Shady Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 We're supposed to disown it if its obtained illegally and then we're supposed to prosecute the torturers. What do you mean by disown it? Ignore it? Not at all. If we suspect we have recieved information aquired by using torture, we should halt trade and diplomatic relations with that country and do whatever we can to make sure its leaders wind up in prison for a long time. How does one "suspect" torture was used? Which countries currently would you halt trade and diplomatic relations with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 No, our country's stated principles are what's more important. They did seem more noble once upon a time...back when I was a little kid. Our stated principles haven't changed. No one has said we approve of torture, the hypocrisy behind the use of information gained by it has just been removed. You can't really believe CSIS or the RCMP ignored information provided by jurisdictions that were known to use torture when the Liberals were in power? We can't control how other countries act but our governments primary responsibility is the welfare of its own citizens and that responsibility doesn't include ignoring information that has a direct bearing on their safety. Sometimes our responsibility to others is more important than our own vanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 What do you mean by disown it? Ignore it? How does one "suspect" torture was used? Which countries currently would you halt trade and diplomatic relations with? Yes, just because some countries use torture doesn't mean all their information comes from torture. No doubt they have their own spies and informers. So do we ask them for only certified torture free info? Like they are going to tell us what their sources are. As likely as our people would be to reveal theirs I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 "Reasonable or unreasonable?" It depends upon whether the torturee is a Liberal or a legitimate member of the human race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 No, our country's stated principles are what's more important. They did seem more noble once upon a time...back when I was a little kid. Eyeball, you are entitled to your beliefs but myself, I find them very cold. Take my example of a hypothetical rape victim watching her rapist walking away scot free. Could you look her in the eye and tell her that those principles were more important? I couldn't. Yet I'm the one often called a heartless rightwinger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Our stated principles haven't changed. No one has said we approve of torture, the hypocrisy behind the use of information gained by it has just been removed. And now that little obstacle is removed and we've started down this road more obstacles will be bypassed, ignored or disdained until Canadians do start approving of torture. I've seen enough indication of that in this forum and others to know that many Canadians already do approve. You can't really believe CSIS or the RCMP ignored information provided by jurisdictions that were known to use torture when the Liberals were in power? No, not at all. I'm pretty sure they could see the political and public conditions for going down this road were improving with each and every galvanizing event as well as anyone. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find in some cases of torture we've long since had officials or friends of officials outside the chambers supplying questions. We can't control how other countries act but our governments primary responsibility is the welfare of its own citizens and that responsibility doesn't include ignoring information that has a direct bearing on their safety. Sometimes our responsibility to others is more important than our own vanity. We have to gain control over our own government before we can even begin to think about influencing others. To do that we need deep transparency at the highest levels of government and near total public awareness of everything that occurs in our domain and is done in our name. The main obstacles I see to that at the moment are the trembling vainglorious little sycophants like yourself who seem to think that accountability is a conspiracy and a threat. You shouldn't worry so much, I'm sure it won't be long until taking responsibility for the welfare of Canadians includes silencing it's dissidents, something that many of our government's BFF's around the world do I might add. Edited August 26, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Eyeball, you are entitled to your beliefs but myself, I find them very cold. Take my example of a hypothetical rape victim watching her rapist walking away scot free. No, I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals about things that have no bearing whatsoever on condoning torture. Your distracting bullshit is how obstacles to torture are bypassed. Edited August 26, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) That's a freekin huge load of freekin bunk I ever read here on MLW!!! Man you got a freekin imagination buddy!No wonder you put me on ignore,you freekin hate it when someone calls you out on the stuff you write here! WWWTT And yet, if a cop searches a car without cause & finds 500 lbs of heroin and a dead body or 2, the cops can't use the evidence in court. How about a dirty bomb? How about a load of automatic weapons? How about your abducted daughter? Edited August 26, 2012 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 No, I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals about things that have no bearing whatsoever on condoning torture. You are all about discussing hypotheticals and short on discussing reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 You are all about discussing hypotheticals and short on discussing reality. Care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 And yet, if a cop searches a car without cause & finds 500 lbs of heroin and a dead body or 2, the cops can't use the evidence in court. How about a dirty bomb? How about a load of automatic weapons? How about your abducted daughter? These are all hypothetical arguments where you have conveniently removed a couple of processes or steps. First of all,in order for the judge to find the evidence inadmissible,the defendant must successfully argue that the cops did not have just cause to search. As well if a body is found then the judge would also take into consideration the rights that the deceased person has too! Finding a kg of cocaine(more realistic as opposed to 500lbs of heroin) is not the same as finding a body in a trunk. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Care to elaborate? Simple. I would rather stand up in front of my fellow citizens and say I used information I thought might have been gained under torture in order to prevent people from being killed. You it seems would rather explain to the victim's relatives why their loved ones died so you didn't have to compromise your principles and the hypothetical consequences of your doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Simple. I would rather stand up in front of my fellow citizens and say I used information I thought might have been gained under torture in order to prevent people from being killed. You it seems would rather explain to the victim's relatives why their loved ones died so you didn't have to compromise your principles and the hypothetical consequences of your doing so. Does the concept of credible evidence have any bearing on your position? It seems to me that your position requires authorities to act on all information recieved no matter the credibility of the evidence. They'd have to because, y'know, they might be making an error... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 And yet, if a cop searches a car without cause & finds 500 lbs of heroin and a dead body or 2, the cops can't use the evidence in court. How about a dirty bomb? How about a load of automatic weapons? How about your abducted daughter? As an ends justify the means kind of guy, I'll just go ahead and assume you're ok with the state setting up surveillance devices throughout your entire home and the homes of numerous other innocent individuals. You're probably also ok with the cops just stopping you randomly as you're on your way to work to interrogate you, search your vehicle, and pat you down. Sure, you might be innocent, but just think if they find 500lbs of heroin in someone's car or a dead body or 2 or a dirty bomb or automatic weapons or an abducted little girl. Your petty little inconveniences are nothing compared to all that good that the cops can do when you have absolutely no right to privacy or freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 As an ends justify the means kind of guy, I'll just go ahead and assume you're ok with the state setting up surveillance devices throughout your entire home and the homes of numerous other innocent individuals. You're probably also ok with the cops just stopping you randomly as you're on your way to work to interrogate you, search your vehicle, and pat you down. Sure, you might be innocent, but just think if they find 500lbs of heroin in someone's car or a dead body or 2 or a dirty bomb or automatic weapons or an abducted little girl. Your petty little inconveniences are nothing compared to all that good that the cops can do when you have absolutely no right to privacy or freedom. CC, why are you assuming we are talking about letting the police do whatever they want? Way back at the beginning I posted that if police improperly obtain evidence they should be charged! With severe punishments! I understand that police should be punished if they break the law over how they obtain evidence. I just don't understand how throwing the evidence away serves society and the victim! It seems somehow as if embarrassing the police is the punishment! I said then and I say now, keep the evidence but punish those who obtained it improperly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Does the concept of credible evidence have any bearing on your position? It seems to me that your position requires authorities to act on all information recieved no matter the credibility of the evidence. They'd have to because, y'know, they might be making an error... If you have read my posts you will find that I said quite some time ago that no information would be considered in a vacuum. Only idiots act unquestioningly on all information received no matter the credibility. Other idiots arbitrarily dismiss information just because it comes from a source that offends their precious sensibilities. Edited August 27, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 If you have read my posts you will find that I said quite some time ago that no information would be considered in a vacuum. Only idiots act unquestioningly on all information received no matter the credibility. Other idiots arbitrarily dismiss information just because it comes from a source that offends their precious sensibilities. Seems to me this is the crux of the matter - one wouldn't blindly, unquestioningly act on the information, but one would have to be a fool to be in possession of information and not delve into it further if lives are at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 CC, why are you assuming we are talking about letting the police do whatever they want? Who said anything about you (plural)? I was replying to a post where someone made an ends-justify-the-means argument. I pointed out how the means are incredibly important and are not justified by the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Seems to me this is the crux of the matter - one wouldn't blindly, unquestioningly act on the information, but one would have to be a fool to be in possession of information and not delve into it further if lives are at stake. Of course, it's called judgment. Otherwise, any information regardless of its source is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 If you have read my posts you will find that I said quite some time ago that no information would be considered in a vacuum. Only idiots act unquestioningly on all information received no matter the credibility. Other idiots arbitrarily dismiss information just because it comes from a source that offends their precious sensibilities. but you just crapped all over someone who said the very same thing. your answer was If you did nothing, would you be prepared to live with the consequences of your inaction if the bombing took place? Not ditto, I have no desire to play God with others lives. So you are willing to do exactly what your not willing to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 but you just crapped all over someone who said the very same thing. your answer was So you are willing to do exactly what your not willing to do No, I crapped on them because they were willing to disregard information because of their personal feelings. When you are responsible for the security of others, that is a luxury you are not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Simple. I would rather stand up in front of my fellow citizens and say I used information I thought might have been gained under torture in order to prevent people from being killed. You it seems would rather explain to the victim's relatives why their loved ones died so you didn't have to compromise your principles and the hypothetical consequences of your doing so. I would rather stand up in front of my fellow citizens and tell them we truck and trade with torturers and dictators and nations who are friendly towards them at our peril. I would remind them of the sacrifices previous generations of Canadians made in the face of tyranny and I would ask that they now reach down deep inside and ask themselves, is this present the sort of future those previous generations really died for? Did they really die so that one day Canadians would seek and believe their safety lay in wheeling and dealing with dictators and torturers? We should surround the victims of those who would challenge our high standards and principles with as much love and sympathy as we can to help them deal with their loss. We should build cenotaphs and name schools and dedicate parks and other public works in their names. Above all else we should honour them by not surrendering to our fears and using them as excuses to surrender our principles in the process. Then I'd hand the mic back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 We should surround the victims of those who would challenge our high standards and principles with as much love and sympathy as we can to help them deal with their loss. We should build cenotaphs and name schools and dedicate parks and other public works in their names. Above all else we should honour them by not surrendering to our fears and using them as excuses to surrender our principles in the process. Then I'd hand the mic back to you. What do you mean we? It was your idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 No, I crapped on them because they were willing to disregard information because of their personal feelings. Which stem from our country's principles, something I recall being taught when I was a kid. Maybe you skipped out that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 What do you mean we? It was your idea. You figure I'm the only Canadian who doesn't think your way is the high road? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.