Miranda

[Westside Steve]

Honestly, how can you pretend to make this case after I've been dealing with you almost exclusively for years? It's like Marvin Harrison complaining to Peyton that he doesn't get enough balls thrown his way.

 

 

That, as you know, isn't my claim.

 

You're fine for answering questions I didn't ask.

 

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

So what if the suspect says, "No, I didn't do it." And nothing more. You can't force the truth out of someone.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Tom.

If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.

No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.

OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.

 

I think he should answer truthfully.

 

 

And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.

You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.

I don't see why that's an outrage.

Do you?

 

WSS

I also read your original rodriguez comment as saying that you thought torture should be legal. Thanks for clarifying.

 

What is the alternative to the right to stay quiet? How do we force someone to talk that doesnt want to talk? The point of the right to remain silent is that it draws a big bright line between interrogation and the slippery slope to coercion and torture. If someone doesnt want to talk, we dont want police trying to force them to.

 

I don't want criminals to be freed on technicalities, but I also don't want innocent people to be harrassed by the police and/or wrongly convicted of crimes they didnt commit. Punishment for cops that cut corners is an alternative, but a difficult one. We dont want cops to be afraid to do their jobs, right? "Cutting corners" can be done either by mistake or in good faith all the time - that's one of the reasons that it remains so common. Currently, cops try to avoid cutting corners because it has no benefit - they lose the fruit of their corner cutting and cant use it against the suspect. If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.

[heckofajobbrownie]

He does have to answer truthfully, Steve. In a court of law.

 

If he wants to answer truthfully after being arrested, he can do that, too. But if the person is smart, he'll say next to nothing and wait for an attorney, because police often get things wrong even when you're innocent, and you can say things that convince them that they're right about you being guilty.

 

You keep imagining that all these people are walking free on technicalities. That's not really the case either. Because someone cut a corner or didn't follow procedure, that doesn't mean someone walks free. The judge gets to rule whether that evidence will be thrown out, which is how we ensure that the police don't cut corners and follow legal procedures.

 

As for torture, let's not pretend you didn't write what you did. Or that you haven't advocated for it in the past. If you want to walk that back, go right ahead. But we can read what you wrote, and you're clearly advocating for torturing suspects to get information out of them, which is more than a little unconstitutional.

 

And would land you in jail.

[Westside Steve]

I also read your original rodriguez comment as saying that you thought torture should be legal. Thanks for clarifying.

 

No prob.

 

What is the alternative to the right to stay quiet? How do we force someone to talk that doesnt want to talk? The point of the right to remain silent is that it draws a big bright line between interrogation and the slippery slope to coercion and torture. If someone doesnt want to talk, we dont want police trying to force them to.

 

But we do actually.

Nothing illegal about locking a guy up and allowing him to wait for the PD.

I'd say refusing to answer honestly is akin to obstruction.

 

I don't want criminals to be freed on technicalities, but I also don't want innocent people to be harrassed by the police and/or wrongly convicted of crimes they didnt commit.

 

Neither do I toop, but that isn't the either or.

I expect everyone involved to be truthful.

I'm not suggesting wringing a false admission out of a guy or planting evidence.

Law enforcements job is to catch and punish the guy who committed a crime.

And that's all I want.

 

 

Punishment for cops that cut corners is an alternative, but a difficult one. We dont want cops to be afraid to do their jobs, right?

 

Nope. So take away some restrictions.

 

 

"Cutting corners" can be done either by mistake or in good faith all the time - that's one of the reasons that it remains so common. Currently, cops try to avoid cutting corners because it has no benefit - they lose the fruit of their corner cutting and cant use it against the suspect.

 

Another reason to loosen it up a little.

Look Toop, there's plenty of shit in our legal system on the other side I'd change too.

I can't imagine having my life depend on eyewitness ID.

Cripes I see guys a few times a summer I can't remember at all.

And how about your freedom hanging on whether your attorney can bullshit 12 morons or not??? And DNA limits? Don't get me started.

 

 

If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.

 

 

Well then I disagree with you.

If someone gets hurt by the pervert who gets out because the cop f*cked up and searched his car without a warrant, then that's the worst.

 

And before anyone flips out I'm not advocating phony evidence.

 

But "doing their job" shouldn't be a game and unfortunately it is.

 

You do know that it's the law that an attorney must free a violent criminal if he can even if he knows the guy did it.

BUT:

It would be against the law for the prosecutor to imprison a man he knew to be innocent.

 

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

[Westside Steve]

As for torture, let's not pretend you didn't write what you did. Or that you haven't advocated for it in the past. If you want to walk that back, go right ahead. But we can read what you wrote, and you're clearly advocating for torturing suspects to get information out of them, which is more than a little unconstitutional.

