Very well.many differences, many similarities. Far too many to list.
We tortured and abused our captives with a variety of techniques and we did it on more than a few of them. We did far more than waterboard and we didn't do it for VERY SPECIFIC information. You can't substantiate this at all. We were fishing for things we didn't know, period. Otherwise we wouldn't have had to torture them. Torture is only used to gain information you don't already have (fishing), using it to verify information you already have is unnecessary and barbaric.and we don't. We don't saw off peoples heads because they aren't our religion or because they offended us. We waterboard VERY SPECIFIC people for VERY SPECIFIC information.
Nonsense, I said no such thing. And you characterization of my position is both dishonest and ignorant.you just want to fight with both hands tied behind your back instead, got it.
Due process? What are you talking about? If you have time to take a case to court and actually provide true due process in order to gain a warrant to torture someone, you don't need to actually torture them because you would be in court for months if not longer. And that means the issue isn't that important and doesn't warrant toture.this is refuted by my strong advocation of due process for the use of torture.
We just use other methods of torture and abuse on our defenseless captives. We killed them in kinder, gentler ways like smothering them, beating them, shooting them, and forcing hypothermia. Yes we are different.we are. We don't saw off our enemies head an inch at a time when they are alive in order to recruit new members and scare our enemies.
We aren't being honest about it when we torture and abuse detainees.if you listen carefully, we are.
Last edited by Lerxst; 05-28-09 at 04:48 PM.
Were you talking about something like a FISA court? If so, that's not due process at all. Due process requires legal representation and a right to appeal a ruling.this is refuted by my strong advocation of due process for the use of torture.
You obviously disagree, I'd like to hear more about your theory on what due process actually constitutes. You've obviously given this some thought so please expand so that I can intelligently digest your argument.
Last edited by Lerxst; 05-28-09 at 05:35 PM.
Constitutional Topic: Due Process.
Definition of Due Process of Law.Due process is a difficult thing to define, and the Supreme Court has not been much help over the years. Here's what we can say about due process:
In the Magna Carta, due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of peers." Some state constitutions continue to use these phrases.
The reference in the 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government and its courts and agencies. The reference in the 14th Amendment extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts.
Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.
In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.
The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.
Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):
* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated
"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).
"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).
"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
Though rarely occuring, there are compelling reasons why water boarding, sleep deprivation and other interogative techniques must remain available tools to protect and fight crime and terrorism. As long as due process is established and given when such techniques are used then I find no room for complaint. The only discussion left is what, if any, circumstances or scenarios allow for such techniques to be used. Obviously you think none exist. So we shall employ a thought experiment: if John Doe claims to have a bomb that is set to go off that will claim some unknown number of lives and there is suffcient corroborating evidence to believe this is true is it OK to water board him or sleep deprive him or use some other alternative interrogation technique in an attempt to extract information from him to avert his plan? At what number of lives lost or degree of certainty that john possesses such intel is required before such techniques are allowed?