RSS Feeds
Torture in the court
Should evidence extracted via torture be admissible in military courts? Discuss round three of this week's Dust-Up.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
What a question! How much pain can any of us resist? There is always a limit. Under sufficient duress, all will confess.
Confessions extracted by torture are worthless.
What next? Electric shock, branding, or the rack?
If we torture foreigners suspected of terrorism, why not U.S. citizens?
If we can torture terrorists, why stop there? Kidnapping and murder are horrible crimes.
The time to stop is before we start; it’s already too late for that, but, if we value our liberty, our nation, we must stop this insanity now.
2. It is always a pleasure to read the bleatings of the high-minded on the subject of torture. Testimony given under torture is potentially unreliable, but information derived from testimony given under torture ("the fruit of the poisonous tree" to use the legal jargon) is perfectly reliable and should be used. Ridiculous charges of torture for minor unpleasantness ("Horrors, my Koran was spat upon"; "OMG, they allowed a dog to bark at me!") are often made. And BTW McCain didn't support waterboarding; he, unlike the Democrats, merely objected to making public exactly what interrogation procedures would be used against our enemies.
3. For Mr. Korb, I have a helpful rule of thumb for determining what constitutes torture. Instead of relying on the circular logic of the current justice department, where there definition of torture depends completely on what the President thinks is torture, a different option is simply stated thusly: if the technique was used by the Spanish Inquisition, as well as in other nefarious regimes throughout history, chances are - it's torture.
4. What constitutues torture? Consult the Geneva convention, please, not Army field manuals or right-wing politicians. It's quite clear on the matter: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." There is no further argument on this issue among civilized nations. torture is and has been an international political nightmare, and is immoral on its face.
5. Mr. Korb seems to be ducking the issue in full lawyer-speaking-with-forked-tongue mode. What he seems to depend on is the dubious legality of a Presidential veto of a specific law. What the historical record shows is that the US Giovernment has prosecuted torturers who have waterboarded Americans. And what the wider historical record shows is that even organisations with the reputations of the Spanish Inquisition and the Gestapo knew the torture was worthless as a way of getting information. Torture is terrorism.
6. When the U.S. uses its power to perpetrate cruel and inhuman punishment and acts to abrogate without due process the human rights of so many individuals, it is not only illegal and unconstitutional; but it also is in direct opposition to the principals stated in the Declaration of Independence. Those principals clearly deny such power over individuals to not only Emperors, Kings, Lords, Popes, Prophets, Generals, and Presidents but they also deny such power even to the will of the majority. I do not see how the U.S. can legally govern without an impeachment or some other official repudiation of such powers.
7. People make a lot of glib pronouncements trying to sound tough and common sense. But the fact is -- evidence acquired from torture is just not reliable enough to be used in a court of LAW. Why not? Look at what happened under Stalin -- people confessed under torture to all kinds of bizarre conspiracies against socialism that never happened. You can make somebody confess to ANYTHING under torture, whether they did it or not. That's why information gathered this way is not reliable enough to use as evidence in a court of law.
8. Yes, approved forms of torture should be allowed in dealing with terrorists. Those of us that understand the mentality of terrorists know that they are not civilized. They don't subscribe to the Geneva Convention or other commonly accepted treatment of foreign combatants. So, yes, torture them within approved limits and extrract whatever intell to save American lives. Most American's have and the media live in a dream world when it comes to the brutal nature of the enemy we face with the terrorists.
9. Only a fool believes what someone they are torturing tells them. Should it be used in court. Of course not Court should be a place of truth not a place for a pack of lies and fictions to get the sadist to stop. People who torture are worse then sex offenders. They should be dropped bleeding into shark infested waters. Well it is an eye for an eye.
10. Anyone willing to be tortured in order to protect the nation from harm should step right up.
Submitted by: Lee Sterne
2. It is always a pleasure to read the bleatings of the high-minded on the subject of torture. Testimony given under torture is potentially unreliable, but information derived from testimony given under torture ("the fruit of the poisonous tree" to use the legal jargon) is perfectly reliable and should be used. Ridiculous charges of torture for minor unpleasantness ("Horrors, my Koran was spat upon"; "OMG, they allowed a dog to bark at me!") are often made. And BTW McCain didn't support waterboarding; he, unlike the Democrats, merely objected to making public exactly what interrogation procedures would be used against our enemies.
Submitted by: James
3. For Mr. Korb, I have a helpful rule of thumb for determining what constitutes torture. Instead of relying on the circular logic of the current justice department, where there definition of torture depends completely on what the President thinks is torture, a different option is simply stated thusly: if the technique was used by the Spanish Inquisition, as well as in other nefarious regimes throughout history, chances are - it's torture.
Submitted by: Darren
4. What constitutues torture? Consult the Geneva convention, please, not Army field manuals or right-wing politicians. It's quite clear on the matter: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." There is no further argument on this issue among civilized nations. torture is and has been an international political nightmare, and is immoral on its face.
Submitted by: RGT
5. Mr. Korb seems to be ducking the issue in full lawyer-speaking-with-forked-tongue mode. What he seems to depend on is the dubious legality of a Presidential veto of a specific law. What the historical record shows is that the US Giovernment has prosecuted torturers who have waterboarded Americans. And what the wider historical record shows is that even organisations with the reputations of the Spanish Inquisition and the Gestapo knew the torture was worthless as a way of getting information. Torture is terrorism.
Submitted by: Dave Bell
6. When the U.S. uses its power to perpetrate cruel and inhuman punishment and acts to abrogate without due process the human rights of so many individuals, it is not only illegal and unconstitutional; but it also is in direct opposition to the principals stated in the Declaration of Independence. Those principals clearly deny such power over individuals to not only Emperors, Kings, Lords, Popes, Prophets, Generals, and Presidents but they also deny such power even to the will of the majority. I do not see how the U.S. can legally govern without an impeachment or some other official repudiation of such powers.
Submitted by: Paul Zagarino
7. People make a lot of glib pronouncements trying to sound tough and common sense. But the fact is -- evidence acquired from torture is just not reliable enough to be used in a court of LAW. Why not? Look at what happened under Stalin -- people confessed under torture to all kinds of bizarre conspiracies against socialism that never happened. You can make somebody confess to ANYTHING under torture, whether they did it or not. That's why information gathered this way is not reliable enough to use as evidence in a court of law.
Submitted by: Patricia
8. Yes, approved forms of torture should be allowed in dealing with terrorists. Those of us that understand the mentality of terrorists know that they are not civilized. They don't subscribe to the Geneva Convention or other commonly accepted treatment of foreign combatants. So, yes, torture them within approved limits and extrract whatever intell to save American lives. Most American's have and the media live in a dream world when it comes to the brutal nature of the enemy we face with the terrorists.
Submitted by: J. E. Sullivan
9. Only a fool believes what someone they are torturing tells them. Should it be used in court. Of course not Court should be a place of truth not a place for a pack of lies and fictions to get the sadist to stop. People who torture are worse then sex offenders. They should be dropped bleeding into shark infested waters. Well it is an eye for an eye.
Submitted by: Bill Couture
10. Anyone willing to be tortured in order to protect the nation from harm should step right up.
Submitted by: Steve
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT