General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill this kid be tortured?
What say you, DU??
32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
No, but he should be. | |
1 (3%) |
|
Yes, and he should be | |
2 (6%) |
|
No, and he shouldn't be | |
25 (78%) |
|
Yes, but he shouldn't be | |
4 (13%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Surely our authorities know it's more effective to extract information without using any type of torture since all the relevant information we've ever gotten was done by NOT using any form of torture.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Predict he'll blame it all on his brother.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)by not reading him his Miranda warning?
The point seems to be to be able to use information recovered from 'interrogation' in the absence of an attorney.
sarisataka
(21,340 posts)he likely knows more about his Constitutional rights than natural born citizens
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Warpy
(113,131 posts)There are a lot of reasons not to Mirandize a suspect on the scene. If he recovers, they can do it later in the hospital.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)
THAT is the exception they are invoking, and I really don't think an unconcious or semi-concious person would qualify under that.
What the Obama administration wants is to look tough on terrorism. I understand that.
BUT a person isn't endowed with constitutional rights when someone reads them to a citizen. A person is endowed with those rights by BEING a citizen.
If they want to revoke his citizenship, there is a path for that. If they want to argue the person's actions speak to being an ENEMY of the state, that needs a determination by the CIC. Obama can do whatever the hell he wants under the Yoo woo that granted dictatorial powers to Dick Cheney and his sock puppet
Warpy
(113,131 posts)as soon as the docs have done their work to stabilize him.
This is not a big deal, not yet.
Historic NY
(38,182 posts)He will be treated and questioned at later time when and if he is able to respond.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Warpy
(113,131 posts)Until they got him stripped down and made sure he wasn't carrying any sort of dangerous device, he was still a danger.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)he should be read his Miranda warning?
Warpy
(113,131 posts)a critically injured patient rolls in.
They have 48 hours to Mirandize him.
"The hearty laugh bespake the empty head." I don't know why I just remembered that particular line of verse...
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Take a complicated situation and reduce it to a nauseating extreme. Put it a DU poll.
Sorry.
radiclib
(1,811 posts)and I'm heartened by the response.
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)do remember that there are always posters who are wet blankets...I have seen several of them on threads this evening...they are ornery just to be ornery
still_one
(96,907 posts)marlakay
(12,205 posts)Auto guy said he was scared and biting his nails a few days after bombing when he saw him.
I think the kid will tell all.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)He's 19 right?
Grown man who has made some terrible decisions...
dballance
(5,756 posts)Knowing what we know today about brain development it's foolish to classify every person who reaches a certain age as an "adult." Yet that's what we do. Science has proven that the human frontal lobes of the brain, responsible for higher-order thinking and for risk/reward thinking doesn't fully develop until the mid-20's. So a 19 year-old is really not much more mature in their thinking than 12 year-old. The older brother, who was 26, really has no excuse. But it's highly likely that the older brother, for societal/familial reasons and because of the biological reasons I've stated, had undue influence over the younger brother.
I'm not saying the 19 year-old shouldn't be held responsible. He should be. He most certainly knew blowing people up is considered bad. I'm just saying he was easier to lead astray, particularly by his brother, than he would have been were he older.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)If you can be "convinced" that blowing people up is ok once you have reached an age of reason then there is zero sympathy.
This is not a person who we should be interested in rehabilitating. His life should be long and miserable without an ounce of hope possible.
dballance
(5,756 posts)We should not be using the standard "age" of reason because you can't say that oh yesterday a person was 17 and today, their birthday, they're 18 so now they're automatically mature and totally culpable for everything. That's really silly if you think about it objectively.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Well, Johnny, you aren't quite as advanced socially as some other people so even though you set that bus of nuns and orphans on fire we are going to treat you differently.
At a certain point there has to be a cut off. How long does immaturity count? Would you try a 43 year old man as a juvenile because he wasn't as mature as others?
Society keeps pushing the age of adulthood further and further back until we have people in their late 20s and early 30s crying for their mom and dad to fix everything.
You know why they are immature? It's because we, as a society, tolerate it.
JI7
(91,029 posts)dballance
(5,756 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)This is not a "grown" man. He must be held responsible, but the fact that his older brother roped him in should be taken into consideration. He will certainly pay for his crimes. There is no doubt about that.
There are huge changes in maturity that go on between 19 and 25. It has a bearing on this case. But he will pay.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(55,034 posts)ShadowLiberal
(2,237 posts)I doubt he even has any worthwhile information about any other terrorists/terrorist groups anyway. Anyone he has would probably already be well known by Russia, which seems likely to cooperate with us on this, since the country the kid is from hits them with terrorist attacks far more often then any western nation does.
And even if he did have useful information, torture is a bad way to go about getting that info, there's much better interrogation methods that have proven histories of getting far more accurate information with far less lies and made up stories to make the pain of torture stop.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)We should be able to say absolutely not in America, but I don't think we can.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and whether there is anyone else out there who was helping them. I'd think those are the only two things they would be interested in at this point. Beyond that, there's not much else to do but let process play out.
madokie
(51,076 posts)We on the other hand are not. No this kid should not be tortured. The living shit kicked out of him by one of the family members of the dead or missing limbs or just injured yes, tortured no.
Response to radiclib (Original post)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
MOTRDemocrat
(87 posts)gulliver
(13,333 posts)Click
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Why should this even be a question?
El Fuego
(6,502 posts)Because at the moment I'm one of the angry pitchfork-wielding mob. But in a civilized society, a government and it's laws should protect us all from mob rule.
LeftInTX
(31,178 posts)Although he will be charged with terrorism, the interrogators know that he has the profile of a common criminal. He's not going to be a tough nut to crack.
It will probably take awhile for him to reveal to authorities everything he knows. However, the good cop routine will tend to work in this case.