Conservatives Quietly OK Info Gained through Torture

[Wilber]

Which stem from our country's principles, something I recall being taught when I was a kid.

Maybe you skipped out that day.

I was never taught to put my own opinions above someone elses life and neither were you.

[Wilber]

You figure I'm the only Canadian who doesn't think your way is the high road?

I've never said my way is the high road. Take the high road at your own expense, not someone elses.

[eyeball]

I was never taught to put my own opinions above someone elses life and neither were you.

I was taught to shape my character around my country's principles and so were you.

[eyeball]

I've never said my way is the high road. Take the high road at your own expense, not someone elses.

So you can drive us into the low road's ditch? Fughedaboudit.

[Wilber]

So you can drive us into the low road's ditch? Fughedaboudit.

That's your problem it has to be one way or the other. There is no room for discretion or judgement. I have my principles and if you get run over buy them that's your problem. As Wild Bill said, cold.

[eyeball]

That's your problem it has to be one way or the other. There is no room for discretion or judgement. I have my principles and if you get run over buy them that's your problem. As Wild Bill said, cold.

This is about Canada's principles. I could care less about your's or WB's. Can you show me exactly where and when accepting the products of torture became a valued Canadian principle?

Why is Canada not proudly okaying info gained through torture?

[PIK]

I would be pissed if someone died because the goverment did not act on a tip that might have come from torture. But I guess the left has different ideas on that one. Good to know who will cover your back or not.

[Wild Bill]

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.

Man, eyeball! You are in a dream world of drama!

Here's a hypothetical but perfectly possible situation. One of my daughters is killed! Due to procedure errors with how some critical evidence is obtained, the killer walks free.

Eyeball shows up to the funeral! He makes a speech about how properly obtaining evidence is of paramount importance to society. He praises my dead daughter and holds up a cheque he has written towards a memorial for her grave. He calls her a martyr to the cause of society's values.

Then he is rushed by all the mourners and his body is never seen again!

Eyeball, you come on like some warm hearted lefty but from my perspective, your views are incredibly blase and cruel sometimes. I don't see some academic view here. I see real people and real victims, who deserve much more than you offer.

[Wilber]

I would be pissed if someone died because the goverment did not act on a tip that might have come from torture. But I guess the left has different ideas on that one. Good to know who will cover your back or not.

It would be interesting watching them try and cover their asses if it ever came out that they had the information to prevent it but disregarded that info on principle.

[PIK]

Man, eyeball! You are in a dream world of drama!

Here's a hypothetical but perfectly possible situation. One of my daughters is killed! Due to procedure errors with how some critical evidence is obtained, the killer walks free.

Eyeball shows up to the funeral! He makes a speech about how properly obtaining evidence is of paramount importance to society. He praises my dead daughter and holds up a cheque he has written towards a memorial for her grave. He calls her a martyr to the cause of society's values.

Then he is rushed by all the mourners and his body is never seen again!

Eyeball, you come on like some warm hearted lefty but from my perspective, your views are incredibly blase and cruel sometimes. I don't see some academic view here. I see real people and real victims, who deserve much more than you offer.

The left being the compassiate one is a myth.

[waldo]

It would be interesting watching them try and cover their asses if it ever came out that they had the information to prevent it but disregarded that info on principle.

principle? You mean this new founded Harper Conservative principle enabling torture?

[Tilter]

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

Tons of coke are found that way.

[Wilber]

principle? You mean this new founded Harper Conservative principle enabling torture?

No, I mean you trying to sell people on the idea that your principles are more important than their lives.

[dre]

Theres a lot of good reasons why the government has to follow a number of rules when it comes to evidence gathering. They are there for the benefit of society as a whole, and they are actually one of the biggest things that sets our society apart from other societies.

Now... the very first time theres some percieved threat, cowards always chomp at the bit to remove these various rules. If we dont let the government do _____ WE WILL DIE!!! Whats a million times more dangerous to our society than any terrorist attack is if these people start winning the argument because its a slippery slope. Theres about a million ways we could make it easier for our government to provide security, by relaxing or eliminating the rules the government must follow, or even by compromising our own rights and freedoms.

The exact same kind of moronic hypotheticals being trotted out here can, will, and are being trotted out to justify all kinds of other crap as well.

And the reality is this all this is entirely a masturbatory act provide by the government for these afformentioned cowards. If we have some kind of information about a terrorist attack, the government will act on it. They would have done this 10 years ago, or 50 years ago, or a hundred years ago, and no government on earth would ignore than kind of information no matter where it came from.

But while that may be the case we need to take the strongest stance possible against torture, and this kind of thing sends a mixed message while making no real difference at all in terms of security. All it does is appease security obsessed cowards.

[dre]

No, I mean you trying to sell people on the idea that your principles are more important than their lives.

Problem is that sales pitch is being made against the backdrop of ANOTHER sales pitch made by cowards who say their need to be protected by the government from statistically infintesimal threats justifies the government literally being allowed to do anything.

As long as you can think up some bullshit hypothetical scenario where a small child dies at the end of it, then anything is justified. This is why the architects of western civilization made it hard to change certain laws. Because they know that cowards would gladly surrender pretty much everything that sets us apart at the drop of the hat first time they get a little scared.

[dre]

Here's a hypothetical but perfectly possible situation. One of my daughters is killed! Due to procedure errors with how some critical evidence is obtained, the killer walks free.

You are assuming that your daughter will be safer if people give their government carte-blanche to do whatever they want, every time there is some percieved threat out there.

