tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post112219270913713862..comments2024-03-02T03:29:09.759-05:00Comments on SerandEz and Friends: Interrogations: Torture or Neccesary Evil?Ezziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129092283436636892005-10-12T00:44:00.000-04:002005-10-12T00:44:00.000-04:00(this is taken from a post by DovBear - in my comm...(this is taken from a post by <A HREF="http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2005/10/subways-are-ssafe.html" REL="nofollow">DovBear</A> - in my comments (#27)<BR/><BR/>Common sense. Isn't that the point, really? When you have to check all the criteria, you're going through the whole bureaucratic process again - which means nobody will ever do anything, in case it comes back to haunt them later. It also means the terrorists now have a list of criteria through which they can peruse, and can ensure that even if one gets caught, there's no way the information will ever leave his head.<BR/><BR/>That said... I'll give criteria anyway:<BR/><BR/>The criteria have to be basic - where it is obvious the person is a terrorist, and there is at least some reason to believe he may be holding valuable information, interrogation should be allowed. If there's a slightly less pressing urge, check with a judge first. Can this be agreed to?Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129086743728582052005-10-11T23:12:00.000-04:002005-10-11T23:12:00.000-04:00Ok so your new rule is we get to rip the fingernai...Ok so your new rule is we get to rip the fingernails off anyone we catch in a battle? How do you define a battle? What checks and balances will you put in place to prevent a rouge commander with a grudge from giving someone the once over?DovBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300090924998038181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129076593068428872005-10-11T20:23:00.000-04:002005-10-11T20:23:00.000-04:003&4) That's crazy - I specifically said this is wh...3&4) That's crazy - I specifically said this is where they were nabbed while fighting (though I'll extend that to anyone in the process of carrying out an attack, or caught with weapons, or with physical plans for an attack). What's "believing" what the cop says? These are facts - not opinions. The cops aren't knocking darkies (or ragheads) around - it's more often US soldiers grabbing terrorist fighters.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129061445287059422005-10-11T16:10:00.000-04:002005-10-11T16:10:00.000-04:003) That's lunacy. These people were captured while...3) That's lunacy. These people were captured while fighting, or after being tracked for a while.<BR/><BR/>-----> So why do we have trials at all? Your whole thought process on this issue is lunacy. You seem ready to believe any thing any cop says. What protects people from mistakes?<BR/><BR/>4) The last paragraph specifically explains how they have forfeited - not lost - their civil rights.<BR/><BR/>----> No it doesn't. What's the process? Is there a hearing? A trial? A sworn statament? Or does it just happen whenever a cop with a chip on his shoulder decides he feels like knocking some darkie around?DovBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300090924998038181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129055601135794212005-10-11T14:33:00.000-04:002005-10-11T14:33:00.000-04:001) That's how I was taught by my Bar-Mitzvah...2) ...1) That's how I was taught by my Bar-Mitzvah...<BR/><BR/>2) Ditto.<BR/><BR/>3) That's lunacy. These people were captured while fighting, or after being tracked for a while.<BR/><BR/>4) The last paragraph specifically explains how they have forfeited - not lost - their civil rights.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-1129054935155877692005-10-11T14:22:00.000-04:002005-10-11T14:22:00.000-04:00First, it's A fortiori, not ESecond, you used it w...First, it's A fortiori, not E<BR/><BR/>Second, you used it wrong<BR/><BR/>Third, you're making a dopey argument, because how do you know someone is"dedicating their life to the violation of the civil rights of others, to the murder of people by means of terrorist atrocities" if they've had no trial, or even been charged with a crime?? <BR/><BR/>You can't just go around saying, hmmm HE looks like a terrorist! Let's torture him and find out what he knows!! (though that's more or less Bush's policy)<BR/><BR/>Fourth - Why does someone forfeit his civil rights? Because you say he did? The Constitution disagrees (there's no ammendment reading: "Hey. Everything we said here doesn't apply if they guys a terorrist") and doesn't a strict conservative like you worship the constitution?DovBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300090924998038181noreply@blogger.com