 

And would land you in jail.

 

And I'm happy to repeat that if waterboarding the three terrorists helped prevent another 9/11 then I'll take that deal.

You wouldn't.

 

And I'll repeat the question.

Rodriguez case.

Go back and read it.

It's your wife/daughter.

Your call Heck.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is why we have laws, and are governed by laws, and not the raw emotions we feel in our darkest hours. You're also assuming that torture works, even though it's something with a very mixed track record at best. You're also assuming we know the man is guilty that we're going to torture, which we don't.

 

So again, your asking a party question, not a policy question.

 

So here's the party answer: If I knew a man was guilty of such a crime, I'd spend all my waking hours thinking of ways to hurt him physically. But somewhere inside I'd understand that I'm not the only person who has ever been in this situation, and won't be the last, and that's not the type of society we have, or want to have.

 

Then I'd email my friend Tupa and see if he can talk to me about that whole forgiveness thing.

 

So you can have your torture fantasy. It seems to be a popular one among the right these days. I, however, don't get excited that way.

 

What you should think about is that you've gone from the ticking time bomb scenario, where terrorists are about to commit another act of mass murder, and once you're okay with that you moved on to torturing an American citizen that the police apprehend and you don't even know is guilty.

 

Because this is what happens when you start saying torture is okay in certain circumstances.

 

Well, if it's okay to stop a car bomb from going off that would kill 12 people, why not torture someone who may commit a similar act of violence?

 

What about someone who might have known about the Virginia Tech massacre ahead of time? He killed over 30 people. More than the terrorists and the car bomb in this scenario. Should we torture them too?

 

How many lives have to be at stake before torture is okay? 10? 20? 100? 3?

[calfoxwc]

I'd say terrorism is the key.

 

Waterboard em. Get that information.

 

Shoot em full of sodium penethold, or whatever.

 

Make them listen to Hecki's posts read to them 24 x 7.

 

Not terrorists?

 

Then you find ways to interrogate them to want to comply truthfully.

 

It works all the time, Gibbs does it perfectly on NCIS. @@

[VaporTrail]

Define terrorist. kthxbai

[calfoxwc]

That's easy -

 

elcoil;asdkf !

 

 

[Westside Steve]

This is why we have laws, and are governed by laws, and not the raw emotions we feel in our darkest hours. You're also assuming that torture works, even though it's something with a very mixed track record at best. You're also assuming we know the man is guilty that we're going to torture, which we don't.

 

Unfortunately you didn't read or understand the case.

He's a cnvicted violent sex offender free for God knows why.

Her blood is in his car.

She's missing and may be alive.

All we want is the truth.

It may save her life.

 

Pretend you care if she lives or dies.

That's case #1.

 

I'm sure you understand but refuse to admit that this isn't about obtaining a confession.

It's about him withholding information that might save an innocent life.

 

And I don't think we should have the right to do that.

 

So again, your asking a party question, not a policy question.

 

So here's the party answer: If I knew a man was guilty of such a crime, I'd spend all my waking hours thinking of ways to hurt him physically. But somewhere inside I'd understand that I'm not the only person who has ever been in this situation, and won't be the last, and that's not the type of society we have, or want to have.

 

Then I'd email my friend Tupa and see if he can talk to me about that whole forgiveness thing.

 

So you can have your torture fantasy. It seems to be a popular one among the right these days. I, however, don't get excited that way.

 

What you should think about is that you've gone from the ticking time bomb scenario, where terrorists are about to commit another act of mass murder, and once you're okay with that you moved on to torturing an American citizen that the police apprehend and you don't even know is guilty.

 

Again you're not addressing the situation I gave. Why?

 

Because this is what happens when you start saying torture is okay in certain circumstances.

 

Yes.

 

Well, if it's okay to stop a car bomb from going off that would kill 12 people, why not torture someone who may commit a similar act of violence?

 

Because those two situations aren't related?

 

What about someone who might have known about the Virginia Tech massacre ahead of time? He killed over 30 people. More than the terrorists and the car bomb in this scenario. Should we torture them too?

 

If he knew ahead of time and withheld that information shouldn't he be in prison now?

 

How many lives have to be at stake before torture is okay? 10? 20? 100? 3?

 

I'll use your answer.

1

Then I might call Toop to discuss that forgiveness thing.

 

That would be easier than forgiving the terrorist.

IMO.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Pretend you care if she lives or dies."

 

You see, this is why you're a dick. And apparently the only way to care is to be willing to torture people.

 

No, Steve, we don't torture people.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Unfortunately you didn't read or understand the case.

He's a cnvicted violent sex offender free for God knows why.

Her blood is in his car.

She's missing and may be alive.

