 |
|  |
 |
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999 time: 23:22
|
|
For loinburger:
quote: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
U.S. now might have to consider what once was unthinkable, Dershowitz says
This story was published in Metro on Monday, November 5, 2001.
By Tina Hesman
Of The Post-Dispatch
Americans may have to consider ideas as foreign as truth serums and torture warrants when thinking about striking a balance between liberty and security after the terrorist attacks Sept. 11.
That was the message celebrity lawyer and civil libertarian Alan M. Dershowitz delivered to a crowd packed into a gymnasium Sunday at the Jewish Community Center in Creve Coeur. Dershowitz was the opening speaker for the Jewish Book Fair.
He originally was scheduled to talk about his book "Supreme Injustice," a critical account of the Supreme Court's ruling on the presidential
election last year. But Dershowitz instead turned his comments to civil liberties.
"I'm not in the mood to start being critical of the legitimacy of the president at a time like this," he said.
Dershowitz said he always supported the philosophy that it was better to let criminals go free than to unjustly detain innocent people. But he suggested that terrorist acts should make civil rights activists
readjust their thinking on some issues.
The American Civil Liberties Union nearly revoked his membership for suggesting that national identity cards should be required, he said. The cards would carry basic information - a person's name and Social
Security number - and a picture, he proposed.
Law enforcement officials and security workers could request to see the cards to verify the identity of a person at any time, he said. The civil libertarians are opposed to such a measure because they say it would
violate the right to privacy.
Dershowitz counters that the measure does not violate privacy rights but does take away a guarantee of anonymity that terrorists have used to their advantage.
It's time to reassess laws and decide how to deal with situations that may arise when dealing with terrorists, he said. Legislators should evaluate and revise quarantine laws before a wholesale bioterrorism
attack strikes the United States, he said, calling the current anthrax attacks "retail bioterrorism."
Americans need to consider what measures should be allowed to get information from unwilling terror suspects, he said. After law enforcement officials have asked, begged, cajoled, threatened and bribed a
close-mouthed witness, they may need to take more drastic measures to elicit vital information, Dershowitz said.
Americans should begin thinking about whether it would be permissible to grant the suspect immunity from prosecution and then administer truth serum.
Even torture may not be off the table as an information-gathering tool, Dershowitz said. But there must be a national debate about the circumstances in which torture is permissible and who should have the
power to decide when to use it. Dershowitz suggested that judges could issue torture warrants in certain cases.
Americans must plan their approach to these disquieting issues carefully and not allow the basic values of the country to erode, he said.
"If Osama bin Laden comes out with a white flag, we'd darned well better arrest him. We're still a country under the rule of law," Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz, a professor from Harvard who has been called the lawyer of last resort, said that even he wouldn't take bin Laden's case.
"That's not a call I want to get." |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
No, torture is disgusting no matter what. Its definately not OK, under no conditions.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001 time: 07:22
|
|
Che, you maybe didn't understood the topic correctly. Of course I and most of humans wouldn't stand real tortuing with like pinning out eyes or brning out legs and leaving stumps.
But, this topic doesn't talks about such tortuing. As far as I understood, it talks about so-called "humanic tortuing", which was introduced in Algeria at war. Prime objective of it is to create pain without killing people or making them handicapped or otherwise phisically "damaging" them for whole lifetime. So there are only 3 "major" types of tortuing remaining - tortuing with water, tortuing with electricity and psychological tortuing. None of these three types are able to create really much pain (tortuing with electricity is, but too high voltage could trigger death, so it wouldn't be called "humanic tortuing" with high voltages).
As I said, I would admit smaller crimes if tortued, but that also doesn't depends on werether I did them or not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Torture has its place. Captured terrorists certainly should be tortured if there is a reasonable expectation that information might be gleaned that could save the lives of the innocent. These people are not US citizens and have no rights.
POWs on the other hand, or criminals, thats different.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001 time: 07:22
|
|
jimmy, re-read my posts
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pekka
Sure making someone stand is not torture if it lasts few hours.. but if it lasts 'till you confess' or few days, I think it's a bit too much. Everybody is not guilty anyway. |
If it really becomes so painful to continue standing then I'd just sit on the floor. What could they really do to you if you refused to stand? Also I think we should make a distinction between torturing someone and simply making someone uncomfortable. Torture causes extream pain while disconforort is simply... well... uncomfortable.
Last edited by Oerdin on 06-09-2002 at 04:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:22
|
|
Laugh all you want my friend but when you're done rolling on the floor maybe you can stop and really think about the question. Since torture is outlawed, and juries are very responsive to throwing out any case they procieve as being tainted by police brutality, there really is very little the police can do to stop you if you pacifly sit on the floor.
In this case the policman's hands really would be severly restricted.
Last edited by Oerdin on 06-09-2002 at 04:50
|
|
|  |
 |
|
NY Hoya
|
|
NY, NY
Mar 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
torture is absolutely acceptable in limited circumstances. Not in cases to obtain a confession. As has already been pointed out, it is far from an effective technique in such circumstances. In other cases, in order to protect the lives of innocent victims, it is not only acceptable, but imperative that authorities take the steps necessary to save those in danger.
Can you people see no case in which the use of torture would be appropriate? Think of a case where WMD are in place threatening the lives of thousands or millions. You are kidding yourselves to think that torture would and should not be used to protect those innocent lives.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|