#Cara menginstal violated heroine license
But giving yourself license to torture people that are merely suspected of terrorism is a terrific way to ensure you will end up torturing non-terrorists, sooner or later.
To put this another way, even if you think that all terrorists should be tortured, you presumably think it's a great travesty to torture a non-terrorist. 2) Allowing different treatment of a prisoner based on the crime they are suspected of having committed skips a basic protection of a civilized society: it bases decisions on the nature of the suspected crime without having firmly established that the prisoner is, in fact, guilty. Why? It is extremely important here to extract the whereabouts of the children from the prisoner. And yet the police are forbidden from using "enhanced" techniques. They are at risk of starvation or suffocation. Suppose a wacko kidnaps half a dozen young children and locks them up somewhere. Rebuttals: 1) It seems to me that "regular" criminals will also sometimes have highly desirable information. The first justification is pragmatic, and the second, pseudo-moral. As I understand it, wanting to subject terror suspects to "enhanced" techniques turns on 1) the desirability of the knowledge they (are assumed to) have, and 2) our willingness to treat terrorists more harshly than "regular" criminals, because we judge them to be more contemptible and less deserving of protections. In all seriousness, I don't see how different treatment for terror suspects than for "regular" criminals can be justified. What would you permit the state to do to you in order to keep everyone safe? Well, answer it yourself: tell us what you'd be prepared to have done to yourself, without fear of recourse, by someone with the suspicion that you were a terrorist. You will say that that's 'no answer', I presume. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84. "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. What, you're a citizen? Well, I have my doubts, and you don't have the right to prove it. Heck, there's no reason why not, since you have to doubt the patriotism of people who think these things are negotiable. Or haven't you been looking? Let's say I suspect that you're an enemy combatant. You've seen plenty of interrogators explain it. I have yet to see one liberal explain how terrorists should be interrogated and how we should get information from them. University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog
Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press International Economic Law and Policy Blog The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at Ĭompendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
0 kommentar(er)
