NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you consider it "torture"? It's apparent from previous stories that they temporarily withheld medical treatment for his hand wound (and probably leaned on it a bit) in order to get him to cooperate in the first place.

They already have quite a bit of evidence in the form of cellphones and blackberry devices and GPS units - and dead bodies.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5280084.ece

Indian police interrogators are preparing to administer a "truth serum" on the sole Islamic militant captured during last week's terror attacks on Mumbai to settle once and for all the question of where he is from.

The mystery of the man dubbed "the baby-faced gunman" has weighed heavily on India's relations with Pakistan as the nuclear-armed neighbours dispute each other's accounts of his origin.

Police interrogators in Mumbai told The Times that they have "verified" that Azam Amir Kasab, who was captured after a shoot-out in a Mumbai railway station on Wednesday night, is from Faridkot, a small village in Pakistan's impoverished south Punjab region. They say that the nine dead gunmen are also Pakistani.

Disputing that account, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan told CNN last night: "We have not been given any tangible proof to say that he is definitely a Pakistani. I very much doubt it … that he is a Pakistani."

Given the evidence so far from the cell phones, etc - what do you make of Zardari's claim that none of this originated in Pakistan?

Bleugh. Depends whether you consider the forced extraction of information from someone to be torturous or not.

Eh this is very dodgy stuff. Since they already know where he's from, I don't think that this is particularly responsible any more and isn't exactly going to calm the situation down.

It's probably not TORTURE in the literal sense, but it likely flies in the face of other civil liberties, namely the right to not b forced to incriminate oneself.

Eh this is very dodgy stuff. Since they already know where he's from, I don't think that this is particularly responsible any more and isn't exactly going to calm the situation down.

I think they already have the information, and it's pointless to do it.

The effects of various drugs are also rather random, and unless you have additional evidence to correlate his answers with, it's also useless.

Even simple questioning is useless unless you have something to correlate with.

I think they already have the information, and it's pointless to do it.
Aye exactly.

but i wouldnt see it as torture if its fully painless except the injection you may use it against dirty terrorists :p

Can it be lethal?

Can it be lethal?
Since they'll probably quietly shoot this guy in the head when all's said and done, I think that's a moot point.

Can it be lethal?

It depends on what they use.

The usual mix is methamphetamine (to make you very talkative) and versed (to make you comfortable with talking - you'll also forget ever being asked any questions, and forget ever saying anything, so if they repeat the questioning, and you try to lie, you won't remember your own lies).

Sure, you'll talk like a chatterbox, but whether or not what you say is useful is another thing entirely. If you don't have something to compare it against, it's just random chatter.

Truth serum exists now?

Truth serum exists now?

Not exactly.

Can it be lethal?

Since they'll probably quietly shoot this guy in the head when all's said and done, I think that's a moot point.

If you define physical pain as torture than this wouldn't be torture. If you think that the loss of free will at the hands of an interrogator is torture then.....

-snip-

Wait... they give them meth!?

If you define physical pain as torture than this wouldn't be torture. If you think that the loss of free will at the hands of an interrogator is torture then.....

Simple imprisonment is a loss of free will. So is holding a suspect until trial, "torture"?

the situation between pakistan and india is too delicate to use unreliable means to extract information that would be taken as utter truth.

yes but i dont think it would escalate between them

Simple imprisonment is a loss of free will. So is holding a suspect until trial, "torture"?

If that type of imprisonment is simply used to force a confession out of you, then the argument could be made.

It depends on what they use.

The usual mix is methamphetamine (to make you very talkative) and versed (to make you comfortable with talking - you'll also forget ever being asked any questions, and forget ever saying anything, so if they repeat the questioning, and you try to lie, you won't remember your own lies).

Sure, you'll talk like a chatterbox, but whether or not what you say is useful is another thing entirely. If you don't have something to compare it against, it's just random chatter.

I'm reading that ethanol is also used as a truth drug.

is it working?

I'm reading that ethanol is also used as a truth drug.

ethanol? Ethanol is just pure alcohol. You sure you don't mean pentothal?

Wait... they give them meth!?

Meth, ethanol and a series of other barbiturics, including the anesthetic sodium thiopental.

do you work for cia if you know such stuff? :p

Meth, ethanol and a series of other barbiturics, including the anesthetic sodium thiopental.

Versed alone is usually enough. The best part is that the subject doesn't remember being questioned.

Versed alone is usually enough. The best part is that the subject doesn't remember being questioned.

But the Wiki article I'm reading states that the serum is unreliable. Apparently those being given it tend to mix fact with fantasy.

It does, however, as you say, increase talking.

Err... innocent people have died. Nobody asked those people whether they'd like to be killed for whatever reasons, whether they'd want to give up their right to live, one of the foremost human rights. When it comes to the human rights of a terrorist who targets the civilian population and goes for a high score in order to impress his political enemies, the very last question that springs into my mind when investigating the attack is "gee, would this be against the rights of this terrorist and more worth than finding out who's to be punished for this act of terrorism"?

Over 150 innocent civilian casualties. That Kasav guy's rights are not a priority anymore. Protecting the lives of future would-be victims is.

Whether using that drug would be helpful or not is for the Indian authorities to decide. They probably know better than all of us.

When it comes to the human rights of a terrorist who targets the civilian population and goes for a high score in order to impress his political enemies, the very last question that springs into my mind when investigating the attack is "gee, would this be against the rights of this terrorist and more worth than finding out who's to be punished for this act of terrorism"?

Then there are those of us who like to believe that human rights are, in fact, human rights, and are not dependent on your actions.

But the Wiki article I'm reading states that the serum is unreliable. Apparently those being given it tend to mix fact with fantasy.

It does, however, as you say, increase talking.

I mentioned before that the results are random. Then again, ordinary questioning is generally useless unless you have some way to corroborate what's being said.

Then there are those of us who like to believe that human rights are, in fact, human rights, and are not dependent on your actions.

It's logically impossible for authorities to protect the human rights of everyone. Authorities are there to safeguard the civilians' human rights, such as the right to live.

Civilian population > Terrorist(s)

Keep on believing though... until you face a situation where you'll be bound to make a compromise you won't like.

It's logically impossible for authorities to protect the human rights of everyone. Authorities are there to safeguard the civilians' human rights, such as the right to live.

Civilian population > Terrorist(s)

Keep on believing though... until you face a situation where you'll be bound to make a compromise you won't like.

Is there any necessity for you to antagonize what Neo Art is posting in answer to your posts?

It's logically impossible for authorities to protect the human rights of everyone.

I don't think you understand how the concept of "civil rights" work in regards to person/government interaction.

You're right that the government can not stop crimes, that's an obvious, however the concept of human rights applies to ALL person. Civilians, terrorists, yes, even mass murdering dictators.

The whole point of human rights is that they are shared by everyone, not just people we like

Is there any necessity for you to antagonize what Neo Art is posting in answer to your posts?

Why is it a problem to respond semi-ironically to a semi-ironic response?

It's logically impossible for authorities to protect the human rights of everyone. Authorities are there to safeguard the civilians' human rights, such as the right to live.

Civilian population > Terrorist(s)

Blah blah blah.

You're espousing pretty far out views there friend. I think the authorities should have a word with you. Just to make sure, I think you should be tortured to make sure you're not a security threat... you know, just to be sure.

Keep on believing though... until you face a situation where you'll be bound to make a compromise you won't like.
What wonderful hypthetical and fantastical scenario did you have in mind?

Why is it a problem to respond semi-ironically to a semi-ironic response?

I do not see any irony on NA's post. *shrugs*

What wonderful hypthetical and fantastical scenario did you have in mind?

the one where he's right, of course.

Why is it a problem to respond semi-ironically to a semi-ironic response?

There has been no irony anywhere in this thread...well, except, perhaps, claiming that such isn't the case.

Hmm...I see what you did there.

There has been no irony anywhere in this thread...well, except, perhaps, claiming that such isn't the case.

Hmm...I see what you did there.

http://meow.catsplz.com/cats/pictures/234/I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

God I love that picture

God I love that picture

I are serious cat. This are serious thread.

*nods*

http://meow.catsplz.com/cats/pictures/234/I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

God I love that picture

How are you accessing my personal photo files? The intrawebs is not supposed to see my real face. =\

I don't think you understand how the concept of "civil rights" work in regards to person/government interaction.

You're right that the government can not stop crimes, that's an obvious, however the concept of human rights applies to ALL person. Civilians, terrorists, yes, even mass murdering dictators.

The whole point of human rights is that they are shared by everyone, not just people we like

Human rights in are never applied in their entirety to everyone. E.g. in the case of war, martial law would be declared and human rights disregarded (such as the right to a fair trial), or in this case, when national security and the well-being of the civilian population in general are seriously endangered, the first and foremost duty of a government is to stop the threat; infringe the rights of one for the sake of countless lives. Nobody ever said anything about "people we like". It's about necessity, not enmity.

If a criminal rapes or murders others, the government revokes his/her right to freedom (prison) or life (execution - democracies do it as well). If a terrorist who bombs densely populated areas gets caught, the government is eligible to revoke his right to not being injected with a substance that may make him talk, for the sake of catching and/or killing the other terrorists responsible for that attack and likely for future attacks.

If a criminal rapes or murders others, the government revokes his/her right to freedom (prison) or life (execution - democracies do it as well). If a terrorist who bombs densely populated areas gets caught, the government is eligible to revoke his right to not being injected with a substance that may make him talk, for the sake of catching and/or killing the other terrorists responsible for that attack and likely for future attacks.
This is a particularaly stupid argument. This is just one guy. The others are dead. They have absolutely nothing to compare his evidence to, which will just waste police and military time and resources which could be better used training for any future attacks instead of beating the shit out of some guy and filling him with 'truth serums' because they want some petty vengeance.

You're espousing pretty far out views there friend. I think the authorities should have a word with you. Just to make sure, I think you should be tortured to make sure you're not a security threat... you know, just to be sure.
You're implying that my views are a threat to society comparable with bombing Mumbai? I hope this is irony, otherwise you might be a lunatic.

What wonderful hypthetical and fantastical scenario did you have in mind?
Such as having to choose between getting closer to locating the terrorists (may involve injecting someone with drugs) or endangering more of the people you've sworn to protect.

I see why you can't see the irony... it's turned into sarcasm.

Some rights are suspended and some aren't, but human rights, as a whole, are rarely withheld (there have been rules to war as long as there have been wars). You are also making some pretty broad statements; some systems simply revoke a criminals freedom as a punitive measure, while others may revoke it as a component of rehabilitative procedure.

Arguing that, perhaps, this specific right may be suspended in such an emergency is one thing, but you seem to be saying that human rights, as a whole, are to be thrown to the wind at the slightest threat of hurricane.

You're implying that my views are a threat to society comparable with bombing Mumbai?

I would consider casual disregard for basic civil liberties to be pretty damned dangerous, yes.

You're implying that my views are a threat to society comparable with bombing Mumbai? I hope this is irony, otherwise you might be a lunatic.
Hyperbole, not irony. Perhaps mixed with a fair dose of sarcasm.
I see why you can't see the irony... it's turned into sarcasm.

I do not think that is why he cannot see the "irony."

This is a particularaly stupid argument. This is just one guy. The others are dead. They have absolutely nothing to compare his evidence to, which will just waste police and military time and resources which could be better used training for any future attacks instead of beating the shit out of some guy and filling him with 'truth serums' because they want some petty vengeance.

1. How do you know all others responsible are dead? Are you psychic or did you secretly inject someone who knew with truth serum?
2. How is it "petty vengeance" for authorities to investigate a terrorist attack and try to apprehend those responsible? Some might argue that it's what authorities do.

I would consider casual disregard for basic civil liberties to be pretty damned dangerous, yes.
So you oppose injecting a terrorist who's killed at least 174 people, but approve of torturing someone who disregards liberties you hold paramount? How self-contradicting.

So you oppose injecting a terrorist who's killed at least 174 people, but approve of torturing someone who disregards liberties you hold paramount? How self-contradicting.

:confused:

Neo Art said what now....?

Some rights are suspended and some aren't, but human rights, as a whole, are rarely withheld (there have been rules to war as long as there have been wars).
And those rules have been continuously broken, mostly unpunished if committed by the winners. Sad, but true.

You are also making some pretty broad statements; some systems simply revoke a criminals freedom as a punitive measure, while others may revoke it as a component of rehabilitative procedure.
Nevertheless, they do revoke certain rights if they see a good reason to do so. Which is definately the case with this terrorist.

