Torture? Rendition? Who is safe?
Posted by: Deane F on 18 October 2006
Scumbags.
You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.
But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.
Scumbags.
You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.
But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.
Scumbags.
Posted on: 19 October 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
If it was part of the plan there would be no foreign troops there now; they would have left prior to the Iraqi Army being re-trained IMO.
Even Uncle Sam is not that evil.
Regards
Mike
Well the Iraqi security forces do need to be trained before the coalition forces can leave as the US friendly puppet regime has to be protected (and controlled)and the oil fields need protecting etc.
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part Two)
Yes, America (the neocons)really are that evil.
Posted on: 19 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
You have suddenly realised that I have a point, as in effect you feel it better for say, ten thousand people to die than for a trained and mission-bound terrorist to have a slap around the face.
That is what you are saying, I take another view. Thats the nature of democracy.
No, I do not suddenly realise that you have a point. Nor do I accept that your statement that I feel that the death of ten thousand people is "better than" something (anything) else. To say that your reply is even a misrepresentation of my words would be flattery.
You said this: "The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?"
I would say this: Rights are inalienable. I do not support the taking of a single human life under any circumstamce.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I really don't know what to say about that - you would allow them to be maimed by the state to prevent them possibly being maimed or killed by someone else? Even if they were innocent? But if they were taken away, they could not be innocent, by your logic.
No, I would never accept that even if it were you they wanted.
Nigel
Either you are thicker than I thought, are unable to understand my comment or you have misread my post. Your view of my logic is also flawed, for much the same reasons.
Thanks for the patronising holier-than-thou comment "even if its me they wanted". The feeling is nearly mutual.
Perhaps you would like to make your position clear then - it seems you would accept submitting your family to torture.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:Basically Don,
Alberto Gonzales, The American Attorney Generals words.
Yesterday on the 18th October , the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This landmark piece of legislation accomplishes two goals that are vital to our national security. First, it allows the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its program for questioning key terrorist leaders and operatives, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The intelligence community has confirmed that this program has been an indispensable tool in our efforts to thwart terrorist attacks over the last five years, and the Military Commission Act ensures that the CIA program will continue in the future.
Second, it provides a legal framework for prosecuting terrorists who we capture on the fields of battle. The Military Commissions Act guarantees that every terrorist will receive a full and fair trial, consistent with America’s obligations under international and domestic law. At the same time, this new law protects the sources and methods used to collect our most sensitive national intelligence. These procedures—which resulted from extensive deliberations among policymakers in both the Executive and Legislative branches—protect the rights of accused terrorists and the safety of the American people.
Thanks Beano.
Seams perfectly reasonable to me, can't see what all the fuss is about.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Perhaps you would like to make your position clear then - it seems you would accept submitting your family to torture.
Nigel
You have already agreed to the use of force to protect your family. This is good, however you make an unsupported leap from my response to your comment, as follows:quote:Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:But I dare say if you (or a member of your family) were falsely accused, taken to some remote location and tortured until a confession was obtained, you would think that OK?quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly
I would prefer that to them being killed or hideously maimed by a terrorist outrage, as would you.
Stop trying to twist my words.
You said you would "prefer" that you or members of your family were tortured rather than being "killed or hideously maimed by a terrorist outrage".
In what way have I twisted your words?
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Roy T
last evening on Ch4 I watched The Death of a President and thought it a good yarn but the bit about the new President Cheney who in his first few days in office pushed Patriot Act 3 through a closed session of the house made me think a bit deeper about the play as a whole. I know it was all fiction but of late according to some reports fiction and the real world blur together with the result that some people either drop through the cracks or pass through a distorting mirror into another world where all is not quite what it seems. I have trouble with judical processes that to me seem odd and out of place; control orders placed upon people who for some reasons can not be brought before a court of law; people who are removed from circulation and who may be processed under other laws all makes me think of the worst excesses of a Banana Republic some place far away. I can not do too much about this but for the moment I trust the judges and Law Lords to hold to account those who say they act in my name - it may not be much but it all I feel I can do and for now want to do on a forum that has the servers residing in the US and subject to US aws including the existing Patriot Acts . . . . .
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by acad tsunami
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
You said this: "The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?"
Rather obviously a question from me, the clue being the question mark.
And just as obviously a proposition from you, put rhetorically, the clue being the word "then" just before the question mark - generously characterised as poor attempt at reductio ad absurdem.
quote:quote:I would say this: Rights are inalienable. I do not support the taking of a single human life under any circumstamce.
So, if the death of a single Nazi - Eichmann, for example, would have prevented the Holocaust, you would be content.
I do not have the facility to look into the future and determine whether murdering somebody now will save lives at some later date.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
Nigel, Deane,
I presume, from the various words you have written, that you don't consider the deliberate taking of a human life to be justified under any circumstances whatso-ever. It is not my position.
