NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont disagree with the declaration,

So you DO think rights are unalienable, despite earlier statements to the contrary?

Well, as previously stated 6 of them were

Because they were found not guilty on grounds of self defense. Is that a "loophole" now?

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?

Well, now your getting into a different topic, of How effective are your methods...

Those methods didnt give you accurate information, and weren't a good form of Interrogation...

your methods still need to be reliable, Torture isnt a reliable source...

But, if there was a Truth Serum that we could Prove Worked...Im not seeing how thats torture...

And, I am saying that it has to be done before he is put on trial, if for no other reason than the practical matter of shutting down this organization...

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?

Because you said Adams got them all acquitted through a loophole. Thats wrong. He got 6 acquitted by using the self defense theory, and 2 got convicted, but he used a loophole to lower their sentencing.


And this all proves my point. We clearly did make a fair trial one of our founding principles because a founding fucking father jumped through a zillion hoops, worked really hard, and used a legal loophole to help people who killed his countrymen.

Well, as previously stated 6 of them were

Yes, they were acquitted because the jury believed they acted in self defense. Which is in no way a "loophole", having been a hallmark of the British legal system for hundreds of years prior to this.

...Only two were convicted, and even then their sentence was lowered...

Correct, they were convicted. Convicted means not acquitted

Im not seeing how this is false?

oh for the love of...are you REALLY this dense? Look, it's really simple, you said Adams got them acquitted because of a loophole. That is factually incorrect. Not a single one of them, zero, zip, nada, zilch, were ever acquitted of a loophole.

NOT

A

SINGLE

ONE

Those that were acquitted were so because of a self defense claim, not in any way a loophole. The "loophole" got those convicted, to be convicted of a lesser charge. But still convicted, and thus not acquitted. Not one single person of the 8 got acquitted due to a loophole. Which makes your statement demonstrably untrue.

You seeing it now?

But, if there was a Truth Serum that we could Prove Worked...Im not seeing how thats torture...

Wait...its only torture if its ineffective?

Well, now your getting into a different topic, of How effective are your methods...

Those methods didnt give you accurate information, and weren't a good form of Interrogation...

your methods still need to be reliable, Torture isnt a reliable source...

But, if there was a Truth Serum that we could Prove Worked...Im not seeing how thats torture...

And, I am saying that it has to be done before he is put on trial, if for no other reason than the practical matter of shutting down this organization...

Because the 5th amendment doesn't say "torture" it discusses self incrimination. No person may be compelled to incriminate himself by ANY means. The founders didn't care about how accurate the methods were, and in fact, implicitly implied accurate methods by the very fact that they prohibited ANY activity that would yield an involuntary confession.

Wait...its only torture if its ineffective?

absolutely. You see, torture is not reliable. And if it's effective, then that means if it's reliable. And if it's reliable it's not torture, because torture is not reliable.

Well, now your getting into a different topic, of How effective are your methods...

No, I'm not. I'm attacking your argument that "they used to do it hundreds of years ago" makes it acceptable now.

absolutely. You see, torture is not reliable. And if it's effective, then that means if it's reliable. And if it's reliable it's not torture, because torture is not reliable.

Oh, I see what you did there:p

Because you said Adams got them all acquitted through a loophole. Thats wrong. He got 6 acquitted by using the self defense theory, and 2 got convicted, but he used a loophole to lower their sentencing.


And this all proves my point. We clearly did make a fair trial one of our founding principles because a founding fucking father jumped through a zillion hoops, worked really hard, and used a legal loophole to help people who killed his countrymen.

Well...Technically it was British Law...the Declaration, nor the Constitution were written yet...

But, you are correct, the point I was trying to make was that They were all eventually allowed to go free...


Now, say this guy gets a Lawyer thats willing to "jump through a zillion hoops" to get him out....All fine and good i suppose...But if you need his information, then its too late it goes with him...

The point is its just not practical to give him the trial before the Interrogation...

meh, this has just gotten too stupid.

meh, this has just gotten too stupid.

Cant argue with you there...

My problem is I desperately want to agree with you guys...

Im just looking at it, and Im just not seeing how we can uphold these things and still beat these guys...

I want someone to tell me how we're going to get his information without infringing on his "Unalienable Rights"...

Cause believe me I want us to...

Cant argue with you there...

My problem is I desperately want to agree with you guys...

Im just looking at it, and Im just not seeing how we can uphold these things and still beat these guys...

I want someone to tell me how we're going to get his information without infringing on his "Unalienable Rights"...

Cause believe me I want us to...

I already made a suggestion for a possible way to get the truth from him (although it's not 100%, either).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14271673&postcount=135

Cant argue with you there...

My problem is I desperately want to agree with you guys...

Im just looking at it, and Im just not seeing how we can uphold these things and still beat these guys...

I want someone to tell me how we're going to get his information without infringing on his "Unalienable Rights"...

Cause believe me I want us to...

This is assuming that he knows anything useful at all.

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

Wrong.

14. Equality before law.

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Source (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_III)

Say it with me now: "All persons". Not all citizens, but every and all persons in the Indian territory.


Seriously, I don't know why people seem to think that constitutional protections and rights are only valid for citizens. Is there any constitution out there that works this way? Can somebody show me one?

He has been CAPTURED IN THE ACT of mass murder. He does not even have the right to life, not anymore.
He DOESN'T HAVE even the right to life. Not anymore.
Well, you're wrong about that, thankfully.

