BPSCG said:
The first thing we are and want to be is alive. If you don't have that, nothing else matters...
...including liberty and justice for all.
Beeps, if that were true...
Are you going to stake out the ground that it
isn't true? Are you seriously claiming that liberty and justice are important to people who are already dead?
BPSCG said:
You're missing the distinction. We're not talking about torture to extract confessions for a crime already committed, or to use as evidence in a court trial. We're talking about torture to prevent a crime that could kill thousands of people.
Upchurch said:
Far worse then. You're framing it as torturing people what they haven't even done yet. Torturing people who are innocent.
Okay, the first time, I said you were missing the distinction. This sounds like you're deliberately trying to distort what I said. Please don't go Clausian on me. You know I'm talking about someone who we have good reason to believe is complicit in an attempt at mass murder that is about to come off. Don't try to twist what I said into framing it as condoning the torture your grandma.
Upchurch said:
Of course, that isn't the case.
Then what was your point in bringing it up?
Upchurch said:
You are talking about people who have already taken steps to commit a crime and have information about it. I suppose, going back to my original point, I should say "allegedly taken steps to commit a crime and we assume has good information about it."
That's correct. Please don't muddy the waters with sideshows and phony arguments.
Upchurch said:
Yes, but the justification for using torture is that they are guilty (or soon will be) of a horrific criminal act.
No, the justification is that it is the only way to stop a mass murder. It's a last resort.
Otherwise, the CIA/FBI/whoever would simply use similar interrogation techniques the police use, correct?
I don't understand your reasoning here, but since the premise it's based on is erroneous...
BPSCG said:
Again, we're not talking about a court trial after the fact of the mass murder, we're talking about getting information that will save lives now.
Upchurch said:
Which presumes guilt whether or not the suspect actually is.
No, it presumes
knowledge. Guilt is for a court to decide. But you don't need to establish that a suspect is guilty before you start interrogating him. In fact, guilt is
never established before interrogation.
Police Captain: "Have you interrogated the suspect about that break-in?"
Detective: "What? How can I interrogate him if I haven't established his guilt?"
Captain: "...???... Have you lost your
mind???"
BPSCG said:
No, the question is, do our principles require that thousands of innocent people be murdered rather than one person implicit complicit (ex post facto correction - BPSCG) in their murder be tortured for the information that would save those lives?
Upchurch said:
Your question is a false argument that rests on a lot of assumptions. First, you are assuming that all other means of getting information has failed.
That is essentially correct. I don't believe I've ever argued that torture should be the
first method of interrogation. Though you could get to it quickly if you know time is short and it's obvious you have a stubborn case on your hands.
Upchurch said:
Second, you are assuming that the "one person" has the information you need.
Sure, there might well be others. Should we hold off interrogating the guy we have and allow that bomb to keep ticking while we round them up?
Third, you are assuming that the "one person" will, intentionally or unintentionally, give you accurate and actionable information.
Well, yeah. You're not torturing him just for the fun of it, no matter what the vile and repugnant Randi Rhodes may claim. And you're not torturing your grandma just because she happened to be walking by the police station and was easy to bring in.
Upchurch said:
Fourth, you are assuming works like a TV show.
Do what, now?
But to answer your highly unlikely question, Beeps:
For the record, I agree, the situation
should be highly unlikely - only when lives are at stake, time is of the essence, and there is no other reasonable way to get the information. Torture should absolutely be a
last resort. But it shouldn't be off the table entirely.
Yes. If we truly believe in our principles, we should be willing to fight and possibly die for them.
Yes, we should be willing to fight
for our principles. We should be willing to die
for our principles.
But we shouldn't have to die
because of our principles.
Upchurch said:
Now, back to my question. Do you believe so little in our principles of liberty, freedom, and justice that you would abandon them when it becomes difficult to adhere to them?
Well, do you?
Upchurch, one of the reasons I respect you (this is not a sarcasm - I mean it sincerely) is that when I ask you a tough question, you never flinch from answering it, even if I think your answer is wrong and wrongheaded. There are those here who vanish when so grilled. So I am pleased to reply when you turn the table around and grill me. That's one of the things I like so much about this forum.
Anyway, I think I answered your question when I said we should be willing to die
in defense of our principles, not
because of them. Sometimes principles come into conflict with each other, and you have to choose between them. The Constitution's preamble states the principles upon which our government is established. Those principles include providing for the common defense and establishing justice. What do you do if those principles come into conflict?
The
first principle of every man is, or should be, defend your own life, and the lives of your loved ones. The principles of life, liberty, and defense of justice are all important, but are nonetheless subordinate to that one.
Defending the lives of thousands of people (the common defense) is a more important principle than assuring the civil rights (establishing justice) of someone complicit in their attempted murder.
During the Civil War, Chief Justice Roger Taney crossed swords with Lincoln over
habeas corpus. He wrote that Lincoln's suspension of
habeas corpus (
Ex Parte Merryman)was an unconstitutional usurpation of power. Lincoln famously replied, ""Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Shall thousands die, lest the civil liberties of one be violated? Which principle demands that?