Arguing that, perhaps, this specific right may be suspended in such an emergency is one thing, but you seem to be saying that human rights, as a whole, are to be thrown to the wind at the slightest threat of hurricane.
Now, you're putting words into my mouth. Let me quote myself:
If a terrorist who bombs densely populated areas gets caught, the government is eligible to revoke his right to not being injected with a substance that may make him talk, for the sake of catching and/or killing the other terrorists responsible for that attack and likely for future attacks.
I may not have spelled it out that precisely in my first post, but I have done so prior to your reply. Thus, you disregarded what I said and put words I didn't say into my mouth.


:confused:

Neo Art said what now....?

Neo Art? You were the one who said it and Neo Art approved of it. Re-read my post.

Would you consider it "torture"?

Torture maybe (depends on the drug). Illicit and unreliable certainly.

It's apparent from previous stories that they temporarily withheld medical treatment for his hand wound (and probably leaned on it a bit) in order to get him to cooperate in the first place.

That's illicit for sure.

Given the evidence so far from the cell phones, etc - what do you make of Zardari's claim that none of this originated in Pakistan?

Most likely it did, but nut under official sanction.

So you oppose injecting a terrorist who's killed at least 174 people, but approve of torturing someone who disregards liberties you hold paramount? How self-contradicting.

you asked if we found your views dangerous. I do. As dangerous, if put in place, as any terrorist action we've seen, for while terrorists may kill innocents, your perspective cuts at the very fabric of civilized society.

Would I have you tortured? No, of course not, because inherent in those rights is your right to believe such things, no matter how foolish and dangerous they may be.

So you oppose injecting a terrorist who's killed at least 174 people, but approve of torturing someone who disregards liberties you hold paramount? How self-contradicting.

Wha...?

Witholding medical aid in exchange for information is dodgy stuff. I dont like it. Nor do I like forcing anyone to ingest anything into their body unless it is life saving and even then its circumstantial.

That being said, however, Im undecided. But regardless, its a dangerous step to take.

IIRC so called truth serums work by inhibiting higher brain function making it hader to lie as it is harder to conciously create the false information for the lie it's use is not tecnically torture in that torture is causing pain to force a subject to talk. I havent really kept up with the news but the captured gunman seems to be pretty talkative as it is.

you asked if we found your views dangerous. I do. As dangerous, if put in place, as any terrorist action we've seen, for while terrorists may kill innocents, your perspective cuts at the very fabric of civilized society.
No, I didn't ask if you found my views dangerous.
I asked whether PM thought if I can be compared to a terrorist. I believe it's more important to protect the civilian population than not to inject a terrorist with truth serum. A terrorist threatens the civilian population. If PM said this out of pure irony, I see no reason to comment it. However, you answered my question (wasn't directed at you, but be my guest) with "yes", thus you might be (as I wrote earlier) a lunatic. That's because you consider your own personal view of "the fabric of society" more important than preserving human lives to the point that you'd deny what some perceive as torture from a terrorist but you'd agree with torture of an individual that threatens your idea of morals.

Would I have you tortured? No, of course not, because inherent in those rights is your right to believe such things, no matter how foolish and dangerous they may be.
PM wrote that he thinks I should be tortured. I asked HIM if HE was serious. You answered my question out of your perspective with yes.

Now, are you trying to turn back time?


Just to refresh your memory:
Just to make sure, I think you should be tortured to make sure you're not a security threat... you know, just to be sure.
You're implying that my views are a threat to society comparable with bombing Mumbai? I hope this is irony, otherwise you might be a lunatic.
I would consider casual disregard for basic civil liberties to be pretty damned dangerous, yes.

Wha...?

Witholding medical aid in exchange for information is dodgy stuff. I dont like it. Nor do I like forcing anyone to ingest anything into their body unless it is life saving and even then its circumstantial.

I wasn't talking about withholding medical aid, I was talking about injecting a drug into a terrorist that makes him more talkative.

Now, are you trying to turn back time?


Just to refresh your memory:

Did you compete in the Olympics? Because I think youd do well in the long jump making such leaps.

I wasn't talking about withholding medical aid,

Was mentioned in the OP.

I was talking about injecting a drug into a terrorist that makes him more talkative.

I addressed this.

No, I didn't ask if you found my views dangerous.

Yes, you did:

You're implying that my views are a threat to society comparable with bombing Mumbai?

to which, I answered, yes, I find your views are a threat comparable with the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.

You asked a question, I answered it. I suggest that before you spend any more time here, you learn to read.

Err... innocent people have died. Nobody asked those people whether they'd like to be killed for whatever reasons, whether they'd want to give up their right to live, one of the foremost human rights. When it comes to the human rights of a terrorist who targets the civilian population and goes for a high score in order to impress his political enemies, the very last question that springs into my mind when investigating the attack is "gee, would this be against the rights of this terrorist and more worth than finding out who's to be punished for this act of terrorism"?

Over 150 innocent civilian casualties. That Kasav guy's rights are not a priority anymore. Protecting the lives of future would-be victims is.

Whether using that drug would be helpful or not is for the Indian authorities to decide. They probably know better than all of us.

Well said.

The only "torture" going on here is the torture of logic that leads to an argument that truth serum = torture.

Well said.

The only "torture" going on here is the torture of logic that leads to an argument that truth serum = torture.

Quick Frodo! Take the One Ring to Mordor!


I dont think anyones really saying its torture. More its the denial of other civil liberties. Which is dangerous.

Not that you care, because we all know that only white westerners, and only those white westerners that are right wing get civil liberties.

Someone got injected with a triple dose of stupid in this thread.

And just in case, let me make it clear that this statement does not signal any support on my part for torture.

Someone got injected with a triple dose of stupid in this thread.


Would that be torture?

Quick Frodo! Take the One Ring to Mordor!

http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/aLR_Potatoes.gif

Po-ta-toes

http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/aLR_Potatoes.gif

Po-ta-toes

Awesome. Now that will be stuck in my head all day through class today (assuming youve seen the little jingle made from it).

namely the right to not b forced to incriminate oneself.

What if the person is already incriminated and found guilty of mass murder and terrorism? What would your thoughts be on the drug then?

What if the person is already incriminated and found guilty of mass murder and terrorism? What would your thoughts be on the drug then?

then you're injecting someone with a drug cocktail for no particular reason? WHy would that be a good thing?

Yes, you did:



to which, I answered, yes, I find your views are a threat comparable with the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.

You asked a question, I answered it. I suggest that before you spend any more time here, you learn to read.
You seem to have picked that sentence out of context. It was a question addressed to PM, who thinks I should be tortured (or has a weird sense of humour). I would suggest either not answering questions directed at someone else, or answering such questions only after reading the context and not accusing others of incapability to read while it was you who reads the sentences of a thread selectively (it makes you look like a hypocrite).

As for your insulting tone, I find it both amusing and satisfying that you choose to insult me by attributing a deficiency to me, of which you're the one showing symptoms. The desire to insult makes you a prick by definition, the hypocrisy makes you... a hypocrite.

Back to your selective comprehension, I summarized the discussion in three quotes in my previous post, each of them being an answer to the previous one. If you want to continue chewing around on this derailed discussion not unlike to flaming, I suggest you re-read that post to gain an understanding of what you and others have written (this might prevent you from looking like a hypocrite).

You seem to have picked that sentence out of context. It was a question addressed to PM, who thinks I should be tortured (or has a weird sense of humour). I would suggest either not answering questions directed at someone else, or answering such questions only after reading the context and not accusing others of incapability to read while it was you who reads the sentences of a thread selectively (it makes you look like a hypocrite).

As for your insulting tone, I find it both amusing and satisfying that you choose to insult me by attributing a deficiency to me, of which you're the one showing symptoms. The desire to insult makes you a prick by definition, the hypocrisy makes you... a hypocrite.

Back to your selective comprehension, I summarized the discussion in three quotes in my previous post, each of them being an answer to the previous one. If you want to continue chewing around on this derailed discussion not unlike to flaming, I suggest you re-read that post to gain an understanding of what you and others have written (this might prevent you from looking like a hypocrite).

Did the point PM was making fly right over your head? Is your persecution complex so large that you thought he really wanted to torture you? Or are you just kinky and got kinda excited at the suggestion?

You seem to have picked that sentence out of context. It was a question addressed to PM, who thinks I should be tortured (or has a weird sense of humour). I would suggest either not answering questions directed at someone else, or answering such questions only after reading the context and not accusing others of incapability to read while it was you who reads the sentences of a thread selectively (it makes you look like a hypocrite).

I was aware of what he said. I was aware of what you asked. While his implication of "you should be tortured for what you believe!" CAN give rise to "so you think I'm as bad as the terrorists?" if one believes that it's ok to torture terrorists, your question of "so you think I'm as bad as the terrorists?" can be answered without reference to torture what so ever.

Which I did.

If you feel that the pace of this forum is too much for you, and are unable to understand simple answers to simple questions, I again reiterate that perhaps this is not the place for you. Perhaps later, when you've refined your reading comprehension.

I suggest after you finish highschool.

then you're injecting someone with a drug cocktail for no particular reason? WHy would that be a good thing?

Could be other reasons why they might want to do it hypothetically speaking. Such as information on other plots/threats etc... They could also incriminate regardless of whether they know for sure if he is Pakistani or not, and then after he has been sentenced, find out once and for all etc...

Could be other reasons why they might want to do it hypothetically speaking. Such as information on other plots/threats etc... They could also incriminate regardless of whether they know for sure if he is Pakistani or not, and then after he has been sentenced, find out once and for all etc...

ahh, ok I see. It's an..interesting question, one I haven't thought much about. I've been approaching this from the perspective of evidence gathering against him.

I dunno, something about it bugs me the wrong way, and I'm certain it would be unconstitutional in the US, I'm just having trouble coming up with expressly why...

I dunno, something about it bugs me the wrong way, and I'm certain it would be unconstitutional in the US, I'm just having trouble coming up with expressly why...

Agreed, it is a little dodgy. But, because there is no actual severe pain involved (I assume), I can't think of any civil liberties that it would actually break.

Did the point PM was making fly right over your head? Is your persecution complex so large that you thought he really wanted to torture you? Or are you just kinky and got kinda excited at the suggestion?
No, that's why I asked if he was serious. Putting an equality sign between mass murder/terrorism and approving the infringement of terrorists' human rights in case it saves further lives (regardless if the torture part is a bad joke or not) is too far-fetched to be a sane argument.

As for your ad hominem-s: are they helping your cause in some way?

Agreed, it is a little dodgy. But, because there is no actual severe pain involved (I assume), I can't think of any civil liberties that it would actually break.

the thing is, the right to not be tortured is not inherently a right to NOT BE TORTURED. Rather, it falls under the general umbrella of a right to bodily autonomy. I would imagine the government forcing needles into your arm, with a dangerous cocktail, with the aim of making you talk would fall under a coerced confession, regardless of whether it is directly implicating or not, and would still violate the spirit of Miranda

ahh, ok I see. It's an..interesting question, one I haven't thought much about. I've been approaching this from the perspective of evidence gathering against him.

I dunno, something about it bugs me the wrong way, and I'm certain it would be unconstitutional in the US, I'm just having trouble coming up with expressly why...

2 countries with nuclear weapons stand to get more hostile toward each other. Every bit of information is needed so hopefully war can be prevented. Because if they know exactly who what and wear in Pakistan they can likely get the Pakistanis to cooperate. If they only have a vague idea Pakistan will give em the cold shoulder and tensions will escalate.

While his implication of "you should be tortured for what you believe!" CAN give rise to "so you think I'm as bad as the terrorists?" if one believes that it's ok to torture terrorists, your question of "so you think I'm as bad as the terrorists?" can be answered without reference to torture what so ever.
You might think it can if you've already done so and it's convenient for you to disregard the fact that I quoted a specific part of a specific post and asked a question to that specific poster in relation to that very quote. You're just trying to justify your answer to a question misinterpreted by you (by taking it out of context) and directed at someone else.

If you feel that the pace of this forum is too much for you, and are unable to understand simple answers to simple questions, I again reiterate that perhaps this is not the place for you.
While I understand how it will make your life easier if there wasn't the guy who spots your mistakes and points out the dodgy attempts to justify them, it's just not how it works. You might try admitting said mistakes and/or refraining from committing them again in the future - that should make life easier for you.

Perhaps later, when you've refined your reading comprehension.
Do you somehow think that in your dreamworld, calling someone illiterate while disregarding important parts of a conversation just magically reverses the fact that you disregarded said part?