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".
After he's been captured and disarmed, he's no more than just a "suspect" in the eyes of the law. He still retains all of his basic human rights, including the right to life and the right to a fair trial.

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

...why are you suddenly on about Iran?

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

Yup. It's found in an area called "The Swedish Embassy".

I'm getting bored of this debate...

Fine. I understand your side also.
Interesting note: That makes the torture of John McCain and other Veitnam vets not a war crime, and by this argument completely permissible.
That was Vietnam's viewpoint, certainly. According to them, John McCain was simply a mercenary in the service of Lyndon Johnson's personal vendetta, not a soldier in the service of the United States, and as such not entitled to protection under the laws of war.
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?
I disagree with the interpretation (you apparently think that it could never, ever be permissible to kill anybody) and, obviously, the Founders did not envision any such interpretation either.
Because the 5th amendment doesn't say "torture" it discusses self incrimination.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the interrogation at issue here. Nobody is seeking to make him "testify" against himself, when the evidence against him (such as videotape of him using his machine gun against a crowd at the train station) is already quite sufficient. If you want a ruling that the results of his interrogation should be inadmissible at trial, fine: but although a trial will be required, for the sake of form, it is not serving the usual purpose of resolving doubts, here.
When a soldier is captured on the battlefield, he may or may not acquire rights under the Geneva Conventions or other understandings from the previously generally accepted laws of war: but under no circumstances does he get a right to have a hearing about whether he was or was not, in fact, captured in the act of fighting; the word of those who took him is accepted. One of the arguments here is that there is no distinction between someone captured in the act, and someone against whom there is a circumstantial case built, but that is not in general the case, and I do not see any moral reason for applying such a principle here (American law might require it, but is irrelevant, and I do not know a blessed thing about India's laws).

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...

Yes, a number of Hessian "mercenaries" were captured during the Revolution, one of which was my great (x a lot) grandfather. He was a conscript in the army of Hesse-Kassel, captured when Washington crossed the Delaware. At the conclusion of the war he decided to desert rather than go home with his unit, married a girl from Maryland and settled in Ohio.

The Hessians in North America during the Revolution weren't actually "mercenaries", they were called mercenaries as a propaganda tool.

Hessian troops during the Revolution were much more analogous to the Georgian troops I see in the chow hall every day than to Blackwater or similar companies in that they're a national army sent to fight another country's war in exchange for benefits to the home country. They were not, I repeat, not mercenaries.

Also, I note your attempt to equate Hessian troops in the Revolution to monsters like that guy they captured in Mumbai.

That was Vietnam's viewpoint, certainly. According to them, John McCain was simply a mercenary in the service of Lyndon Johnson's personal vendetta, not a soldier in the service of the United States, and as such not entitled to protection under the laws of war.


Nice avoidance. Is it or is it not YOUR position that since war was not declared the torture of American POW's by the Vietnamese was a permissible act?

Also, I note your attempt to equate Hessian troops in the Revolution to monsters like that guy they captured in Mumbai.

No I wasnt attempting that at all...Just that they werent traditional Soldiers...But a Professional Military Force...

that they weren't part of the British Army was all I was saying...

And, Im sorry for implying that to you, It was in no way my intention...

the problem is, it isn't "truth", torturers and the orderers of tortures are after. its political capitol. it isn't intelligence the're after, it's "confessions" of what they already want to believe and convice/force/brainwash the rest of us into, for reasons/agendas entirely of their own, which have nothing to do with wanting to know anything about reality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the interrogation at issue here. Nobody is seeking to make him "testify" against himself, when the evidence against him (such as videotape of him using his machine gun against a crowd at the train station) is already quite sufficient. If you want a ruling that the results of his interrogation should be inadmissible at trial, fine: but although a trial will be required, for the sake of form, it is not serving the usual purpose of resolving doubts, here.

So, since there is, in your opinion, enough evidence to secure a conviction, using a truth serum to force this man to further incriminate himself doesn't count as forcing him to incriminate himself?

Nice avoidance. Is it or is it not YOUR position that since war was not declared the torture of American POW's by the Vietnamese was a permissible act?
Morally? Of course not.
But within international law, the US failed to bring its soldiers under the protection of the conventions.
So, since there is, in your opinion, enough evidence to secure a conviction, using a truth serum to force this man to further incriminate himself doesn't count as forcing him to incriminate himself?
Nobody is talking about obtaining evidence to be used at trial. If prosecutors did try to admit any results of this interrogation, that should be excluded on "self-incrimination" grounds, certainly, but that is not what this is about.
This is about learning things like: there are still bombs stashed at the railroad station; here is where the training camps were; these are the leaders who recruited, etc. All these were important to learn, promptly.

Why is there truth serum, but no lie serum? Lie serum could be fun.
That's the best thing about these concoctions, they're a truth serum and a lie serum!

That's the best thing about these concoctions, they're a truth serum and a lie serum!

Dont we call that Alcohol? :p

Dont we call that Alcohol? :p

This is the Big Pharma version, you know, it costs 2x as much to make, sells for 10x the price and is only 1-4% better than the previous substance used to fulfil a role. :p

nuh uh, it's inalienable!
What I'm curious about is if you could interpret them differently (when it comes to applying the U.S.A constitution).