All we want is the truth.

It may save her life.

 

Pretend you care if she lives or dies.

That's case #1.

 

I'm sure you understand but refuse to admit that this isn't about obtaining a confession.

It's about him withholding information that might save an innocent life.

You're avoiding the problem here, Steve. Ignoring the problems with torture in general for the moment, ehere do we draw the line? Who decides how good the evidence has to be before the torture can begin? How do we prevent cops from torturing innocent people? Where do we draw the line for how serious the crime has to be?

 

If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.

 

 

Well then I disagree with you.

If someone gets hurt by the pervert who gets out because the cop f*cked up and searched his car without a warrant, then that's the worst.

 

 

"cops not doing their jobs" means that criminals arent even being caught in the first place. Perverts running around unharrassed by the law is much worse than one going free on a technicality every now and then.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So you think torture is okay if one life is at stake. And in the case you presented, you stated you think you would "torture the shit out of that guy", and you think everyone else should want to torture the shit out of that guy, too. And that we should not only torture terrorist suspects, but also regular criminal suspects who are American citizens, too.

 

...How is it that you're anti-torture again? Seems clear you are decidedly pro-torture.

 

If "all you want is the truth", what do you imagine everyone else wants? You seem to imagine that you'd be the only one who wants the truth, or cares that the girl lives or dies.

 

Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to illicit a confession than breaking bones in their face and pulling their fingernails out? And that these lawful techniques have been used for decades, with much success?

 

Also, you seem to imagine that we have a real tough time putting criminals in jail. Um, are you aware of the size of our prison population? I'm not sure you're living in the real world.

[Westside Steve]

So you think torture is okay if one life is at stake. And in the case you presented, you stated you think you would "torture the shit out of that guy", and you think everyone else should want to torture the shit out of that guy, too. And that we should not only torture terrorist suspects, but also regular criminal suspects who are American citizens, too.

 

Try to follow Heck.

In cases where a suspect has information that could save a life I'd do it.

You seemed to have said you would too but you'd seek absolution from Toop.

I prefer to ask forgiveness for coercing information than letting hunreds or one die.

 

...How is it that you're anti-torture again? Seems clear you are decidedly pro-torture.

 

I'm against amputating limbs. But if it's gangrenous....

 

If "all you want is the truth", what do you imagine everyone else wants? You seem to imagine that you'd be the only one who wants the truth, or cares that the girl lives or dies.

 

Sorry Heck. The "other side" wants to free his client regardless of thge truth.

You know that and it probably should bother you.

 

Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to illicit a confession than breaking bones in their face and pulling their fingernails out? And that these lawful techniques have been used for decades, with much success?

 

 

Sure there are Heck.

Use 'em.

BTW since you asked and I answered, how many lives at stake before you waterboard the guy who could stop it?

How about sodium pentathol?

Intimidation?

Heat or cold?

Loud music?

Threatening with dogs etc.

Give me a number.

Fifty? Three hundred? Three thousand?

 

Also, you seem to imagine that we have a real tough time putting criminals in jail. Um, are you aware of the size of our prison population? I'm not sure you're living in the real world.

 

I sure am Heck. And as liberal as it sounds a shitload of these poor suckers shouldn't be wasting the justice systems time.

See I don'rt care if the dimwit pot smoker can tell me where the dealer lives.

Now if he knew of a person about to be killed.........

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, so stop saying you're against torture. You're clearly not against torture. There are lots of situations, hardly rare, where you would like the police to torture American citizens. And where you would like the American government to torture foreigners. Going by what you say, the government would be torturing people somewhere in the country pretty much every day of the year.

 

I really don't agree with you. I think that makes you a sicko fascist. And if you think I'm agreeing with you, you're wrong.

[Westside Steve]

Okay, so stop saying you're against torture. You're clearly not against torture. There are lots of situations, hardly rare, where you would like the police to torture American citizens. And where you would like the American government to torture foreigners. Going by what you say, the government would be torturing people somewhere in the country pretty much every day of the year.

 

Whatever you say Heck.

And by that logic you admit you're against rape and murder victims and for terroist attacks.

I think we suspected as much.

 

I really don't agree with you. I think that makes you a sicko fascist. And if you think I'm agreeing with you, you're wrong.

 

 

Aside from the fact that you're once again a dishonest coward by refusing give a straight answer let me say that if you're telling me you would NOT use any of those methods I listed if it were YOUR loved ones in a Rodrigues type case OR among the victims of a planned terrorist plot you're a liar.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

I can honestly say I wouldn't, Steve. There's no guarantee that the person you torture does have that information, nor that torturing will make him spill it. That is why we should not torture. You just don't know who did what. As a nation, we cannot resort to torture.