I suggest after you finish highschool.
Generally, an ad hominem damages your cause and makes you look like a prick, even more so if your pitiful attempt of an insult proves to be as invalid as it can get. Are you trying to look unable to debate?

the thing is, the right to not be tortured is not inherently a right to NOT BE TORTURED. Rather, it falls under the general umbrella of a right to bodily autonomy. I would imagine the government forcing needles into your arm, with a dangerous cocktail, with the aim of making you talk would fall under a coerced confession, regardless of whether it is directly implicating or not, and would still violate the spirit of Miranda

dont use the information at trial use it to figure out who was behind the attacks and lower Indo Pak tensions.

the thing is, the right to not be tortured is not inherently a right to NOT BE TORTURED. Rather, it falls under the general umbrella of a right to bodily autonomy. I would imagine the government forcing needles into your arm, with a dangerous cocktail, with the aim of making you talk would fall under a coerced confession, regardless of whether it is directly implicating or not, and would still violate the spirit of Miranda

Miranda doesn't hold water in India.

Miranda doesn't hold water in India.

well no, of course not, I'm more talking about the principle behind it.

Simple imprisonment is a loss of free will. So is holding a suspect until trial, "torture"?

It can be. Depends on when the trial is taking place, among other factors.

I fine as long as it works. But it does violate right to assumption of innocence. Should only be administerd after guilty verdict has been found, so that defence can try to get new case.

No, that's why I asked if he was serious. Putting an equality sign between mass murder/terrorism and approving the infringement of terrorists' human rights in case it saves further lives (regardless if the torture part is a bad joke or not) is too far-fetched to be a sane argument.

Not really. In principle, violation of rights is violation of rights.


As for your ad hominem-s: are they helping your cause in some way?

See, this is were your ability to make a joke comes in. Being pissy doesnt change your wrongness.

Not really. In principle, violation of rights is violation of rights.
So just because a terrorist violated the rights of >174 people, the authorities don't have the right to violate HIS rights in order to prevent further deaths? And all these years I thought this is what authorities were MEANT to do.

Somehow I think you live in an illusion - or you dream of a world where crimes go unpunished.

See, this is were your ability to make a joke comes in. Being pissy doesnt change your wrongness.
You still didn't answer my question. Are insults meant to make your arguments right?

So just because a terrorist violated the rights of >174 people, the authorities don't have the right to violate HIS rights in order to prevent further deaths? And all these years I thought this is what authorities were MEANT to do.

Somehow I think you live in an illusion - or you dream of a world where crimes go unpunished.

Unpunished? Were did I say unpunished? I said violations of civil rights in this manner, if I believed such, would make you no better than terrorists.

I do not know how I feel about truth sermum yet. But torture in general does indeed make you as bad as the terrorists.


You still didn't answer my question. Are insults meant to make your arguments right?

I did. It was a joke. Not an insult. Grow thicker skin.

So just because a terrorist violated the rights of >174 people, the authorities don't have the right to violate HIS rights in order to prevent further deaths? And all these years I thought this is what authorities were MEANT to do.

Somehow I think you live in an illusion - or you dream of a world where crimes go unpunished.


You still didn't answer my question. Are insults meant to make your arguments right?

If you go to Enlightenment philosophy, the idea of human rights were rights which should be given to all people (though in many of those philosopher's opinions people only referred to white males, but times have changed). If you believe that those terrorists are "human", which they are, and you believe in the concept of "human rights", then they should have them. Doing a crime doesn't mean you lose those rights, it just means that you will receive some sort of punishment. And considering that there aren't any apparent threats of an attack in the near future, there aren't "further deaths" to prevent. In fact, any information gained would likely be used by politicians to inflame tensions with Pakistan, and regardless of whether or not the Pakistani government is involved, it will do nothing about the group that caused it. Basically, violating the man's rights has no gain, even if you think that he doesn't deserve those rights.

Unpunished? Were did I say unpunished? I said violations of civil rights in this manner, if I believed such, would make you no better than terrorists.
Even if those violations were necessary in order to protect the civilian population?

I do not know how I feel about truth sermum yet. But torture in general does indeed make you as bad as the terrorists.
This again raises the question whether truth serum is torture or not. While I don't think it's torture and I'd be against what I think is torture (those methods would be disproportional to its usefulness), the main thing I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether it might be considered inappropriate or not. It makes the guy talk, can prevent further deaths, may ease tensions between two nuclear powers and can ensure national security to a degree. The risk of side effects is so minor in comparison to the risk to national security in case the interrogators would get touchy about human rights, that it's sensible to disregard it completely. If he doesn't want to be injected, he shouldn't have KILLED OVER 150 INNOCENT PEOPLE in the first place.

I did. It was a joke. Not an insult. Grow thicker skin.
I thought jokes were supposed to be entertaining. Perhaps you should write funnier jokes, or more appropriate ones, with less flaming characteristics.

Turaan, du häsch voll rächt abr das weisch du scho.

Even if those violations were necessary in order to protect the civilian population?

Yes. Even if. Thats why we're better than them. We dont sacrifice rights and principles in favor of self interest.


This again raises the question whether truth serum is torture or not. While I don't think it's torture and I'd be against what I think is torture (those methods would be disproportional to its usefulness), the main thing I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether it might be considered inappropriate or not. It makes the guy talk, can prevent further deaths, may ease tensions between two nuclear powers and can ensure national security to a degree. The risk of side effects is so minor in comparison to the risk to national security in case the interrogators would get touchy about human rights, that it's sensible to disregard it completely. If he doesn't want to be injected, he shouldn't have KILLED OVER 150 INNOCENT PEOPLE in the first place.


As I said, Im unsure how I feel about truth serum. It is dodgy and opens up a whole new can of worms, but I can see the merits of it.


I thought jokes were supposed to be entertaining. Perhaps you should write funnier jokes, or more appropriate ones, with less flaming characteristics.

We get it. My joke hurt your feelings. Lets drop it.

Doing a crime doesn't mean you lose those rights, it just means that you will receive some sort of punishment.
Truth serum is 0% punishment and 100% investigative prevention.

And considering that there aren't any apparent threats of an attack in the near future, there aren't "further deaths" to prevent.
Are you psychic or do you know something the authorities don't? (I know I've said this before to someone else, but there's a case of recurring arguments in this thread)

In fact, any information gained would likely be used by politicians to inflame tensions with Pakistan, and regardless of whether or not the Pakistani government is involved, it will do nothing about the group that caused it.
Those are some pretty heavy accusations against India and I would be delighted to see a source to these claims. Otherwise it's just malevolent speculation.

Basically, violating the man's rights has no gain, even if you think that he doesn't deserve those rights.
Oh he does deserve those rights, but the civilian population deserves its rights too. First of all, there are more civilians, second of all, they are innocent (regarding terrorism) and finally, the duty of the Indian authorities is to protect the Indian people. That tilts the scales against the terrorist. Though I agree that they must make a choice and pick the lesser evil. There is no way you can make a choice that'll make everyone happy in this case.

Yes. Even if. Thats why we're better than them. We dont sacrifice rights and principles in favor of self interest.
So the Indian authorities do their job out of self-interest and NOT because, you know, protecting their people IS their job?

We get it. My joke hurt your feelings. Lets drop it.
It's also insulting to assume that your insults actually hurt my feelings. What you're missing is that your insults only hurt your arguments, not my feelings, and that is why you retrospectively try to make it look like a joke and this is also why you want to simply "drop it". It probably would've made you and your arguments look better if you hadn't felt the need to resort to petty insults with a touch of sarcasm in the context of a debate.

Ah, but if you really insist, I may disregard it. Your need to deny your earlier ad hominem might be caused by remorse, on which I have no desire to poke around.

Turaan, du häsch voll rächt abr das weisch du scho.
I weiss au dass es niemert z'überzüügä giit, so wie's bi derä diskussion über d'Schwiiz oder bi jedä andrä. Mängmol gsehni aber sowas vo hirnverbrennti uussagä dass es mir e freud macht wenn d'lüüt i dä eigenä widersprüch versuufät.

I weiss au dass es niemert z'überzüügä giit, so wie's bi derä diskussion über d'Schwiiz oder bi jedä andrä. Mängmol gsehni aber sowas vo hirnverbrennti uussagä dass es mir e freud macht wenn d'lüüt i dä eigenä widersprüch versuufät.
Jo, genau abr du meinsch über d SVP und so, odr?

____________________________________________________

I agree that it is a violation of civil liberties to force somoene to take truth serum in order to gather evidence against them on a case in which they have not yet been found guilty.

However, when it is a criminal who has already been found guilty and you are looking to capture anyone who was part of his organization or simply get any leads on it, then surely something like a truth serum is a good option and I don't see what is legally wrong with it. I mean it's not harmful and it gives information. It's 100% better than torture in that it doesn't harm the person and 100% better than doing nothing in that it provides information.

Jo, genau. Du meinsch über d SVP und so, odr?
Genau diä ominösä diskussion.

Genau diä ominösä diskussion.
lol. Abr doch mini liablings diskussion! :p

You seem to have picked that sentence out of context. It was a question addressed to PM, who thinks I should be tortured (or has a weird sense of humour). I would suggest either not answering questions directed at someone else, or answering such questions only after reading the context and not accusing others of incapability to read while it was you who reads the sentences of a thread selectively (it makes you look like a hypocrite).

Aw shit. I may be slightly drunk right now, but even I can still see that I was pointing out the fallacy in your 'torture them who don't agree with us' standards.

Putting an equality sign between mass murder/terrorism and approving the infringement of terrorists' human rights in case it saves further lives (regardless if the torture part is a bad joke or not) is too far-fetched to be a sane argument.
Sorry pettle, but you infringe on human rights regardless whether you define them as terrorists, or 'bad', is irrelevant to that fact that human rights apply to all.

dont worry the country holding the man is India. And only western countries can actually torture people :q

Aw shit. I may be slightly drunk right now, but even I can still see that I was pointing out the fallacy in your 'torture them who don't agree with us' standards.


Sorry pettle, but you infringe on human rights regardless whether you define them as terrorists, or 'bad', is irrelevant to that fact that human rights apply to all.

Idealism is nice. but.
This is a volatile situation, an Indian Pakistan conflict can turn nuclear resulting in hundreds of millions dead. If giving someone if giving this guy truth serum makes the worse case scenario less likely to happen even by .001% lets do it.

Morals and virtues are all fine and dandy but when your talking about massive death on the subcontinent. Id just as soon use any and every means to prevent it.

Idealism is nice. but.
This is a volatile situation, an Indian Pakistan conflict can turn nuclear resulting in hundreds of millions dead. If giving someone if giving this guy truth serum makes the worse case scenario less likely to happen even by .001% lets do it.

Morals and virtues are all fine and dandy but when your talking about massive death on the subcontinent. Id just as soon use any and every means to prevent it.

Fine. Then you've just defined who is deserving of human rights and who is not. You've just defined who is human and who is a lower category of human.

Someone else classified people as human and sub-human before....

Godwin - swish - three points, I'm done

Aw shit. I may be slightly drunk right now, but even I can still see that I was pointing out the fallacy in your 'torture them who don't agree with us' standards.
Does your drunkenness make you hallucinate? There never was a "torture who don't agree with us" standard, only a "disregard certain human rights of one mass-murderer to save hundreds of innocent civilians" standard.

Sorry pettle, but you infringe on human rights regardless whether you define them as terrorists, or 'bad', is irrelevant to that fact that human rights apply to all.
I don't define them as terrorists. He himself did when he blew up >174 people. And the discussion is about whether it's okay for the authorities to disregard the human rights of a terrorist protect the human rights of the innocent or not. You say it's wrong, I say it's right, but the question if the authorities will use that drug on the terrorist or not might never be answered as it's unlikely for ALL of their applied interrogation methods to reach the public.

why not just put him through 174 days of torture? 1 day for each person that died. Or prehaps im being too nice here? 1 month per person?

the real question to me is what are they aiming to retrive from this individual. The masterminds behind this attack are most likely still in india. They will send the stupid and angry to do these kinds of attacks for them.

All this individual probably knew where the basics. That is turn up to this point with this weapon (or it may have been supplied). Head over to this building once off the boat and start killing people at roughly this time.

If the leaders of the terrorist ring are remotely intelligent they would have already changed their contact details and location once they heard one of terrorists was captured

I doubt very much that anything said by this guy will be useful at all.

Fine. Then you've just defined who is deserving of human rights and who is not. You've just defined who is human and who is a lower category of human.

Someone else classified people as human and sub-human before....

Godwin - swish - three points, I'm done

no i did not. just if an action makes nuclear war less likely to occur that action should be taken. I don't care if i am shooting up a random person off the street with drugs if it makes the death of several hundred million people less likely then i will do it.

Morality is made to serve humanity
humanity does not serve Morality.

Morality is made to serve humanity
humanity does not serve Morality.

Solid gold </threadwin>
Full stop.

Does your drunkenness make you hallucinate? There never was a "torture who don't agree with us" standard, only a "disregard certain human rights of one mass-murderer to save hundreds of innocent civilians" standard.
Even in my semi lucid state, I can clearly see you value denigrating some humans into a category that do not deserve human rights.


