Opinion Hour

Jason · Only in cartoons

Opinion Hour

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I'm crying crocodile tears for this *******.

Really.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Are you satisfied with the verdict? Or do you think he should be been convicted of conspiracy, too?

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I don't see a good reason why not to. It seems like the charge he was convicted on would imply he was conspiring.

Jason · Only in cartoons

Not that it's possible to have an educated opinion on a trail with secret evidence and closed proceedings, I think a precedent has been made for a relatively loose interpretation of what it means to provide material support for terrorism. When I think "providing material support for terrorism" I think supplying with guns, explosives, or radioactive material, not driving one around in a car.

I'm assuming he wasn't convicted of conspiracy because they could not prove he was knowledgeable of any specifics concerning planned attacks. Suspecting that Bin Laden was "up to no good" ought not to be enough to convict a man of conspiracy.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

" Osama WHO? Oh okay. No, NEVER heard of you before. "

" Sending some friends for a trip to the U.S? How kind of you, sir "

Jason · Only in cartoons

I'm sure he was aware that he was aiding a wanted man, but is that material support for terrorism?

What makes you think he knew that Bin Laden was sending "friends" to the U.S.? Mother****er may have just been driving places! It's possible that he was some sort of confidante of Bin Laden's, but neither of us have evidence to support that. Apparently, neither did the military commission.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I just find it improbable ( Did you know improbably is a word? ) that the man didn't know who he was accompanying. As far as I know, Osama's face around those parts is as infamous as the President's is here.

But if they didn't provide any evidence, that's unfortunate. It looks like he won't be seeing the light of day for awhile anyway. That makes me happy.

Speaking of not seeing the light of day ( My life durp): Jason, what is your opinion on prisons?

Jason · Only in cartoons

Prisons should be reserved for people who are veritable dangers to society. By that I mean it is so likely that another crime will be committed if the convict is released back into society that the judge/jury would be guilty of negligence in the matter. I think most criminals are capable of being rehabilitated. I do not think modern prisons are effective at doing this, as much as they claim they attempt to. This could be a naive optimism; I'm willing to change my opinion in light of conclusive evidence in favor of the opposite.

I do not endorse retributivist justice.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason wrote:

Prisons should be reserved for people who are veritable dangers to society. By that I mean it is so likely that another crime will be committed if the convict is released back into society that the judge/jury would be guilty of negligence in the matter. I think most criminals are capable of being rehabilitated. I do not think modern prisons are effective at doing this, as much as they claim they attempt to. This could be a naive optimism; I'm willing to change my opinion in light of conclusive evidence in favor of the opposite.

I do not endorse retributivist justice.

Agreed on all counts

Jason · Only in cartoons

What are your thoughts on torture?

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Excusable to extract information, though it seems highly unlikely it would yield any positive results. You could always promise him more torture later if his information turns out to be false, but that's not fool-proof.

Also the whole " 9/11 situation happens again and you find a terrorist who knows stuff " scenario seems extremely unlikely.
It certainly is not appropriate under any other circumstances.

-- Edited by DEATHPIGGIE at 01:24, 2008-08-07

Jason · Only in cartoons

Under your view, would someone have to be convicted of a crime before being tortured, or is being a suspect in a crime enough to justify inhumane treatment?

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I'd say someone being captured in the midst of a battle can be assumed guilty, just as you are sure to beat the living **** out of someone you know kidnapped your family. However, many people claimed to be POWs and enemy combatants have turned out to be otherwise.

I would have to say they'd need to be convicted, but I'm not sure on the issue.

Jason · Only in cartoons

So you would disapprove of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand you?

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I'm not sure of everything the Geneva Conventions states. However, a lot of international law is bull**** and most people we fight aren't abiding by any rules of combat.

However, again, I'd have to say he would have to be convicted to really justify torturing him. I personally couldn't deal with the fact that I tortured an innocent man for no purpose.

Jason · Only in cartoons

I think the tolerance of any torture under any circumstances has a horrible likelihood of snowballing into widespread, retributivist torture for the purposes of revenge but under pretenses of extracting information.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

The slippery slope argument isn't a very convincing one, especially when you strictly define when torture is necessary. It should not be used to get revenge on psychotic, violent criminals. It should be used in " extreme " situations to defend life. I myself would certainly torture someone that knew something about my family if they were in trouble.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

BATMAN AGREES. DON'T ARGUE.

Jason · Only in cartoons

You would torture someone you THOUGHT knew something about your family...

It's not too easy to see how torture slips down the slope. First, you require a conviction, which accepts torture as a legitimate means to interrogate criminals. But, a fair trial is a slow process, and maybe the suspect is believed to have information that will be useless after the months it takes for conviction. As you said before, perhaps people captured on a battlefield can be presumed guilty. And soldiers, hungry and cold, far from home, might start to get impatient when someone who may have killed one of their friends refuses to answer their questions about enemy troop movements. Maybe it won't seem like a bad idea to torture the guy -- just to get him to talk. If you end up enjoying it... hey, that's beside the point, right?