Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall
The reason you here crickets is because they are shocked that you ignored my previous post where I answered your question.....WBing is coercive and a violation of a criminals 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.......
|
I ignored you? Hmm, didn't notice. Anyways, law enforcement isn't limited to interrogating the accused. Never heard the term "co-conspirator" apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjorourke
I realize that "its different" is a complex idea for you to get your simple mind around. But lets try.
|
I cut out the majority of your comments that i'm responding to PJ, because i have 3 words for you. No Freakin' Shit! I know it's different, and i know how it's different. Quit acting as if whether or not it's different is the issue being debated here. It's not.
Quote:
|
There is nothing to say that waterboarding per se couldn't be used extract criminal information, if that is what society, through its government, decides. But under current rules it wouldn't pass (hence my earlier comment about being a waste of time).
|
Here, your
entire comment was a waste of time.
And you utterly failed (no surprise there) to answer the question. Why is it not legal/used? Or, rather, why do you think it's not a good idea to use.
Quote:
|
Your boy Obama was widely praised for having the SEAL's execute what was for all practical purposes "a hit" on OBL (yeah, granted the UN is a pit pissed, but who pays attention to those nimrods). Would a mayor have similar latitude to "take out" crack dealers?
|
You've spent 3 or 4 days and who knows how many posts defending waterboarding/torture by saying little more than "it's different", and you now try to compare taking out a crack dealer with taking out someone who murdered roughly 3000 Americans? I mean, really.
Both you and Olivia seem unwilling to answer the question, PJ, as to why it's not a good idea to use in crime fighting. So allow me to answer it for the both of you. The legalities of the whole matter aside, here's why we shouldn't use waterboarding/torture as a crime fighting tool - which also translates to why it shouldn't be used as a war fighting tool.
1)It's inevitable that completely innocent people will be waterboarded/tortured. Not only innocent people, but people who have no information to share. If you need to waterboard someone to get them to tell you what they know, then there's a better than average chance that you have no idea whether or not they know anything of substance.
2)It leads to bad information. More bad than good, very likely. Remember this one? I'm sure you do. ""
But,
you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose.
And why do you think that is, PJ? If you don't know, then walk into a courtroom and show a video of a suspect getting pummeled while screaming "Ok, ok, i did it, i did it, now stop" and see how far you get. I suspect you'll figure it out.
If i'm waterboarded/tortured, i'm squealing like a pig. And you can bet your ass, anyone i dislike will have Seal Team 6 on their roof in a matter of hours, not days. How many people do you think were killed in a raid or shipped to Gitmo and tortured, when their only crime against America was ogling Mohammed Ishbutu's wife? And to that, see point #1.
The Bin Laden courier who's name was divulged during torture? The only reason they knew it was good information was because they'd heard his name before. Otherwise, they would have had no idea if he was lying or telling the truth. So essentially, waterboarding/torture is good for one thing and one thing only; to get someone to tell you what you pretty much already know. Because by already knowing is the only way you'll know it's true.
If you have the government investigating you with your having done nothing wrong, how comfortable would you feel if you knew your neighbor was being questioned by the authorities in a world where waterboarding/torture is acceptable? You'd be on the first train out of Dodge because you know damn well there's a pretty good chance he's selling you down the river.
3)It's sadistic (you think Pol Pot used it because "it's different" that people might want to overthrow his regime?), and it's making for a great recruiting tool (thanks to President Pol Pot, whom i'm sure you voted for...twice), and MOST OF ALL, put everything together and factor in the fact that it's un-necessary (as evidenced by how much of the Bin Laden info came from non-torture techniques), and you're doing far more harm than good.
Those are my reasons for why we don't waterboard, not as a crime fighting tool, nor in war. My logical reasons beyond simply "it's bad". My guess is that when it comes to crime fighting, you'd agree with my reasons. Feel free to correct me. And my reasons make just as much sense in war as they do in crime fighting.
All that link would do is deflate your bravado. 
