating a number is silly because its almost entirely irrelevant. What percentage if any would be required in order for it to be permissiable for you? Why? If it doesn't matter then why ask?
25%....:lol:. Stating a number is silly because its almost entirely irrelevant. What percentage if any would be required in order for it to be permissiable for you? Why? If it doesn't matter then why ask?
One other thing that I have not seen mentioned. Do you really think these Islamic terrorists--who seem to have no issue with giving up their own lives for their cause--will sing like canaries by being tortured?
That depends on whether you think a suicidal-anything makes you mentally strong or mentally unstable and weak. I imagine both occur.
And if you can't give them then you can't make a case against it. Especially so because it has worked in the past.You are the one making claims as to the effectiveness of torture. if you can't give those figures, you have no actual case in that regards.
And if you can't give them then you can't make a case against it. Especially so because it has worked in the past.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?