Nevertheless in the vast majority of circumstances, I am of the opinion that a sentence of austere life imprisonment would be an appropriate punshment. And I do mean life.
However, before setting out punishments, the real issue is being satisfied about guilt. Did he do it, or didn't he?
In the UK, I understand that for some crimes, the level of certainty needs to be stronger than for other crimes. I have heard terms such as "on the balance of evidence" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" or some such phrases,
For acts of terrorism, or preparation for terrorism, or assisting in either case, I would be prepared to sanction life imprisonment where the level of certainty of guilt was based on a "balance of evidence". Where the level of certainty of guilt was based on "beyond all reasonable doubt", I would be prepared to santion a death penalty.
Cheers
Don
I presume, from the various words you have written, that you don't consider the deliberate taking of a human life to be justified under any circumstances whatso-ever. It is not my position.
Nevertheless in the vast majority of circumstances, I am of the opinion that a sentence of austere life imprisonment would be an appropriate punshment. And I do mean life.
However, before setting out punishments, the real issue is being satisfied about guilt. Did he do it, or didn't he?
In the UK, I understand that for some crimes, the level of certainty needs to be stronger than for other crimes. I have heard terms such as "on the balance of evidence" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" or some such phrases,
For acts of terrorism, or preparation for terrorism, or assisting in either case, I would be prepared to sanction life imprisonment where the level of certainty of guilt was based on a "balance of evidence". Where the level of certainty of guilt was based on "beyond all reasonable doubt", I would be prepared to santion a death penalty.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
Don
"Beyond reasonable doubt" in my jurisdiction is the standard of proof required to prove a criminal charge.
"On the balance of probabilitites" is the standard of proof required at civil law.
Surely, if a State is going to kill people as a punishment, the standard of proof should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
Is such a standard of proof possible in an adversarial system? And if it were, would it need to be accompanied by a total lack of mitigating factors?
I think that any justice system that wishes to impose the death penalty ought first to prove itself capable of dispensing justice without a single miscarriage for a significant period of time.
Deane
"Beyond reasonable doubt" in my jurisdiction is the standard of proof required to prove a criminal charge.
"On the balance of probabilitites" is the standard of proof required at civil law.
Surely, if a State is going to kill people as a punishment, the standard of proof should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
Is such a standard of proof possible in an adversarial system? And if it were, would it need to be accompanied by a total lack of mitigating factors?
I think that any justice system that wishes to impose the death penalty ought first to prove itself capable of dispensing justice without a single miscarriage for a significant period of time.
Deane
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
Deane,
We differ. That is what I said above.
The current rules in the UK and NZ appear to be the same (more or less)
Whilst you would like to move the rules to "beyond a shadow of doubt", I wouldn't.
Whilst you would never invoke a death penalty under any circumstance, I would.
For terrorist activities
I would be happy with "on the balance of probability" and life in prison
and
"beyond reasonable doubt" I would be happy to invoke a death penalty.
As I said, very few things are crystal clear. However, in the case of terrorism I would be content to settle for a balance which requires a lower burden of proof, providing it is associated with a reversible penalty.
At present I feel that the burden on society to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt has become too great. The police have to virtually wait until a crime is committed before taking action (in order to obtain good evidence of a serious crime) and this jeopardises innocent lives too much. The police need to be able to take action in the planning stages of a terrorist crime and be able to secure convictions on the balance of probability. We then take such criminals out of circulation (life in prison)
Cheers
Don
We differ. That is what I said above.
The current rules in the UK and NZ appear to be the same (more or less)
Whilst you would like to move the rules to "beyond a shadow of doubt", I wouldn't.
Whilst you would never invoke a death penalty under any circumstance, I would.
For terrorist activities
I would be happy with "on the balance of probability" and life in prison
and
"beyond reasonable doubt" I would be happy to invoke a death penalty.
As I said, very few things are crystal clear. However, in the case of terrorism I would be content to settle for a balance which requires a lower burden of proof, providing it is associated with a reversible penalty.
At present I feel that the burden on society to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt has become too great. The police have to virtually wait until a crime is committed before taking action (in order to obtain good evidence of a serious crime) and this jeopardises innocent lives too much. The police need to be able to take action in the planning stages of a terrorist crime and be able to secure convictions on the balance of probability. We then take such criminals out of circulation (life in prison)
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
Don
Yes, we differ. But I enjoy reading your position on things and thinking about it forces me to take a closer look at where I stand.
I venture to suggest another major difference of opinion between us:
That you trust the police...
and I do not.
Regards
Deane
Yes, we differ. But I enjoy reading your position on things and thinking about it forces me to take a closer look at where I stand.
I venture to suggest another major difference of opinion between us:
That you trust the police...
and I do not.
Regards
Deane
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
You are pretending that you would rather Eichmann lived than six million holocaust victims.
Stop evading the question, stop pretending to adopt the high moral ground, stop puffing up a tenuous argument with long words - is this, or is this not an accurate and obvious extension of your comment that you do not support the taking of a single human life under any circumstance?