I don't define them as terrorists. He himself did when he blew up >174 people. And the discussion is about whether it's okay for the authorities to disregard the human rights of a terrorist protect the human rights of the innocent or not. You say it's wrong, I say it's right, but the question if the authorities will use that drug on the terrorist or not might never be answered as it's unlikely for ALL of their applied interrogation methods to reach the public.
You say it's right to deny a human, human rights. Enough said really.

Even in my semi lucid state, I can clearly see you value denigrating some humans into a category that do not deserve human rights.
Wrong again. I did say on countless occasions that the terrorist does deserve human rights and that they must be unfortunately revoked if it saves countless lives. It's a sacrifice, but since the terrorist was the one who killed innocent civilians in the first place, he won't be making that decision.

You say it's right to deny a human, human rights. Enough said really.
And you say that indefinitely more deaths are acceptable, just to avoid a practice you consider dodgy. Enough said really.

It's probably not TORTURE in the literal sense, but it likely flies in the face of other civil liberties, namely the right to not b forced to incriminate oneself.
He has been CAPTURED IN THE ACT of mass murder. He does not even have the right to life, not anymore.

Aw shit. I may be slightly drunk right now, but even I can still see that I was pointing out the fallacy in your 'torture them who don't agree with us' standards.
No, he wasn't talking about torturing people who "disagree": he was talking about torturing people who have been caught in mass murder and may have information about mass murderers still planning more such acts.

the real question to me is what are they aiming to retrive from this individual. The masterminds behind this attack are most likely still in india.

More likely in Pakistan. That is what it would be useful to know.
All this individual probably knew where the basics. That is turn up to this point with this weapon (or it may have been supplied). Head over to this building once off the boat and start killing people at roughly this time.

You are seriously underestimating the amount of training and planning that would have to go into something like this. He knows where he was trained, and by whom.
I doubt very much that anything said by this guy will be useful at all.
I think quite the opposite.

So the Indian authorities do their job out of self-interest and NOT because, you know, protecting their people IS their job?

You misunderstand. I meant the self interest of the collective.


It's also insulting to assume that your insults actually hurt my feelings. What you're missing is that your insults only hurt your arguments, not my feelings, and that is why you retrospectively try to make it look like a joke and this is also why you want to simply "drop it". It probably would've made you and your arguments look better if you hadn't felt the need to resort to petty insults with a touch of sarcasm in the context of a debate.

Ah, but if you really insist, I may disregard it. Your need to deny your earlier ad hominem might be caused by remorse, on which I have no desire to poke around.


It was a joke. Thats what it was from the begining.

Your sanctimonious additude is noted. If you really felt my joke was insulting, than A) I wonder why you think me asking if you were kinky is insulting, whats wrong with being kinky, and B) I appoligze, if only to end this discussion.

I also note for future reference, youre far to serious to appreciate jokes and sarcasm in a debate. Many of us do it here, so youre in for a long stay.

Truth serum is 0% punishment and 100% investigative prevention.

Regardless, his rights would be infringed, with little to zero benefit to anyone else.

Are you psychic or do you know something the authorities don't? (I know I've said this before to someone else, but there's a case of recurring arguments in this thread)

Ok, so he works in a particular organization. He likely knows very little of the work they do at the upper levels or what they're planning (and if he did, it wouldn't be much of a group would it?). And even then, no one is hearing or has heard about some imminent attack again, from that same group. Generally, these sort of groups have a decent downtime between major operations. And even if all of the above are proven false, there would have to be significant risk of the man knowing something about an imminent attack from the group he works for. The chances of that logically? Next to zero.

And even if there is a chance, such intelligence can be gained more effectively, more reliably, and with less controversy through other means. As others have said, this form of "interrogation" isn't necessarily accurate.

Those are some pretty heavy accusations against India and I would be delighted to see a source to these claims. Otherwise it's just malevolent speculation.

Not really, it's a remark on politicians in general. It's empirically proven that politicians love to distract people from domestic issues via fear mongering (whether or not that fear is real or imaginary). The same applies to Pakistan as well. If you want "proof", you can look towards Bush's policies post-911, Ahmadinejad's policies and speeches right now, the American attitude towards the USSR in the Cold War (and vice-versa), and many other examples.

What you have to understand is that I'm saying that the accusations India is levelling are necessarily false, but rather, that whether or not they are true, they are a benefit to politicians.

Oh he does deserve those rights, but the civilian population deserves its rights too. First of all, there are more civilians, second of all, they are innocent (regarding terrorism) and finally, the duty of the Indian authorities is to protect the Indian people. That tilts the scales against the terrorist. Though I agree that they must make a choice and pick the lesser evil. There is no way you can make a choice that'll make everyone happy in this case.

That's a weak argument because the fact is that civilian rights will not be protected by violating this man's rights. You can look to my first answers to your post for my warrants, but essentially, since there is nothing to gain via the truth serum, the argument that it should be done for other's rights is flawed, and even then, it is against the philosophy of human rights to infringe one man's rights for the many, whether that person has done wrong or not.

Idealism is nice. but.
This is a volatile situation, an Indian Pakistan conflict can turn nuclear resulting in hundreds of millions dead. If giving someone if giving this guy truth serum makes the worse case scenario less likely to happen even by .001% lets do it.

Morals and virtues are all fine and dandy but when your talking about massive death on the subcontinent. Id just as soon use any and every means to prevent it.

How does giving him "truth serum" decrease the risk of nuclear war between the two countries? I would say it has zero effect, if not tipping off the scale in the other way (for instance, if a drug derived testimony is used as evidence against the Pakistani regime, it would likely decrease the regime's credibility making it easier to overthrow).

I expect it to have no effect, but if you want to look at it from a flawed catastrophe prevention standpoint, the "truth serum" is more likely to lead to nuclear war than prevent it.

Does your drunkenness make you hallucinate? There never was a "torture who don't agree with us" standard, only a "disregard certain human rights of one mass-murderer to save hundreds of innocent civilians" standard.


I don't define them as terrorists. He himself did when he blew up >174 people. And the discussion is about whether it's okay for the authorities to disregard the human rights of a terrorist protect the human rights of the innocent or not. You say it's wrong, I say it's right, but the question if the authorities will use that drug on the terrorist or not might never be answered as it's unlikely for ALL of their applied interrogation methods to reach the public.

From an ethical standpoint I say we don't infringe upon those rights, which means under my view, the buck stops there.

But even under your standpoint, the argument bolded is wrong. You have no warrants as to how anything can be gained via the truth serum, so even under your system of thought there is no reason to administer the serum.

Regardless, his rights would be infringed, with little to zero benefit to anyone else.

You don't KNOW how much benefit there is going to be.
Ok, so he works in a particular organization. He likely knows very little of the work they do at the upper levels or what they're planning (and if he did, it wouldn't be much of a group would it?).

My assessment of the likelihoods would be the reverse of yours (it may, in fact, not be "much of a group", just a few dozen people, but capable of carrying out a few more attacks as deadly as this one). But, WE DON'T KNOW. That's what needs to be discovered.
And even then, no one is hearing or has heard about some imminent attack again, from that same group.

Don't you think it would be better, then, if we DID hear?
there would have to be significant risk of the man knowing something about an imminent attack from the group he works for.

What if he knows about an attack planned for next year?
And even if there is a chance, such intelligence can be gained more effectively, more reliably, and with less controversy through other means.

We are waiting for your suggestions.

Just as likely to make them high as a kite and see magical talking seahorses as it is to get the truth out of 'em. Don't waste our time or money on truth serums, or torture or anything.

You don't KNOW how much benefit there is going to be.

And neither do you, we can only make warranted (or unwarranted) speculations because to the extent of my knowledge neither of us is in an intelligence agency, and even if we were, we certainly wouldn't be posting such information on NSG.

My assessment of the likelihoods would be the reverse of yours (it may, in fact, not be "much of a group", just a few dozen people, but capable of carrying out a few more attacks as deadly as this one). But, WE DON'T KNOW. That's what needs to be discovered.

Hardly, the attack was very developed and organized. Every one of the men knew what they were doing and seemed to carry out their orders effectively. That is why such a small amount of people were able to wreak so much havoc for so long against an established government. I highly doubt that an inefficient, unsecretive, and overall incredibly stupid organization could carry out such an attack.

And how do you think the man would know much about the organization? Why the hell would they tell someone they're sending off to die about their next attack? Why would he know how many people there are in the organization, who its leaders are, or where they live? The fact is that he likely knows very little, and what he does know is probably already known by intelligence agencies.

Don't you think it would be better, then, if we DID hear?

But again, we're assessing whether or not we're likely to gain anything from someone, who is functionally a "grunt".

What if he knows about an attack planned for next year?

Why would such a secretive and unknown organization tell a man low on the hierarchy when their next big attack was?

We are waiting for your suggestions.

I'd love to give some, but I don't know how intelligence agencies operate, but they do it effectively (there were apparently warnings given out by the US to India over this).

-----------

And regardless of all the above argumentation, you still have to deal with the fact that information gained via the serum is speculative and not verifiable without other reliable sources. That barrier has to be overcome before it can even be considered a pragmatic solution.

You don't KNOW how much benefit there is going to be.

My assessment of the likelihoods would be the reverse of yours (it may, in fact, not be "much of a group", just a few dozen people, but capable of carrying out a few more attacks as deadly as this one). But, WE DON'T KNOW. That's what needs to be discovered.

Don't you think it would be better, then, if we DID hear?

What if he knows about an attack planned for next year?

We are waiting for your suggestions.

Blah blah blah.

What if he doesn't?

You've just ordered the torture of an innocent. Congrats. What does it get you? Nothing.

Western society is still standing despite these types of attacks - it has done for the past one hundred years, and it doesn't look like that's going to change. The only way it will change, is if we change it. To protect Western society we will sacrifice some of our dearest values of liberty and human rights? To save the village, we must destroy it?

No thank you.

You've just ordered the torture of an innocent.
WTF???
He was caught in the act of mass murder. How DARE you refer to him as "an innocent"?

WTF???
He was caught in the act of mass murder. How DARE you refer to him as "an innocent"?

In the grander scheme of things regarding the argument of torture: "We don't know if this guy knows what we think he knows. Should we torture him just to make sure and play if safe?"

Really little difference in the realm of human rights - just because the suspect did or did not commit a crime, it doesn't mean they're not entitled to human rights.

How 'dare I'? Really?

And how do you think the man would know much about the organization?
Because I think the entire organization probably consists of less than a hundred people, all of whom know each other quite intimately.
Why would such a secretive and unknown organization tell a man low on the hierarchy when their next big attack was?
What makes you think there is much of a "hierarchy" here?
I'd love to give some, but I don't know how intelligence agencies operate
One of the main ways they operate is by interrogating, not very nicely, people like the prisoner at question: we are only hearing about this case because he was captured in so spectacularly public a fashion.
you still have to deal with the fact that information gained via the serum is speculative and not verifiable without other reliable sources.
But there is nothing to start "verifying" at all unless you gain some information first.

In the grander scheme of things regarding the argument of torture: "We don't know if this guy knows what we think he knows. Should we torture him just to make sure and play if safe?"
Has he forfeited his rights? Those who commit crimes do forfeit rights, you know-- or maybe you don't:
just because the suspect did or did not commit a crime, it doesn't mean they're not entitled to human rights.
WTF????????
You won't allow a murderer to be kept in a prison, because that violates his human rights? It makes an astonishing difference whether or not someone has committed a crime, particularly whether or not someone has committed crimes at this horrific of a level.
How 'dare I'? Really?
REALLY, how f-ing dare you refer to a mass murderer as "an innocent"?

Has he forfeited his rights? Those who commit crimes do forfeit rights, you know-- or maybe you don't:
They forfeit their human rights? They suddenly are allowed to be tortured?


WTF????????
You won't allow a murderer to be kept in a prison, because that violates his human rights?
Torture sunshine. The thread is about torture.

It makes an astonishing difference whether or not someone has committed a crime, particularly whether or not someone has committed crimes at this horrific of a level.
So someone who commits a crime at 'this level' should be allowed to be tortured now? (I do believe this is the crux of the matter)

REALLY, how f-ing dare you refer to a mass murderer as "an innocent"?
It's the internet. I can pretty much 'fucking dare' to do what I please.

Getting back on track - it's fairly obvious that the attackers were from Pakistan for a number of reasons, so I agree with those who don't see any benefit here.

Pakistan is stonewalling and denying because they either 1) don't care, 2) don't want to deal with it; 3) support it ; or 4) all of the above.

Would you consider it "torture"?

I don't know enough about "truth serum" to judge for myself, but I trust the judgment of those that have banned it in most democracies.