 

If, however, someone rapes/murders my family, they had better hope that the cops find them before I do. But as a nation, police force, civil service, etc, no, we shouldn't torture.

[Westside Steve]

I can honestly say I wouldn't, Steve. There's no guarantee that the person you torture does have that information, nor that torturing will make him spill it. That is why we should not torture. You just don't know who did what. As a nation, we cannot resort to torture.

 

If, however, someone rapes/murders my family, they had better hope that the cops find them before I do. But as a nation, police force, civil service, etc, no, we shouldn't torture.

 

 

Fair enough VT.

And again thanks for the straight answer.

 

Still though I completely understand your reasoing I'd still make exceptions in ticking clock cases.

As, I believe, there is support even among the current DOJ.

 

 

And I still don't think the suspect shpould have a right to not disclose that information regardless of whether or not he's tortured.

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, what conversation are you having with yourself? We're talking about whether this should be legal. Maybe you think a special distinction should made if you personally get to do it, rather than an agent of the government, but this is just fantasy. The only person who would do such a thing would be an agent of the government. It matters not what you or I may wish to do when we're really, really angry.

 

Are you saying this should be legal or not? Or are you simply making the point that you could get really brutal with someone who has done something horrible?

 

Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.

 

So for the third time, I don't think citizens should get to torture other citizens, or anyone else, once they've been captured and have been subdued. We can threaten them with the death penalty, being thrown in jail for the rest of their life, and all manner of other legal sanctions. But we don't torture them to get information out of them before we've even established guilt in a court of law.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Well, if so, I think you're a real badass. You're Outlaw Josey Wales. But that's not really the point.

 

You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?

He a fascist sicko too?

 

 

Or just non Democrats piss you off?

 

There are 2 issues.

I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. They have a cartoon Caruso where you can stick in the lines? That's fantastic.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You say the same to Vapor "The cops better get 'em before I do" Trail?

He a fascist sicko too?

 

 

Or just non Democrats piss you off?

 

There are 2 issues.

I'll waste timne on your wordgame later today.

 

WSS

 

Well, fill me in because I haven't a clue. You're all over the map. You're pro torture, think everyone should want to do it, but you don't think it should be legal. Except that you do, and in all sorts of cases where vital information can be extracted. Especially if you get to do it personally, which everyone can admit would be fantastic, or else you're a liar.

 

Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.

[Westside Steve]

Yes, why don't you tell me what the hell you're on about.

 

 

What's the difference?

 

You aren't going to respond to anything that's said anyway so what's the point?

 

Get your spinner ready!

 

1 I don't think a suspect who has knowledge that could prevent harm to an innocent person should have the right to withhold it.

 

2 Personally if it was my loved one's safety at stake it would not bother me if enhanced interrogation tactics were used on him.

My guess is that you'd feel the same.

 

3 I think that in ticking clock situations law enforcement or the CIA should have the option of using enhances interrogation tactics.

 

So blah blah Beck grumble fascist blah blah Cheney......

 

Go on.

 

WSS

 

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, this is why we try not to let people like you near the controls.

 

What you're saying is entirely unamerican and unconstitutional. As long as you're comfortable with that, which you seem to be.

 

Love the use of euphemism, though.

[calfoxwc]

Actually Heck, like John was asking,

 

what DO YOU believe in, if ANYTHING?

 

What do you believe?

 

It's pretty chicken little to go around whining about what other people post,

 

and arguing against it,

 

while being so cowardly and UNAmerican, that you won't have

 

any value or principle or belief of your own.

 

So far, you got nothin' Heck. Empty Paper Bag Man.

 

Or, Empty Suit Man, just like Obamao the troll.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, this is the up-is-down world you guys like to live in. I argue for the Constitution, for the Bill of Rights, for the American and Western application of justice, and you can't figure out what principles I'm arguing for, and call it un-American.

 

Meanwhile, Steve speaks of how he doesn't care for parts of our Constitution and argues for throwing away much of the Bill of Rights, and for the state-sponsored torture of American citizens, and he's gets no mention. You think that's great. And very American.

 

This is why the cover of this week's The Economist -- The Economist -- wonders how the American right has become so angry and useless and devoid of ideas.

 

Thankfully, guys like Tupa also exist. Sadly, there are barely enough of people like him in the Republican Party to field a touch football game.

[Westside Steve]

Yeah, this is why we try not to let people like you near the controls.

 

What you're saying is entirely unamerican and unconstitutional. As long as you're comfortable with that, which you seem to be.

 

Love the use of euphemism, though.

 

Well at least you haven't slipped up and offered anything of substance.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Okay, Steve. Please, continue with your dissertation on torturing the shit out of people who won't talk. I'm learning so much of substance.