No. It's neither accurate nor an obvious extension. It's very confused reasoning on your part.
What you are suggesting is that the hypothetical killing of Eichmann could be justified - in hindsight. Then you extend your own reasoning to tacitly suggest that, therefore, killing can be justified in foresight.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:That you trust the police...
and I do not.
I don't trust all policemen all the time. I don't trust all lawyers all the time. I don't trust all judges all the time. etc etc.
But on balance, and with the right checks in place, I consider that the UK legal system gets most things about right most of the time. Not perfect. Could do better. Varies from day to day and week to week etc etc
And if this picture of practicallity and my proposed realignment of balance of evidence means (a few) innocent people get locked up for a long time in order that we save (a lot of) innocent lives from terrorism, then that is ok by me.
I also appreciate reading your thought-provoking views.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Third evasion, or is it the fourth, now?
Res Ipse loquitor, I rest my case.
It is a true saying that "One falsehood leads easily to another" - Cicero
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
Don
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in New Zealand the Police are extremely reluctant to admit their mistakes. If they were a little more willing to take good hard looks at themselves then I'd be a lot more acquiescent to their constant requests for greater discretionary powers.
Deane
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in New Zealand the Police are extremely reluctant to admit their mistakes. If they were a little more willing to take good hard looks at themselves then I'd be a lot more acquiescent to their constant requests for greater discretionary powers.
Deane
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in New Zealand the Police are extremely reluctant to admit their mistakes.
I think this is true of most people.
And yes, my peception of the police in the UK is that they are extremely reluctant to admit to their mistakes. But we have 40 or 50 separate police forces and when there is a need to investgate alleged police mistakes I believe one of these 50 separate forces is called in. There is also a special unit that investigates allegations against individual officers. And also a Police Complaints Commission (?) with its own investigators and which is completely independant of the police service and likes everybody to be aware of that.
There could well be other safeguards. I will rely on Andy to correct all my errors and fill in the missing details.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
Hi Mike
Thanks, I'm doing well. Still flying - I will be away from the forum for the next 5 days.
When I get back we need to fix a date for you, JohnR, Seagul, Mick et al to come over to listen to some music.
Presumably you haven't been to the Middle East yet? No need for details or an answer.
Cheers
Don
Thanks, I'm doing well. Still flying - I will be away from the forum for the next 5 days.
When I get back we need to fix a date for you, JohnR, Seagul, Mick et al to come over to listen to some music.
Presumably you haven't been to the Middle East yet? No need for details or an answer.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
But we have 40 or 50 separate police forces and when there is a need to investgate alleged police mistakes I believe one of these 50 separate forces is called in. There is also a special unit that investigates allegations against individual officers. And also a Police Complaints Commission (?) with its own investigators and which is completely independant of the police service and likes everybody to be aware of that.
I believe that New Zealand is unique in having a national, homogenous police force.
We, too, have a Police Complaints Authority. It is ostensibly independent - but until relatively recently it employed no investigators of its own - it relied instead on police officers to investigate complaints...
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Four evasions tells us all something, Deane.
So, what does it tell us all, Mike?
(You've informed me of my own opinions all the way through this thread. Don't stop now.)
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by acad tsunami
How the US is using nuclear weapons today
Depleted uranium is banned as
a weapon of mass destruction
Depleted uranium is considered a weapon of mass destruction and is banned for use in warfare by international law, yet the US and Israel use it routinely.
Depleted uranium is banned as
a weapon of mass destruction
Depleted uranium is considered a weapon of mass destruction and is banned for use in warfare by international law, yet the US and Israel use it routinely.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
Mike
It is very clear what you think about the issues we have been discussing. And it is very clear what I think too (well, I hope it is...) Perhaps you thought to persuade me to your point of view with your "questions"? Perhaps not.
As a source of conflict, arguments are excellent. But if an argument is entered into as a form of enquiry then certain rules must be observed to keep it from degrading into conflict.
I have tried to observe these rules but to do so I need to ignore sophistry and rhetoric - and your argument has consisted almost entirely of both.
It is very clear what you think about the issues we have been discussing. And it is very clear what I think too (well, I hope it is...) Perhaps you thought to persuade me to your point of view with your "questions"? Perhaps not.
As a source of conflict, arguments are excellent. But if an argument is entered into as a form of enquiry then certain rules must be observed to keep it from degrading into conflict.
I have tried to observe these rules but to do so I need to ignore sophistry and rhetoric - and your argument has consisted almost entirely of both.
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Basil
quote:In my opinion, if one death would save thousands of lives, its a good trade.
How would you determine whose death would save thousands of lives?
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
quote:How would you determine whose death would save thousands of lives?
Bin Laden, Mugabe, Bush
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by Basil
quote:Not exactly difficult to see how, really.
With 20/20 hindsight.