According to the OP article:

Police interrogators in Mumbai told The Times that they are poised to settle the matter of Kasab's nationality through the use of "narcoanalysis" – a controversial technique, banned in most democracies, where the subject is injected with a truth serum.

The method was widely used by Western intelligence agencies during the Cold War, before it emerged that the drugs used – typically the barbiturate sodium pentothal – may induce hallucinations, delusions and psychotic manifestations

From what I can gather on the intertubes, "truth serum" doesn't really work and is generally inadmissible as evidence in the U.S. See, e.g., link (http://www.slate.com/id/2057471/), link (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Truth-serum-not-so-truthful--House-panel/379147)

Because I think the entire organization probably consists of less than a hundred people, all of whom know each other quite intimately.

At this point it really depends on the nature and structure of the organization, to which neither of us has any definite proof. But you have to concede that if the organization is structured as I characterized, there is little hope of gaining anything from him.

And regardless, even in a smaller organization, there is always a hierarchy, even if the people do know each other that doesn't mean we'll find out about future plans or the locations of any particular members.

What makes you think there is much of a "hierarchy" here?

Where there is discipline and controlled execution, there is almost always some hierarchy.

One of the main ways they operate is by interrogating, not very nicely, people like the prisoner at question: we are only hearing about this case because he was captured in so spectacularly public a fashion.

True, but I'm sure there are other useful ways of gaining information that have little to nothing to do with the person currently caught.

And whether it be a not-so-nice interrogation or truth serum, either method will not yield reliable information.

In Situation #1, the person is in a lot of pain, and to end that, they would likely be willing to make up lies. And if you don't have other sources of information to verify your claims, you have no proof that the person is lying/telling the truth.

In Situation #2, the person is basically high, are you really going to accept that as good information? And as above, without external sources there is no proof that the person is lying/telling the truth.

But there is nothing to start "verifying" at all unless you gain some information first.

If they gain some sort of sensational information from the man it may be publicized and cause more publicity/harm than what would happen if some other sources were used to gain some background information before the man was given the serum.

Has he forfeited his rights? Those who commit crimes do forfeit rights, you know-- or maybe you don't:

WTF????????
You won't allow a murderer to be kept in a prison, because that violates his human rights? It makes an astonishing difference whether or not someone has committed a crime, particularly whether or not someone has committed crimes at this horrific of a level.

REALLY, how f-ing dare you refer to a mass murderer as "an innocent"?

First, those who are CONVICTED of crimes forfeit SOME rights.

Those that are merely accused of crimes may also forfeit a lesser degree of rights -- namely, they can be detained until their guilt or innocence is established.

Second, as a corollary of the first point, there are SOME rights that are NEVER forfeit.

Now, we can argue about which rights fall within which categories.

EDIT: And on what basis do you conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the individual here is a "mass murderer"? How fucking dare you say he has forfeited his rights simply because he has been accused in the media by Indian authorities?

Err... innocent people have died. Nobody asked those people whether they'd like to be killed for whatever reasons, whether they'd want to give up their right to live, one of the foremost human rights. When it comes to the human rights of a terrorist who targets the civilian population and goes for a high score in order to impress his political enemies, the very last question that springs into my mind when investigating the attack is "gee, would this be against the rights of this terrorist and more worth than finding out who's to be punished for this act of terrorism"?

Over 150 innocent civilian casualties. That Kasav guy's rights are not a priority anymore. Protecting the lives of future would-be victims is.

Whether using that drug would be helpful or not is for the Indian authorities to decide. They probably know better than all of us.

Since you can clearly tell who is and is not a terrorist on sight I must ask, why are you not out using these amazing powers to keep us safe instead of posting here?

I don't know enough about "truth serum" to judge for myself, but I trust the judgment of those that have banned it in most democracies.

According to the OP article:

Police interrogators in Mumbai told The Times that they are poised to settle the matter of Kasab's nationality through the use of "narcoanalysis" – a controversial technique, banned in most democracies, where the subject is injected with a truth serum.

The method was widely used by Western intelligence agencies during the Cold War, before it emerged that the drugs used – typically the barbiturate sodium pentothal – may induce hallucinations, delusions and psychotic manifestations

From what I can gather on the intertubes, "truth serum" doesn't really work and is generally inadmissible as evidence in the U.S. See, e.g., link (http://www.slate.com/id/2057471/), link (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Truth-serum-not-so-truthful--House-panel/379147)

Yeup, that clinches it. Its unreliable, potentially damaging, and unethical.

It may not be torture, but its wrong.

They forfeit their human rights? They suddenly are allowed to be tortured?

Torture sunshine. The thread is about torture.
Actually, it's about the use of truth serum. Some threadjackers have talked about torture, but I wasn't.
So someone who commits a crime at 'this level' should be allowed to be tortured now? (I do believe this is the crux of the matter)
Whether a mass murderer should be subject to the death penalty is a legal issue I don't want to go off onto; I would agree that, if the death penalty is thought appropriate, it ought not be death by torture.
But he has forfeited his right to life, and there are many interrogation methods I would consider suitable in this case, which I would not approve of for someone who is innocent, or merely a "suspect".
on what basis do you conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the individual here is a "mass murderer"?
I did not think you were actually disputing that he was the person whose actions were broadcast, to a worldwide audience in the millions. I think only Jack Ruby had a larger number of eyewitnesses.

At this point it really depends on the nature and structure of the organization, to which neither of us has any definite proof.

And you are opposed to gathering information about it?
But you have to concede that if the organization is structured as I characterized, there is little hope of gaining anything from him.

We won't know, until we ask.
And regardless, even in a smaller organization, there is always a hierarchy, even if the people do know each other that doesn't mean we'll find out about future plans or the locations of any particular members.

No, probably not everything, but we may learn a great deal.
True, but I'm sure there are other useful ways of gaining information that have little to nothing to do with the person currently caught.

All of the other useful ways also involve unpleasantry that will be disapproved of by the lawyers on this board.

All of the other useful ways also involve unpleasantry that will be disapproved of by the lawyers on this board.


And those of us who arent lawyers but dont believe you defeat your enemy by becoming him.

And those of us who arent lawyers but dont believe you defeat your enemy by becoming him.

Remember children: To protect human rights we must violate them.

And those of us who arent lawyers but dont believe you defeat your enemy by becoming him.I don't see why giving this guy some drugs is automatically equated to ZOMG!!!TORTURE!!!1!1!!!
Whether the stuff actually works at all is a pragmatic question; whether this guy even knows much or turns out like Zayun suggests to just be a stooge is something that will become clear with a little questioning. But this idea that out of "principle" we mustn't inflict even mild unpleasantness on this monster is absurd: you all do agree that, at the minimum, he is going to be locked in a cage for the rest of his natural life and rightly so?

I did not think you were actually disputing that he was the person whose actions were broadcast, to a worldwide audience in the millions. I think only Jack Ruby had a larger number of eyewitnesses.

Actually, I will openly admit to not knowing a damn thing about what this person allegedly did or did not do or what evidence there is against him. My knowledge is not particularly relevant.

Are you claiming to have personally witnessed his commission of "mass murder"?

Are you claiming that because of what you have witnessed this person is not entitled to trial before punishment?

Look, you gotta do, what you gotta do...

I mean, If we sit here and baby-sit these guys and give em all Constitutional Hearings...We'll never get shit done....

If they know the stuff's reliable and itll actually get the truth out of him...Go for it...India needs to do what it deems necessary...

I don't see why giving this guy some drugs is automatically equated to ZOMG!!!TORTURE!!!1!1!!!
Whether the stuff actually works at all is a pragmatic question; whether this guy even knows much or turns out like Zayun suggests to just be a stooge is something that will become clear with a little questioning. But this idea that out of "principle" we mustn't inflict even mild unpleasantness on this monster is absurd: you all do agree that, at the minimum, he is going to be locked in a cage for the rest of his natural life and rightly so?

Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!

Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!

Dude...They caught him in the Act...What more do you want?...

A trial at this point would be a waste of time, and, if he got the right lawyer, could allow a Guilty Murderer to go free because of some loophole...

Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!If a police sniper had gotten a clean shot at him while he was in the act of killing people, he would have been taken clean out, you bet. That is what happened to nine of his colleagues. You have a problem with that? I don't.

Look, you gotta do, what you gotta do...

I mean, If we sit here and baby-sit these guys and give em all Constitutional Hearings...We'll never get shit done....

If they know the stuff's reliable and itll actually get the truth out of him...Go for it...India needs to do what it deems necessary...

Fuck human rights. Fuck the Geneva Convention. Fuck any and all constitutions.

If someone with power thinks something needs to be done, it should be done.

That way we can all be free.

Would you consider it "torture"? It's apparent from previous stories that they temporarily withheld medical treatment for his hand wound (and probably leaned on it a bit) in order to get him to cooperate in the first place.

They already have quite a bit of evidence in the form of cellphones and blackberry devices and GPS units - and dead bodies.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5280084.ece



Given the evidence so far from the cell phones, etc - what do you make of Zardari's claim that none of this originated in Pakistan?

Maybe this (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20041129/mri-ultimate-lie-detector) will be more effective?

Are you claiming to have personally witnessed his commission of "mass murder"?
I did not see the video live, although a lot of people did. I am, to be sure, taking it for granted the identity of the surviving gunman with the gunman in the video who looks so strikingly like him. The usual rationales for waiting to see what evidence comes up when the case comes to trial ring particularly hollow here.

Fuck human rights. Fuck the Geneva Convention. Fuck any and all constitutions.

If someone with power thinks something needs to be done, it should be done.

That way we can all be free.

No, im not saying that...But, I am saying that A)Pakistani Terrorists are not Indian citizens so their Constitution doesn't apply, and B) That a theoretical "Truth Serum" doesnt constitute torture, and Interrogations are done before a Trial anwyay....

Dude...They caught him in the Act...What more do you want?...

A trial at this point would be a waste of time, and, if he got the right lawyer, could allow a Guilty Murderer to go free because of some loophole...

If a police sniper had gotten a clean shot at him while he was in the act of killing people, he would have been taken clean out, you bet. That is what happened to nine of his colleagues. You have a problem with that? I don't.

Forget that rights and trial nonsense. The Red Queen would be so proud.

http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/aLR_Potatoes.gif

Po-ta-toes

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3251/owllol1fg.jpg

No, im not saying that...But, I am saying that A)Pakistani Terrorists are not Indian citizens so their Constitution doesn't apply, and

You dont know this. Our constitution applies to foreigners in the US, so its possible India's does. But I havent read it, and neither have you.

B) That a theoretical "Truth Serum" doesnt constitute torture, and Interrogations are done before a Trial anwyay....

Things can be unethical and ineffective wthout being torture.

Why is there truth serum, but no lie serum? Lie serum could be fun.

No, im not saying that...But, I am saying that A)Pakistani Terrorists are not Indian citizens so their Constitution doesn't apply, and B) That a theoretical "Truth Serum" doesnt constitute torture, and Interrogations are done before a Trial anwyay....

Actually, you are pretty much saying that -- however, you may wish to qualify it when challenged.

Is it because he is allegedly Pakistani or because he is an accused terrorist that he has no rights?

Are human rights dependent purely on the generosity of jurisdictions or are some rights universal?

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

Miranda doesn't hold water in India.

She might, if she's carrying a bucket. :p

Forget that rights and trial nonsense. The Red Queen would be so proud.I think you are seriously out of touch if you are unaware that taking out the gunmen before they kill more people is common practice, when possible, and you are the first person I have ever met who would prefer that the innocent die instead.
Is it because he is Pakistani or because he is an accused terrorist that he has no rights?
Not just "accused", caught in flagrante delicto; and certainly it was not because he was Pakistani: figuring out whether he was or wasn't Pakistani was precisely one of the things they had to interrogate him about.

Actually, you are pretty much saying that -- however, you may wish to qualify it when challenged.

Is it because he is Pakistani or because he is an accused terrorist that he has no rights?

Are human rights dependent purely on the generosity of jurisdictions or are some rights universal?

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

Its because he's Pakistani that he has no rights under Indian Law...

If he was worried about his "Human Rights" maybe he shouldnt have went on a rampage in an Indian Hotel, with a group that kills innocent people...

She might, if she's carrying a bucket. :p

Yay! :D

And you are opposed to gathering information about it?

In the manner you suggest, yes. Do you really expect me to believe that American and Indian intelligence forces are incapable of learning at least some cursory information on the terrorist group at hand? Such information is absolutely necessary (in my view), before we can even consider the possibility of utilizing a likely-to-fail truth serum (notice the usage of the word consider).

We won't know, until we ask.

As above, giving the man drugs simply cannot be the only way for governments to gain information on this agency.

No, probably not everything, but we may learn a great deal.

