• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposal; The Anti-Torture Amendment to the US Constitution.

Very poorly worded. What will constitute physical force? Handcuffing someone? Will this cover humiliation? Sleep deprivation?

And, as has been said, it's all ready illegal. All upcoming presidential nominees are against it's use, especially McCain, so you don't need to worry there.
 
fishbob said:
It is already illegal, so another law making it illegal again will be worth jack doodley squat.

How about focusing your efforts on enforcement of existing laws, electing a congress not filled with chicken-$^# weenies, and appointing a judiciary not filled with partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court just make it legal. Or so says my friend the lawyer...
 
I find it intriguing that the drafters saw the need, or simply chose, to highlight that the "nation of citizenship" and "the place or character of imprisonment" should be particularly disregarded. This implies that there are acceptable exceptions to the constitution. The reason for imprisonment seems pretty fundamental to me, and far more worthy of emphasis. That said, I'm not sure I'm totally in agreement with the seeming intent of the amendment. I believe physical coercion is acceptable, under certain circumstances.
 
Since congress couldn't write a legit anti-torture bill (the last one tied the CIA to the army field manual), now you think congress can write a constitutional amendment that will fix the problem?

Dumb-de-dumb-dumb-dumb
 
Southwind17 said:
I find it intriguing that the drafters saw the need, or simply chose, to highlight that the "nation of citizenship" and "the place or character of imprisonment" should be particularly disregarded. This implies that there are acceptable exceptions to the constitution. The reason for imprisonment seems pretty fundamental to me, and far more worthy of emphasis. That said, I'm not sure I'm totally in agreement with the seeming intent of the amendment. I believe physical coercion is acceptable, under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to accept your claim as sincere, if you would be willing to turn yourself in for war crimes immediately following the torture of a suspected terrorist.
 
Ammendment rejected on the grounds that it does not define torture as "a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
 
Southwind17 said:
So if physical coercion of a known terrorist could have prevented 9/11 ...?
Click to expand...

This is the stupid part of the issue that always seems to crop up.

How could you know, before the fact, who to 'physically coerce'?
How could you know, before the fact, what questions to ask?

Insert unlikey scenarios here: _________________/

PS: 'Physical coercion' sounds ever so much better than torture, abuse, beating, water boarding, fingernail yanking, electro shock, dog attacking and rape, doesn't it?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Ammendment rejected on the grounds that it does not define torture as "a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
Click to expand...

:dl:

dominatrix_2.jpg
 
fishbob said:
This is the stupid part of the issue that always seems to crop up.

How could you know, before the fact, who to 'physically coerce'?
How could you know, before the fact, what questions to ask?

Insert unlikey scenarios here: _________________/

PS: 'Physical coercion' sounds ever so much better than torture, abuse, beating, water boarding, fingernail yanking, electro shock, dog attacking and rape, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
Not even that!

1. You don't know in advance what you'll get.

2. A person will say anything under torture they think will make you stop.

3. Then you are just as evil as they are.
Click to expand...

Two known child rapists abduct your 6-year old daughter/son. One gets apprehended, and obviously knows where the other, plus you son/daughter is holed up. He flatly refuses to disclose the location, sneering at the cops, reminding them of what's probably happening to your daughter/son right now. Coercion OK or not?
 
Southwind17 said:
Two known child rapists abduct your 6-year old daughter/son. One gets apprehended, and obviously knows where the other, plus you son/daughter is holed up. He flatly refuses to disclose the location, sneering at the cops, reminding them of what's probably happening to your daughter/son right now. Coercion OK or not?
Click to expand...
If it were my child: absolutely!

However, I would be the absolutely wrong person to make that judgment because I'm making it on an irrational basis in the middle of an extremely stressful situation. I would be relying on my fear to make a judgment and that isn't what you want to make these decisions on.
 
Upchurch said:
If it were my child: absolutely!

However, I would be the absolutely wrong person to make that judgment because I'm making it on an irrational basis in the middle of an extremely stressful situation. I would be relying on my fear to make a judgment and that isn't what you want to make these decisions on.
Click to expand...

So, in the cold light of day, like right now, when you're thinking completely rationally, like you seem to be, if you had to sign an advance directive with the authorities addressing the highly unlikely but possible scenario described above, or similar, a little like a DNR order, but in reverse, what would you opt for: coersion or leave it to an impartial officer to decide on your behalf at the critical time?
 
Southwind17 said:
So, in the cold light of day, like right now, when you're thinking completely rationally, like you seem to be, if you had to sign an advance directive with the authorities addressing the highly unlikely but possible scenario described above, or similar, a little like a DNR order, but in reverse, what would you opt for: coersion or leave it to an impartial officer to decide on your behalf at the critical time?
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand. It is still an emotional decision I would be making. The decisions of law should be made in the interest of justice, not emotion or revenge. That's why these "24" type scenarios are illegitimate. They are appeals to emotion only.
 
Upchurch said:
No, you don't understand. It is still an emotional decision I would be making. The decisions of law should be made in the interest of justice, not emotion or revenge. That's why these "24" type scenarios are illegitimate. They are appeals to emotion only.
Click to expand...

Gee, best not let emotions get in the way of saving your kid from repeated rape and possible murder in the interests of protecting an accessory child rapist from a little "injustice". No, that simply wouldn't do, would it.

So, your answer's a resounding "no" to coersion then, even if it means you'd find yourself justifying your reasoning to your son/daughter, as you accompany him/her to the regular HIV treatment centre, followed by the child psychologist, assuming he/she lives to survive the ordeal. Oh, hang on a second ... no, no need to consider that "24" scenario, it couldn't possibly happen, well not to you, anyhow, could it.
 
I will concede that torture in principle torture can be justified. Hell, rape can be justified if you are in the right sort of situation. (Someone has had a bomb surretipously planted in their uterus and the only way to defuse it is to rape the **** out of them, perhaps.) But there are levels to morality, and as a result that does not mean that rape or torture should be legal. In general terms, ticking timebombs are rare and torture is an unreliable form of inquiry. Thus, even though there are situations where torture can be justified, a person cannot neccesarily be trusted to determine whether they are in one of those situations. Allowing people to make that discretion will cause a lot of people to tortured when they really don't need to be. And furthermore, when a person is in such a ridiculously extreme situation, it seems acceptable that they should simply say "Screw the rules, I'm torturing this guy and I'll pay the heat for it when it comes to it."

And for the record, I would like to note that if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murderered that wouldn't change my position on torture. Having to deal with the guilt after the fact is of course a problem, but morality often has a price.
 
Last edited:
Here in illinois we sent a LARGE number of absolutely, totally innocent men to Death Row, and likely executed some too, though the Innocence Project does not look into cases already resolved in that fashion. This was in spite of a very exhaustive legal process and the mandatory appeals each capital case receives.

If we can make hideous errors like that, when the actors involved in the system are not all hopped up on anger and fear and panic, how can you expect me to make a correct decision if I thought my child had been spirited away by monsters? No, that is how you get the "shoot them all and let god sort it out" sort of decision.

Sorry.

You%20Fail.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom