Nichols & Mcveigh and 'enhanced interrogation'

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

No one takes more abuse here than Tex. And that includes me.

Ah, the benefits of vaseline.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

No one takes more abuse here than Tex. And that includes me.

Does anybody court opposition more than Tex?

If one opposes reason, logic, empirical observation and the constructive faith of many, one should expect opposition on a site dedicated to the empirical process.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Doesn't the answer to that question depend on the facts and circumstances of the case? Wouldn't you agree that there are some areas where all people, regardless of nationality, should be treated equally?

No. Rights are relative and dependent upon circumstances.

[SoCalCoug]

I think the whole question of torture of citizens vs. torture of non-citizens is a red herring put up by the torture camp.

Is not the question regarding the use of torture whether a civilized nation will use torture against a human under any circumstances? Or whether the United States will support a policy of torturing human beings?

I think the use of torture has no place in a civilized country, period. And I may be wrong, but I think that's the position that the torture opponents take for the most part.

I believe that the use of torture is a moral issue. It is the use of extreme cruelty, and the fact that cruel people and governments use it does not provide justification for a civilized and moral country to use it. It doesn't matter whether the subject of the torture is a U.S. citizen or not.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the use of torture has no place in a civilized country, period.

Exactly. Do we respect human dignity or not?

Sure, you could argue that the terrorists don't so they deserve it. But is that the kind of rationale we as a populus wish to employ?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the whole question of torture of citizens vs. torture of non-citizens is a red herring put up by the torture camp.

I believe that the use of torture is a moral issue. It is the use of extreme cruelty, and the fact that cruel people and governments use it does not provide justification for a civilized and moral country to use it. It doesn't matter whether the subject of the torture is a U.S. citizen or not.

No, what some of us were discussing are civil liberties, such as right to counsel, right to a fair hearing and these due process rights.

I don't believe a nonresident, illegal alien should be entitled to those rights. I support full constitutional rights to citizens, and resident aliens, but enemy combattants captured abroad, with no connection to a national foreign army, should not be entitled to rights, but privileges whatever we deem to give them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That line of reasoning is extremely dangerous, precisely because it requires one group of people to make a determination that another group of people "deserves it." Anytime you get into that territory, you are simply laying the foundation for the destruction of civil liberties for all but the group who gets to decide who "deserves it" (an rapidly shrinking group over time).

No, logical lines in the sand can be made of them versus us.

Our people, meaning our citizens deserve these rights, their parents and forefathers have reserved these rights.

Resident aliens by coming lawfully deserve certain rights by agreeing to our compact.

Those without country or affiliation to defend them, who assert themselves against us, may only rely upon their own power.

This slippery slope analogy is boogeyman too often used. I stand against the erosion of civil liberties, but not necessarily the enhancement thereof for those who have nothing to offer.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, what some of us were discussing are civil liberties, such as right to counsel, right to a fair hearing and these due process rights.

I don't believe a nonresident, illegal alien should be entitled to those rights. I support full constitutional rights to citizens, and resident aliens, but enemy combattants captured abroad, with no connection to a national foreign army, should not be entitled to rights, but privileges whatever we deem to give them.

What, did I misinterpret the first post in the thread as a discussion about torture? If the discussion went off into civil liberties and non-citizens, doesn't that simply illustrate the red herring argument?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

What, did I misinterpret the first post in the thread as a discussion about torture? If the discussion went off into civil liberties and non-citizens, doesn't that simply illustrate the red herring argument?

I do not advocate torture, but any time something becomes so kneejerk I wonder.

I oppose it because it's currently believed to be ineffective. That's the primary reason.

It is cruel, and for our citizens for that reason contrary to the Constitution. And for lawfully admitted resident aliens.

However, if it could be proven in the future to be effective, am I high-minded enough to foreclose it categorically? I dunno. I'm not the type of guy afraid fo making a mistake or getting my hands dirty. And having read much of history, almost no successful society has completely foresworn it.

Arguments of human dignity have public relations impact, but not much rhetorical meaning.

For example, I am generally against violence in any of its varieties, even though I am trained in them. However, the first time I see a child of mine in danger will I respect my better self or resort to the baser self? I'm not certain.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Quite an ironic comment, given your earlier post which had nothing to do with the topic.

Simply responding in kind, bro.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the whole question of torture of citizens vs. torture of non-citizens is a red herring put up by the torture camp.

No, this is the red herring: that the so-called "torture" camp wants torture at all. The real debate is about what constitutes torture and what doesn't. I think you will find very few people who actually advocate torture, by whatever the definition of that word means to them.

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, what some of us were discussing are civil liberties, such as right to counsel, right to a fair hearing and these due process rights.

I don't believe a nonresident, illegal alien should be entitled to those rights. I support full constitutional rights to citizens, and resident aliens, but enemy combattants captured abroad, with no connection to a national foreign army, should not be entitled to rights, but privileges whatever we deem to give them.

Strange as it sounds, I generally agree with this.