Or, more probable, we will violate someone's rights, a man who is yet unconvicted, and not gain any useful information from the truth serum.

All of the other useful ways also involve unpleasantry that will be disapproved of by the lawyers on this board.

Let me entertain a world where torture is not despicable, immoral, and completely wrong...

As I've already argued, torture is not very useful in gaining concrete information. People will say what they think will get them out of the pain (if they submit at all). Like the truth serum, it requires having credible information before-hand to be of any use whatsoever. And then, it's still a violation of human rights.

I don't see why giving this guy some drugs is automatically equated to ZOMG!!!TORTURE!!!1!1!!!
Whether the stuff actually works at all is a pragmatic question; whether this guy even knows much or turns out like Zayun suggests to just be a stooge is something that will become clear with a little questioning. But this idea that out of "principle" we mustn't inflict even mild unpleasantness on this monster is absurd: you all do agree that, at the minimum, he is going to be locked in a cage for the rest of his natural life and rightly so?

It's not about unpleasantness, it's about two things.
A) Rights - many people have explained the issue on this (essentially being forced to testify against oneself, etc.)
B) Effectiveness - as I've argued, reliable prior information is necessary for us to pick apart bullshit and nonsense from useful truths (if they are sputtered out at all).

If he is proven guilty of murder or intense involvement in the plot, then sure. Trial first, punishment later.

I think you are seriously out of touch if you are unaware that taking out the gunmen before they kill more people is common practice, when possible, and you are the first person I have ever met who would prefer that the innocent die instead.

In addition to missing my point entirely and deliberately mistating my position, I think you are rationalizing away the rights of a human being.

Whether or not he could have been shot while in the act isn't relevant to how he should be treated now. Is he currently in the act of killing innocents?

Its because he's Pakistani that he has no rights under Indian Law...

I highly doubt you have a clue whether or not he has rights under Indian law. I don't. I know he would under U.S. law and international law -- not to mention basic human dignity.

If he was worried about his "Human Rights" maybe he shouldnt have went on a rampage in an Indian Hotel, with a group that kills innocent people...

Cute. Thank you for confirming you simply could care less about human rights and believe authorities should do as they please.

In the manner you suggest, yes. Do you really expect me to believe that American and Indian intelligence forces are incapable of learning at least some cursory information on the terrorist group at hand? Such information is absolutely necessary (in my view), before we can even consider the possibility of utilizing a likely-to-fail truth serum (notice the usage of the word consider).


Cant argue with that...

Im just saying that if theyre ever going to get ANYTHING out of him, or anybody, they cant give every convicted terrorist a full-blown Court trial...

The Red Tape alone would hinder any efforts to stop them...

The Nuremberg Trials didnt commence until Germany Didnt exist as a National Entity anymore...You think they gave every German and Jap prisoner a trial? Hell no, Hitler'd still be in power if they did...

Only after the War is over do you start talking about Trials...

In the manner you suggest, yes. Do you really expect me to believe that American and Indian intelligence forces are incapable of learning at least some cursory information on the terrorist group at hand?
How, exactly, do you imagine that intelligence forces gather even cursory information?
As above, giving the man drugs simply cannot be the only way for governments to gain information on this agency.
It may be one of them, however.
It's not about unpleasantness, it's about two things.
A) Rights - many people have explained the issue on this (essentially being forced to testify against oneself, etc.)
He is not going to "testify". His guilt is readily established without a word from him.
B) Effectiveness - as I've argued, reliable prior information is necessary for us to pick apart bullshit and nonsense from useful truths (if they are sputtered out at all).
This is a pragmatic question. As you say, neither of us know how much reliable prior information they already have, or how it was obtained.
If he is proven guilty of murder or intense involvement in the plot, then sure.
When he is proven guilty he will be put to death or locked in a cage. A little bit of drug is not at all the punishment he will receive, and deservedly so.

Not just "accused", caught in flagrante delicto; and certainly it was not because he was Pakistani: figuring out whether he was or wasn't Pakistani was precisely one of the things they had to interrogate him about.

So because he is accused and the evidence against him is, to you, conclusive, he need not be tried and can be treated in any way the authorities see fit? He has no rights?

I have no particular reason to doubt his guilt -- other than the fact he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet -- but I am curious as to what the thresholds are: How much evidence do authorities need before they need not bother with trials? What crimes are sufficient to forfeit all rights?

Its because he's Pakistani that he has no rights under Indian Law...

*sigh* Already addressed this. In the US he would have rights, and its possible he may in India. Have you read India's Constitution? No? Then shut up with the definitive statements about India's law.

What crimes are sufficient to forfeit all rights?

Caught in the act of killing innocent people?

*sigh* Already addressed this. In the US he would have rights, and its possible he may in India. Have you read India's Constitution? No? Then shut up with the definitive statements about India's law.

Its a moot point...Its India's Constitution, they interpret it, Just like we in the US do, If they dont think he should have rights under it, he doesnt have rights under it...

Caught in the act of killing innocent people?

How sad you think so.

Its actually depressing that people in the US are so eage to throw out people's rights without a trial, considering one of the main things the US was founded on was the belief that everyone, eveyone deserves the right to a fair trial, and is innocent until proven guilty by a trial by jury.

But, perhaps these rights dont apply to "them".

Its a moot point...Its India's Constitution, they interpret it, Just like we in the US do, If they dont think he should have rights under it, he doesnt have rights under it...

They havent said anything about what whether it covers him or not (under international law, it does).

So, again, stop making definitive statements about Indian Law when you know jack. shit.

How sad you think so.

Its actually depressing that people in the US are so eage to throw out people's rights without a trial, considering one of the main things the US was founded on was the belief that everyone, eveyone deserves the right to a fair trial, and is innocent until proven guilty by a trial by jury.

But, perhaps these rights dont apply to "them".

You find me a British Prisoner that was given a Trial in a Court of Law DURING the Revolution...

You let me know...

They havent said anything about what whether it covers him or not (under international law, it does).

So, again, stop making definitive statements about Indian Law when you know jack. shit.

Im not, im saying that INDIANS have the right to make Definitive statements about INDIAN Law...

You find me a British Prisoner that was given a Trial in a Court of Law DURING the Revolution...

Those were soldiers. You admit this guy is a soldier? Then he is covered by the Geneva Convention.

If he's a civie, he is protected under Indian Law.

But nice "Oh I so got you!" moment. Sorry I had to kill it for you.

Im not, im saying that INDIANS have the right to make Definitive statements about INDIAN Law...

And they havent, but you keep making statements as if you know the answer.

Those were soldiers. You admit this guy is a soldier? Then he is covered by the Geneva Convention.

If he's a civie, he is protected under Indian Law.

But nice "Oh I so got you!" moment. Sorry I had to kill it for you.

kill what? lol...

In that case there were Several Hessian Mercenaries captured during the Revolution...

Find me one of THEM that was given a Trial in a Court of Law during the Revolution...

And they havent, but you keep making statements as if you know the answer.

No im not, im saying that If Indians dont want to give him a Trial, they dont Have too...

I was under the impression that the OP was asking my opinion on that particular subject...

In addition to missing my point entirely and deliberately mistating my position
I don't see why you say so. You quoted from me only the snippet about shooting murderers in the act, and denounced that, which I consider to be a borderline-insane position.
I think you are rationalizing away the rights of a human being.
He DOESN'T HAVE even the right to life. Not anymore.
Whether or not he could have been shot while in the act isn't relevant to how he should be treated now.
I disagree. Someone who is charged with murder after a long investigation is not in the same position as someone caught in the act; the usual rationales about needing to wait for trial and let our uncertainties about the evidence lend a benefit of the doubt to the "suspect" are just not very strong in a case like this: he is more than just a "suspect".
It is analogous to the distinction between those sent to Gitmo based on neighbors' denunciation vs. those who are actually were enemy soldiers captured, on the battlefield, in the act of fighting. You don't think there's a difference? I think it makes all the difference in the world, and even if you don't agree with me here at least you could stop pretending you don't know what distinction I am talking about and making fantastic slippery-slope arguments about how, gee, I must support torturing anybody the cops accuse of jaywalking.

kill what? lol...

In that case there were Several Hessian Mercenaries captured during the Revolution...

Find me one of THEM that was given a Trial in a Court of Law during the Revolution...

They would still be soldiers. Again, is this guy a soldier or a Civie? Either hes protected by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. Despite what Bush wants, you cant just make up a whole new class of people.

They would still be soldiers. Again, is this guy a soldier or a Civie? Either hes protected by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. Despite what Bush wants, you cant just make up a whole new class of people.

No they wouldnt, Are you saying that the members of Blackwater are soldiers? FTW...

I don't see why you say so. You quoted from me only the snippet about shooting murderers in the act, and denounced that, which I consider to be a borderline-insane position.

He DOESN'T HAVE even the right to life. Not anymore.

I disagree. Someone who is charged with murder after a long investigation is not in the same position as someone caught in the act; the usual rationales about needing to wait for trial and let our uncertainties about the evidence lend a benefit of the doubt to the "suspect" are just not very strong in a case like this: he is more than just a "suspect".
It is analogous to the distinction between those sent to Gitmo based on neighbors' denunciation vs. those who are actually were enemy soldiers captured, on the battlefield, in the act of fighting. You don't think there's a difference? I think it makes all the difference in the world, and even if you don't agree with me here at least you could stop pretending you don't know what distinction I am talking about and making fantastic slippery-slope arguments about how, gee, I must support torturing anybody the cops accuse of jaywalking.

If I'm making a "fantastic slippery-slope argument," then you no doubt can identify the triggering thresholds at which point one looses all rights -- how much evidence? who decides? what crimes? etc ....

Similarly, if you can't make the distinction between acting to prevent someone who is in the act of killing an innocent from doing so and torturing a prisoner you have in custody, perhaps my argument isn't so "fantastic."

I'm simply coming from a standpoint that says everyone has certain inalienable rights. That you find that "borderline-insane" says more about you than about me.

EDIT: And before you claim "it's not torture, it's just truth serum" that is a separate issue. You've argued that this person has forfeited all his rights. If you wish to retract that argument, fine.

No they wouldnt, Are you saying that the members of Blackwater are soldiers? FTW...

Not to mention, I just wanted to add...

That the question was not whether they were entitled to the rights, but whether these British and Hessians were given trials...

I think not...

No they wouldnt, Are you saying that the members of Blackwater are soldiers? FTW...

Considering the Hessians were different from Blackwater, ie NOT a private contracting force, but were professional German soldiers who usually served in the Holy Roman Empire's armies who were paid by a foreign government to come over and help them out, your comparison is irrelevent.

And I would argue that Blackwater would be considered soldiers. A soldier for hire is still a soldier. But thats irrelevent, because they are totally different.

I wouldnt get snippy when youre wrong.

I'm simply coming from a standpoint that says everyone has certain inalienable rights. That you find that "borderline-insane" says more about you than about me.

I think i heard somewhere that your freedoms end at the other person's face...

I think shooting someone would be a violation of those inalienable rights...

Not to mention, I just wanted to add...

That the question was not whether they were entitled to the rights, but whether these British and Hessians were given trials...

I think not...

Again, because they were SOLDIERS. You dont give military POWs trials. You give CIVILLIANS trials. There are seperate codes of conduct for both groups.

This guy is either a soldier or civillian. Geneva Convention protects one, law protects the other.

Youre point is irrelevent.

Those were soldiers. You admit this guy is a soldier? Then he is covered by the Geneva Convention.

If he's a civie, he is protected under Indian Law.

But nice "Oh I so got you!" moment. Sorry I had to kill it for you.

Geneva Conventions and Protocols only apply in cases of legitimately 'declared' war...

Considering the Hessians were different from Blackwater, ie NOT a private contracting force, but were professional German soldiers who usually served in the Holy Roman Empire's armies who were paid by a foreign government to come over and help them out, your comparison is irrelevent.

And I would argue that Blackwater would be considered soldiers. A soldier for hire is still a soldier. But thats irrelevent, because they are totally different.

I wouldnt get snippy when youre wrong.

Could say the same to you my friend...

The difference between Professional Soldiers, and a Private Military Security force is a very thin line...

Not to mention the fact that the question was whether they were given trials, not whether you believe they had the right to one....

The point is, you cant win a war, if your stopping to give every prisoner a full-blown trial...Its just not gonna happen...

Could say the same to you my friend...
But Im not wrong. See the difference?

The difference between Professional Soldiers, and a Private Military Security force is a very thin line...

An arguement for another time, what matters is the Hessians werent a private military security force.

Not to mention the fact that the question was whether they were given trials, not whether you believe they had the right to one....
My point is the situations are not fucking comparable. Youre comparing soldiers to civillians. Its apples and oranges.

