yet it is used in our penal systems all the time and no one seems to care

only when it is used by the military under orders of someone people hate it becomes a issue

Even Stalin sent some guilty people to prison.

When Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu were gunned down in a courtyard, after their overthrow in Romania, there was a comment to the effect that "A fair trial would have produced the same result", and the reply was that "Democracy is all about the process, not the result".

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Those men were right and wrong. They are right that a fair trial would have produced the same result given the mountain of evidence against them. Vigilante justice, however, invariably shoots lesser criminals without fair proportionality and even innocents presumed guilty in haste and emotion. It also does not show guilt publicly.

Society did not do that to the Nazis on the whole. They were tried in war crimes tribunals and their acts were put on full display and they were given a chance to deny them, which they could not. Had they been summarily shot their acts would not have been so easily shown to the world in full detail with no plausible deniability by them, it would have aided deniers, and it would have lent heroic or martyr status to them.

Padilla had an even fairer proceeding. He wasn't charged with 'crimes' after the fact that seek to hold henious rulers accountable for their abuses when in power. He was charged and convicted under laws already on the books when he committed them. He was given a chance to raise reasonable doubts about guilt in a full and fair hearing before a pre-screened jury of his peers that was selected and approved by his own counsel.

When I have, for example, a client who drank and took pills all day and later drove where he sideswiped and rear ended cars and finished by crashing into a home living room, failed all field sobriety tests, reeked of booze, and his blood alcohol content was over twice the legal limit plus detecting unprescribed pills, the facts clearly show he violated my state's drunk driving statute. My client is not being lined up and shot or lynched. He gets his fair day in court where the government must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and we can try to raise reasonable doubts and he gets all his trial rights. But, the facts are so clear that if we sought a trial a guilty verdict would come very fast. Moreover, his guilt would be publicly shown and proven with him not rebutting it successfully.

Guilty people should be held accoutable for the crimes. The clearer the case, the better. A quick verdict upon easily shown guilt is not a kangeroo result--it is bringing, showing and proving the guilty in the fairest and fullest manner.

__________________

Its pretty cruel in any case. But the difference is that the people in your domestic legal system were given a trial before they were tortured.

How many people have the US tortured over the last few years that were never given this right and/or were innocent of any crime?


Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

i dont know sounds like idle speculation based on rumour and inuendo that no facts are known.

please inform me how many are tortured by us ? Can you link any proven cases ?

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

There is more than enough evidence to begin investigations... if it is actually a crime in the US for the Gov. to torture people - guilty or not.

Oh im sorry, investigations into blowjobs must take precedence.....


Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I'll play your silly little game: How many?

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

The torture accusation is valid with respect to the fact that Padilla's rights were being violated: he was a us citizen being held without representation.
So, I agree that he was being tortured.

__________________

They did not link to Padilla to Al Queda though they were able to uncover an application dated 2000 which was superficial at best, in concluding a link to the 9/11 events.

__________________

did i say that ?

i have no problems with investigations as long as there is reason and substance to them. blanket accusations without proof are another thing.

your statement did not say lets investigate it speculated about it as a fact it occurs.

As of now the number is 0. I'm sure there might have been rogues out there that break rules. I say investigate them. just dont spout off like its a fact we did torure for a view point.

I just dont wish witch hunts either. It's a line you have to draw some where. Start an investigation of a few alleged cases if they dont pan out dont keep it going for political gains.

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

I don't know. But there are plenty of reasons to think that there are some. Am i the only one who reads the news here?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I don't have a problem with the trial, where Padilla had counsel and was allowed to respond to the charges (although there is some doubts raised that he is mentally incompetent to assist in his defense).

My problem is when someone is arrested, held without formal charge and denied counsel for three years, while the government touts their airtight case, which never actually materializes in court.
Then later they are charged with something else and convicted.
That reminded me of Lavrenti Beria, the idea that "we have this man, now lets find something he is guilty of." As opposed to "we have a crime, lets find out who is responsible."

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

reasons being...

we need information from the enemy ...

so we ASSUME torture.

many hate bush and would not put it past him. this mean the entire military are evil and would allow condone torture and not speak out.

if there was torture I really think someone along the lines would speak out or stop it.


I really think alot of ways we extract information and has proven works is psychologically. im sure they lie to the people and figure after in a cell awhile people talk.

Seems when we need imediate info we assume torture immediately... i mean we blanket speculate it because people dont trust our goverment or hatred of who is in charge. If a dem was in charge they would never make such accusations they would be silent.

Not all are blind partisans, but i seem to find alot here that fill those shoes.

Amnesty international will always find torture sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong. its there job Just as Chuck Schumer always will find a tv camera or a microphone.

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

They proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in court that he was. I won't question the fact finding unless a legal error is detected on appeal that brings that factual finding, not just a legal technicality separate from the underlying facts, into question.

__________________

Actually, some people do care.

But, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is held without charge in extreme solitary for years on end.

And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is held in this sort of no-contact situation in American prisons for years on end, either.

__________________