Soldiers are protected by the Geneva Convention. They are POWs. They dont get trials but are released after the war, and still have rights.

Civillians are protected by the Constitutions. They get trials. They also have rights.

Which is this guy? Most would put him in catagory B. If you think he's a soldier however, he gets rights from the Geneva Convention, which means a lot of the actions you advocate are still wrong and illegal.

But Im not wrong. See the difference?

An arguement for another time, what matters is the Hessians werent a private military security force.

My point is the situations are not fucking comparable. Youre comparing soldiers to civillians. Its apples and oranges.

Soldiers are protected by the Geneva Convention. They are POWs. They dont get trials but are released after the war, and still have rights.

Civillians are protected by the Constitutions. They get trials. They also have rights.

Which is this guy? Most would put him in catagory B. If you think he's a soldier however, he gets rights from the Geneva Convention, which means a lot of the actions you advocate are still wrong and illegal.

India and Pakistan are not at war. Geneva Conventions and protocols don't apply. Soldiers, or otherwise.

I'm simply coming from a standpoint that says everyone has certain inalienable rights.

There are no such things as 'inalienable human rights'.

India and Pakistan are not at war. Geneva Conventions and protocols don't apply. Soldiers, or otherwise.

I never said he was a pakistanie soldier. My point is, you have to classify him as one or the other. Either hes a "soldier" of whatever, or he's a civillian.

EDIT: And who says the protocols dont apply if your nations arent at war? This gives one free reign to abuse the other guys soldiers just because there is no formal declaration of war?

Which is this guy? Most would put him in catagory B. If you think he's a soldier however, he gets rights from the Geneva Convention, which means a lot of the actions you advocate are still wrong and illegal.

Its beside the point your little Idealistic situation wont work...

This isnt a Drug Bust or a Bank Robbery...This is serious shit...Nazi Level Shit...

And you have to deal with it accordingly...Sure, itd be all well and good if we could give every guy his big trial...

But, in the Real World, there are more important things at hand, like making sure this doesnt happen again...and that means putting an end to his organization, which cant be done without getting information on said organization...

To quote a brilliant man:

"I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth. "

I never said he was a pakistanie soldier. My point is, you have to classify him as one or the other. Either hes a "soldier" of whatever, or he's a civillian.

EDIT: And who says the protocols dont apply if your nations arent at war? This gives one free reign to abuse the other guys soldiers just because there is no formal declaration of war?

Unfortunately, that's how it is. That's why there are so many 'peace-keeping' endeavours, and 'operations' or 'conflicts', rather than wars.

Look back through your American history, and see how many times an official full declaration of war has been made since the end of WW2.

That's why Israel came unstuck. They didn't declare war on Lebanon in 2006, before they made their 'incursion' - but the 1973 war never actually officially ended. Israel was in breach of Geneva Conventions and Protocols because they were silly enough to actually get caught in a declared war.

I'm getting bored of this debate...

I'm sorry if my lack of interest in further debate disappoints you Tmutarakhan. I recognize that under your values/ethical standpoint you have some legitimate arguments, I hope you recognize the same from me. Anyways, I kind of feel like I've reached the scope to which I can argue my point without evidence, and it seems like neither of us will convince the other (and again, I'm bored), so I consider further arguments over the current issues we've both raised futile (at the moment). Maybe if some other interesting developments occur though...

There are no such things as 'inalienable human rights'.

If you wish to take that position, fine. So long as you are clear about it.

I disagree, but I see no point in arguing over it. You either think there are inalienable human rights or you don't.

EDIT: On second thought, I'm curious. Are there no human rights at all or is it just that at some point all rights are alienable? What is that point?

Its beside the point your little Idealistic situation wont work...

This isnt a Drug Bust or a Bank Robbery...This is serious shit...Nazi Level Shit...

And you have to deal with it accordingly...Sure, itd be all well and good if we could give every guy his big trial...

But, in the Real World, there are more important things at hand, like making sure this doesnt happen again...and that means putting an end to his organization, which cant be done without getting information on said organization...


No, whats more important is preserving our society. If we stoop to their level, we're as bad as them.

The law doesnt only apply when its convenient.

Look, you gotta do, what you gotta do...

I mean, If we sit here and baby-sit these guys and give em all Constitutional Hearings...We'll never get shit done....

If they know the stuff's reliable and itll actually get the truth out of him...Go for it...India needs to do what it deems necessary...

You're right, why if you're ever accused of murder we don't need a trial. We can skip right to sticking a needle in your arm.

Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!

It's a time honored practice. You find the guilty, hold a fair trial, then execute them.

You're right, why if you're ever accused of murder we don't need a trial. We can skip right to sticking a needle in your arm.

If you find me within a Terror Organization in the middle of killing innocent people in a hotel...

Go Ahead...Ill deserve it...Although im more partial to Firing Squads myself, lol...

Fuck human rights. Fuck the Geneva Convention. Fuck any and all constitutions.

If someone with power thinks something needs to be done, it should be done.

That way we can all be free.

War is peace.

I did not see the video live, although a lot of people did. I am, to be sure, taking it for granted the identity of the surviving gunman with the gunman in the video who looks so strikingly like him. The usual rationales for waiting to see what evidence comes up when the case comes to trial ring particularly hollow here.

Do you have any idea how often I walk in somewhere and a person I've never met greats me by someone else's name?

Do you have any idea how often I walk in somewhere and a person I've never met greats me by someone else's name?

*injects Redwulf with truth serum, assumes he's guilty and then kills him*

You find me a British Prisoner that was given a Trial in a Court of Law DURING the Revolution...

You let me know...

Yes, a time period when women and black people were property is the best place to look to for proper moral behavior and how human rights should be implemented.

Yes, a time period when women and black people were property is the best place to look to for proper moral behavior and how human rights should be implemented.

Never mind the fact that he's comparing apples to oranges.

Oh, and the colonists gave the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre trials.

But hey, dont let that stop his ignorance.

Yes, a time period when women and black people were property is the best place to look to for proper moral behavior and how human rights should be implemented.

Well, you see, he brought up the idea that this country was founded on giving prisoners of war a fair trial...

And i was just pointing out that thats Rubbish....Indeed, the atrocities towards women and blacks also point to it being rubbish...

Well, you see, he brought up the idea that this country was founded on giving prisoners of war a fair trial...

And i was just pointing out that thats Rubbish....Indeed, the atrocities towards women and blacks also point to it being rubbish...

You pointed out it was rubbish, and were proven you have no idea what the fuck youre talking about.

You compared apples to oranges, and then just claimed "I IS RIGHT!!!!"

Besides, we gave the British soldeirs involved in the Boston Massacre trials.

If you doubt the validity of the statement "this country was founded on right to trial and innocent until proven guilty", you probably failed American History.

I never said he was a pakistanie soldier. My point is, you have to classify him as one or the other. Either hes a "soldier" of whatever, or he's a civillian.

EDIT: And who says the protocols dont apply if your nations arent at war? This gives one free reign to abuse the other guys soldiers just because there is no formal declaration of war?

Interesting note: That makes the torture of John McCain and other Veitnam vets not a war crime, and by this argument completely permissible.

Interesting note: That makes the torture of John McCain and other Veitnam vets not a war crime, and by this argument completely permissible.

This is true, I never considered that angle.

*injects Redwulf with truth serum, assumes he's guilty and then kills him*

No, no, no you're doing it all wrong. You assume guilt then use the truth serum. Preferably during the "fair" trial you forgot about.

No, no, no you're doing it all wrong. You assume guilt then use the truth serum. Preferably during the "fair" trial you forgot about.

I is Comrade Stalin.

You pointed out it was rubbish, and were proven you have no idea what the fuck youre talking about.

You compared apples to oranges, and then just claimed "I IS RIGHT!!!!"

Besides, we gave the British soldeirs involved in the Boston Massacre trials.

If you doubt the validity of the statement "this country was founded on right to trial and innocent until proven guilty", you probably failed American History.

Not only did I not fail US History, I got a 498 out of 500 on the Standardized Test, so there, lol...

And it may be apples and oranges, but their both Fruit...

Just like these are both Interrogations of Prisoners...

And, im not necessarily against givin him a trial at all, just after theyve figured out what he knows...

And, that particular incident wasnt actually during the Revolution, but about 5 years before in 1770, the aftermath of which was a big factor in starting the American Revolution...

Largely because it did exactly what i figure a trial of this guyll do, It let Guilty Murderers go Free...

Not only did I not fail US History, I got a 498 out of 500 on the Standardized Test, so there, lol...

And it may be apples and oranges, but their both Fruit...

Just like these are both Interrogations of Prisoners...

And, im not necessarily against givin him a trial at all, just after theyve figured out what he knows...

And, that particular incident wasnt actually during the Revolution, but about 5 years before in 1770, the aftermath of which started the American Revolution...

Largely because it did exactly what i figure a trial of this guyll do, It let Guilty Murderers go Free...

Perhaps you've come across this statement before:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Obviously, you disagree. Why?

Not only did I not fail US History, I got a 498 out of 500 on the Standardized Test, so there, lol...

And it may be apples and oranges, but their both Fruit...

Just like these are both Interrogations of Prisoners...

And, im not necessarily against givin him a trial at all, just after theyve figured out what he knows...

And, that particular incident wasnt actually during the Revolution, but about 5 years before in 1770, the aftermath of which started the American Revolution...

The trial given to those during the Boston Massacre is one of the most pivitol moments in defining American values. We gave people who the public hated a fair trial and only punished them once they were found guilty. So, yes, we were founded on fair trials and innocence until proven guilt.

And, there are different standards for treating POWs and civllians. Hence, comparing the British Soldiers and the Hessians to treatment of Civies is, again, moot.


Largely because it did exactly what i figure a trial of this guyll do, It let Guilty Murderers go Free...

So, we should never give anyone a trial because they might not be convicted?

Frankly, if you are worried about the man going free as the result of a trial, that means your evidence probably isnt as good as you think.

Perhaps you've come across this statement before:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Obviously, you disagree. Why?

Im not necessarily disagreeing, just that When you take them from others...

I believe you forfeit yours...and should be treated accordingly...

Im not necessarily disagreeing

. . .

I believe you forfeit yours

These two statements are contradictory. If you believe that those rights can be forfeited then you don't agree with that statement. That, or you don't know what "unalienable" means. I think it's the later.

Im not necessarily disagreeing, just that When you take them from others...

I believe you forfeit yours...and should be treated accordingly...

What part of "unalienable" do you not understand?

And are you truly contending that if one infringes on any right of anyone else, one loses all rights?

Im not necessarily disagreeing, just that When you take them from others...

I believe you forfeit yours...and should be treated accordingly...

Again, the test of a civillization is if it upholds its own laws and values even when it not convenient.

Something about walking the walk and talking the talk.

What part of "unalienable" do you not understand?

I think it's the "unalienable" part.

Frankly, if you are worried about the man going free as the result of a trial, that means your evidence probably isnt as good as you think.

Those men didnt get acquited because of evidence, but because of a loophole in British Law that John Adams managed to find...

But, like i said, I would like to give them the trial...Just not BEFORE you interrogate them, Find out what they know, THEN decide whether to line-em up or not...

Im not necessarily disagreeing, just that When you take them from others...

I believe you forfeit yours...and should be treated accordingly...

That would be disagreement. Either that or you don't know what the word unalienable means.

I think it's the "unalienable" part.

and your right...it is the "Unalienable" part...

I believe the word your looking for is "Inalienable"...

and your right...it is the "Unalienable" part...

I believe the word your looking for is "Inalienable"...

:headbang:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable&

Those men didnt get acquited because of evidence, but because of a loophole in British Law that John Adams managed to find...

Thats irrelevent. Im saying in general, if you are worried about aqcuital because of a trial, that means your evidence isnt that great.

If you wish to take that position, fine. So long as you are clear about it.

I disagree, but I see no point in arguing over it. You either think there are inalienable human rights or you don't.

EDIT: On second thought, I'm curious. Are there no human rights at all or is it just that at some point all rights are alienable? What is that point?

'Rights' are an artifact of society. There is no such thing as an 'inalienable human right', because there is no source for 'rights' except our decision to acknowledge them.

Those men didnt get acquited because of evidence, but because of a loophole in British Law that John Adams managed to find...

Um, no, they were not. The "benefit of the clergy" loophole that Adams found allowed two of the men who were convicted to be convicted of lesser charged. Those two men weren't acquitted, they were convicted of manslaughter (but not of the greater charge of murder, due to that loophole)

six men were out and out acquitted of any and all charges, without any "loophole" being used what so ever. Unless you think "self defense" is a loophole.

Really, I thought you said you knew history...

But, like i said, I would like to give them the trial...Just not BEFORE you interrogate them, Find out what they know, THEN decide whether to line-em up or not...

So is it just the 5th amendment to our constitution that you don't like, or are there other parts you'd ignore given the chance?

But, like i said, I would like to give them the trial...Just not BEFORE you interrogate them, Find out what they know, THEN decide whether to line-em up or not...

Am I reading that right or did you order your words poorly?

Did you actually just admit to deciding to "line them up" (a phrase which implies a firing squad) and then having a trial?

:headbang:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable&

lol, Im just pointing out that in the quote the word is "Inalienable" as opposed to "Unalienable"...

Semantics, yes, but, hey, its 1 v 3 here...lol...

and your right...it is the "Unalienable" part...

I believe the word your looking for is "Inalienable"...

. . . . .

wow

lol, Im just pointing out that in the quote the word is "Inalienable" as opposed to "Unalienable"...

umm...no. No it is not. Here (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/images/dunlap.jpg), as you can plainly see, the word is "unalienable", first word on the 6th line.

I'll accept your apology now.

Am I reading that right or did you order your words poorly?

Did you actually just admit to deciding to "line them up" (a phrase which implies a firing squad) and then having a trial?

No, its in the right order...Line them up is just a figure of speech..but..

Im saying that if they need to get information out of him, do what you have to do...

Then, give him a trial and decide what his fate should be...

Really, I thought you said you knew history...


Considering he thought the Hessians and Blackwater were comperable, and he challanges the whole "one of the things we're founded on fair trials and innocence until proven guilt", I could have told you that was crap.

lol, Im just pointing out that in the quote the word is "Inalienable" as opposed to "Unalienable"...

Semantics, yes, but, hey, its 1 v 3 here...lol...

No. No. No. No. No. No.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (emphasis added)

Semantics, yes, but, hey, its 1 v 3 here...lol...

Thats because youre wrong. I, for one, am glad that most people are on the "correct" side.

Considering he thought the Hessians and Blackwater were comperable, and he challanges the whole "one of the things we're founded on fair trials and innocence until proven guilt", I could have told you that was crap.

he compared a terrorist attack that killed about 170 with the fucking NAZIS. I think he's lost pretty much all credibility at this point, between that, fucking up the Boston Massacre trial history, and his righteous indignation insisting that the word from the Declaration is "inalienable"

Thats because youre wrong. I, for one, am glad that most people are on the "correct" side.

nuh uh, it's inalienable!

lol, Im just pointing out that in the quote the word is "Inalienable" as opposed to "Unalienable"

Another part of American history on which you are wrong.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Copy paste directly from the link:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What part of "unalienable" do you not understand?

And are you truly contending that if one infringes on any right of anyone else, one loses all rights?

These two statements are contradictory. If you believe that those rights can be forfeited then you don't agree with that statement. That, or you don't know what "unalienable" means. I think it's the later.


Hey now. He said he got 498 out 500 on the history test.

He didn't say what his English scores were.....

Another part of American history on which you are wrong.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Copy paste directly from the link:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

it's inalienable! Stop arguing about me I got a 498 on my history exam!

it's inalienable! Stop arguing about me I got a 498 on my history exam!

Wonder if the exam was taken at the same school DK got his law degree from?

he compared a terrorist attack that killed about 170 with the fucking NAZIS. I think he's lost pretty much all credibility at this point, between that, fucking up the Boston Massacre trial history, and his righteous indignation insisting that the word from the Declaration is "inalienable"

Okay.....Im not seeing why thats such a bad comparison, Iran's very name comes from their belief that theyre descended from "Aryans"...
And, although theyre not the same thing, they are both fighting for the same overall goal...

And, i didnt fuck up the Boston Massacre, read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Particularly the bit about John Adams...


And, Your right I did fuck up the Inalienable thing, and Im sorry...I was trying to jump at a perceived "Gotcha", and was wrong...I dont think 2 outta 3 is soo bad...

Okay.....Im not seeing why thats such a bad comparison, Iran's very name comes from their belief that theyre descended from "Aryans"...

First, Pakistan =/= Iran.

Second, Iran doesnt "believe", theyre actually correct:

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable".[1][2] The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians [3] Since in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Aryan does not mean what the Nazi's thought it meant.

And, although theyre not the same thing, they are both fighting for the same overall goal...

The extermination of the jews, the creation of a racially pure society ruled by an aristocracy of Nietzschian Übermensches, and domination of the world?

Okay.....Im not seeing why thats such a bad comparison, Iran's very name comes from their belief that theyre descended from "Aryans"...

Actually no, the word "aryan" and the word "Iran" have the same root in Sanskrit, however Iranians did not believe themselves to be "aryan" in the same sense that Nazi germany used it.

And, i didnt fuck up the Boston Massacre

Yes, you did. You specifically said that Adams used a legal loophole to get the men acquitted. That is not true at all. Of the 8 men charged, 6 were acquitted based on simple self defense theory.

2 were convicted of manslaughter (note, CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER, which means they were not acquitted) instead of murder due to the loophole that Adams used. They were not acquitted, they were convicted of manslaughter.

And, Your right I did fuck up the Inalienable thing, and Im sorry...I was trying to jump at a perceived "Gotcha", and was wrong...

Then maybe you should be more careful, that's not the only mistake you made, and it makes it very hard to take you seriously.

India and Pakistan are not at war. Geneva Conventions and protocols don't apply. Soldiers, or otherwise.

No, the law would, whatever India's laws are regarding this situation. India is not America after all, so arguing about American rights in Indian context don't make much sense.

Let's see. You said:

Those men didnt get acquited because of evidence, but because of a loophole in British Law that John Adams managed to find...

Neo said:

Um, no, they were not. The "benefit of the clergy" loophole that Adams found allowed two of the men who were convicted to be convicted of lesser charged. Those two men weren't acquitted, they were convicted of manslaughter (but not of the greater charge of murder, due to that loophole)

six men were out and out acquitted of any and all charges, without any "loophole" being used what so ever. Unless you think "self defense" is a loophole.

Really, I thought you said you knew history...


Then you said:

And, i didnt fuck up the Boston Massacre, read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Particularly the bit about John Adams...



But your own source says:

In the trial of the soldiers, which opened November 27, 1770, Adams argued that if the soldiers were endangered by the mob they had the legal right to fight back, and so were innocent. If they were provoked but not endangered, he argued, they were at most guilty of manslaughter. The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of murder because there was overwhelming evidence that they fired directly into the crowd. However, John Adams used a loophole in British Common Law and by proving to the judge that they could read by having them read from the Bible their crime was reduced to manslaughter (see Benefit of clergy). Two privates were found guilty of manslaughter and punished by branding on their thumbs. The jury's decisions suggest that they believed the soldiers had felt threatened by the crowd. Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, corroborated this with a deathbed testimony delivered to his doctor. (emphasis added)

Who had the history right again?

Let's see. You said:



Neo said:



Then you said:



But your own source says:

In the trial of the soldiers, which opened November 27, 1770, Adams argued that if the soldiers were endangered by the mob they had the legal right to fight back, and so were innocent. If they were provoked but not endangered, he argued, they were at most guilty of manslaughter. The jury agreed with Adams and acquitted six of the soldiers. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of murder because there was overwhelming evidence that they fired directly into the crowd. However, John Adams used a loophole in British Common Law and by proving to the judge that they could read by having them read from the Bible their crime was reduced to manslaughter (see Benefit of clergy). Two privates were found guilty of manslaughter and punished by branding on their thumbs. The jury's decisions suggest that they believed the soldiers had felt threatened by the crowd. Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, corroborated this with a deathbed testimony delivered to his doctor. (emphasis added)

Who had the history right again?

The guy who got a 498/500.

Oh, wait.

Aryan does not mean what the Nazi's thought it meant.

Indeed, the more common useage of the word "aryan" in the semetic context is "Indo-Aryan" to differentiate it from the Nazi use of the word, which bears no similarity to how it's used in context of Iranians.

And to consider "Indo-Aryan" and the base roots of the word to be comparable to Nazi germany demonstrates the height of ignorance and bad education.

Actually no, the word "aryan" and the word "Iran" have the same root in Sanskrit, however Iranians did not believe themselves to be "aryan" in the same sense that Nazi germany used it.



Yes, you did. You specifically said that Adams used a legal loophole to get the men acquitted. That is not true at all. Of the 8 men charged, 6 were acquitted based on simple self defense theory.

2 were convicted of manslaughter (note, CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER, which means they were not acquitted) instead of murder due to the loophole that Adams used. They were not acquitted, they were convicted of manslaughter.


Well, I was generallyzing, But, they were all allowed to go free, and the Two that were convicted of Manslaughter had a brand on the thumb and were allowed to go...

Adams himself said that they did Massacre those people...

And...You conviently left out that i said they werent the same thing, just that those terrorists and the Iranian Terrorists have the same overall goal....

and they do commit similar acts to the ones committed by nazis..and not just nazis, but the Soviets, US, British...the list goes on...

The extermination of the jews, the creation of a racially pure society ruled by an aristocracy of Nietzschian Übermensches, and domination of the world?

What, you haven't noticed that all Iranians are blond, blue eyed, white people?

Well, I was generallyzing, But, they were all allowed to go free, and the Two that were convicted of Manslaughter had a brand on the thumb and were allowed to go...


But they were still punished.


I like how your arguement is almost verbatim to the Wiki article. Did you really fail history, and are just getting your information from Wiki?

But they were still punished.


I like how your arguement is almost verbatim to the Wiki article. Did you really fail history, and are just getting your information from Wiki?

Whats wrong with using the wording from my source? Do you want me to find another source and use the wording from it?...

Adams himself said that they did Massacre those people...

Which those two were convicted of and punished for...

Well, I was generallyzing,

No, you were not. You said Adams used a loophole to get the men acquitted, that was not the case. That wasn't a "generalization". That was a factual error.

But, they were all allowed to go free,

The men that were acquitted were so because of a self defense argument, not in any way a loophole and recognized in british law for hundreds of years.

and the Two that were convicted of Manslaughter had a brand on the thumb and were allowed to go...

Convicted of manslaughter. Ergo, not acquitted. Ergo, your statement that Adams had them acquitted was factually incorrect, and I was right.

I'll accept your NEXT apology now.

Whats wrong with using the wording from my source? Do you want me to find another source and use the wording from it?...

Generally it's best to use your own wording . . .

Whats wrong with using the wording from my source?

Because it's from your source. People with actual knowledge speak with their own words.

People who read from a website and regurgetate what it says in an attempt to sound like they knew what they were talking about tend to say it exactly the way the website said.

And you phrase it exactly like wiki did, which suggests you didn't actually know it, and just, at this moment, read it off of wiki

Which those two were convicted of and punished for...

Yes they were...But, Adams managed to use a loophole to lower their sentence...and they did go free...

But, its beside the point, because if they had had a truth serum, and if they had the need to use it....they would have...

<realizes that after the whole in/un debate we never got an answer as to WHY the poster disagrees with the declaration of independence.>

Because it's from your source. People with actual knowledge speak with their own words.

People who read from a website and regurgetate what it says in an attempt to sound like they knew what they were talking about tend to say it exactly the way the website said.

And you phrase it exactly like wiki did, which suggests you didn't actually know it, and just, at this moment, read it off of wiki

Not to mention, what other wording do you want me to use?

How many Words are there for Branding on the Thumbs?

But, its beside the point, because if they had had a truth serum, and if they had the need to use it....they would have...

You have no way of knowing that. They may have defined it as "cruel and unusual". Which they made unconstitutional.

So, again youre talking out your ass.

But, its beside the point, because if they had had a truth serum, and if they had the need to use it....they would have...

Unless, of course, they meant what they said when they wrote the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

<realizes that after the whole in/un debate we never got an answer as to WHY the poster disagrees with the declaration of independence.>

I dont disagree with the declaration, which, btw, has no legal bearing anyway...

And, i dont think they dont deserve a trial...Just that its not practical to give one before Questioning/Interrogation...

What, you haven't noticed that all Iranians are blond, blue eyed, white people?

actually there's an ethnic group in Syria that has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Yes they were...But, Adams managed to use a loophole to lower their sentence

Which is distinctly different from "acquitted"

Yes they were...But, Adams managed to use a loophole to lower their sentence...and they did go free...

But, its beside the point, because if they had had a truth serum, and if they had the need to use it....they would have...

And if you go back further if you were accused of a crime you would be tortured until you confessed. If said crime was witchcraft you would be executed (usually by hanging) assuming the methods they used to determine your guilt didn't kill you first. So how far back does "but they used to allow it" apply?

Which is distinctly different from "acquitted"

Well, as previously stated 6 of them were...Only two were convicted, and even then their sentence was lowered...

Im not seeing how this is false?