THe EXACT opposite is true. If our government didnt have to jump through all these hoops that are there to protect us from them, then your daughter would be in MORE danger. Theres a reason that societies based on common-law are the safest places in the world to live, but you would casually tear down one of the pillars of our justice system based on nothing but some emotional feelings.

Look around the world. The safest places to live without exception are places where governments are forced to follow the rules you want to throw out. Theres a reason for that. Theres a reason why the courts wont allow evidence thats obtained illegaly by EITHER the crown or the defense. And that reason is that historically people face a much larger threat from their own government than they do from either criminals or external threats.

Your daughter is safer in this system then she would be anywhere else in the world.

Edited August 27, 2012 by dre

[Wilber]

Problem is that sales pitch is being made against the backdrop of ANOTHER sales pitch made by cowards who say their need to be protected by the government from statistically infintesimal threats justifies the government literally being allowed to do anything.

As long as you can think up some bullshit hypothetical scenario where a small child dies at the end of it, then anything is justified. This is why the architects of western civilization made it hard to change certain laws. Because they know that cowards would gladly surrender pretty much everything that sets us apart at the drop of the hat first time they get a little scared.

I'm responding to the bullshit charges that are being made. We do not torture, we do not advocate torture, we do not condone torture. On the other hand, if our government is presented with credible information that if acted on will help ensure the safety of its citizens, it has a duty to do so regardless of the source.

[Wild Bill]

You are assuming that your daughter will be safer if people give their government carte-blanche to do whatever they want, every time there is some percieved threat out there.

THe EXACT opposite is true. If our government didnt have to jump through all these hoops that are there to protect us from them, then your daughter would be in MORE danger. Theres a reason that societies based on common-law are the safest places in the world to live, but you would casually tear down one of the pillars of our justice system based on nothing but some emotional feelings.

Look around the world. The safest places to live without exception are places where governments are forced to follow the rules you want to throw out. Theres a reason for that. Theres a reason why the courts wont allow evidence thats obtained illegaly by EITHER the crown or the defense. And that reason is that historically people face a much larger threat from their own government than they do from either criminals or external threats.

Your daughter is safer in this system then she would be anywhere else in the world.

I do not understand your argument, DR. Dre! I said a number of times that I supported charges against any officer for improperly obtaining evidence. Hang em, if you like!

However, why throw that evidence out? Why let a rapist or some other perp go free, to wink at their victim as they go out the door? What has throwing out that evidence accomplished, other than maybe a bit of embarrassment to the officers involved, the way it is today?

I'm saying if someone is to be punished let it be those who did the crime, namely obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. The evidence itself however, is what it is. Why punish the victim?

So far, no one has even attempted to explain that to me, except for perhaps eyeball who told me that victims and their families should be proud to be martyrs to the high principles of society. They have just raged against the use of torture, which has nothing to do with what I asked.

[Peter F]

I do not understand your argument, DR. Dre! I said a number of times that I supported charges against any officer for improperly obtaining evidence. Hang em, if you like!

However, why throw that evidence out? Why let a rapist or some other perp go free, to wink at their victim as they go out the door? What has throwing out that evidence accomplished, other than maybe a bit of embarrassment to the officers involved, the way it is today?

Would the courts acceptance of illegally obtained evidence apply only in cases of killings or would it apply to all court cases no matter the crime?

[WWWTT]

Would the courts acceptance of illegally obtained evidence apply only in cases of killings or would it apply to all court cases no matter the crime?

I wouldn't waste your time with Wild Bill about trivial things like "evidence" and "intent"

These matters that a judge would consider in a trial to reach a verdict are not in line with the impact that Wild and a couple others here are going for.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You are assuming that your daughter will be safer if people give their government carte-blanche to do whatever they want, every time there is some percieved threat out there.

THe EXACT opposite is true. If our government didnt have to jump through all these hoops that are there to protect us from them, then your daughter would be in MORE danger. Theres a reason that societies based on common-law are the safest places in the world to live, but you would casually tear down one of the pillars of our justice system based on nothing but some emotional feelings.

Look around the world. The safest places to live without exception are places where governments are forced to follow the rules you want to throw out. Theres a reason for that. Theres a reason why the courts wont allow evidence thats obtained illegaly by EITHER the crown or the defense. And that reason is that historically people face a much larger threat from their own government than they do from either criminals or external threats.

Your daughter is safer in this system then she would be anywhere else in the world.

Yep pretty much sums it up.

You either believe in propaganda(Reefer Madness) or you don't!

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Here's a hypothetical but perfectly possible situation. One of my daughters is killed!

How was she associated with the tortured person(s)?

[eyeball]

I'm responding to the bullshit charges that are being made. We do not torture, we do not advocate torture, we do not condone torture. On the other hand, if our government is presented with credible information that if acted on will help ensure the safety of its citizens, it has a duty to do so regardless of the source.

We most certainly do condone and advocate torture now and it'll only be a matter of time until we're actively participating if our government has it's way.

[eyeball]

So how will this process actually work anyway?

Will there be a specific department or a secretariat that deals with incoming info, out going requests, dissemination and other administrivia etc? What's it's projected budget? Will we be paying cash or handing out visas for this service? Will our officials thank the torturers or their agents and then rebuke or lecture them on the need to respect human rights afterwards?

Perhaps our side's dictators will simply pass on tips out of the humanitarian goodness of their hearts and expect nothing in return. We'll just be able to count on them to rip out people's fingernails and stick cattle-prods up their asses - do the heavy lifting so to speak, for nothing.

Sweet. I could get behind that - you know, being a lefty an all.

Edited August 28, 2012 by eyeball

[Wilber]

We most certainly do condone and advocate torture now and it'll only be a matter of time until we're actively participating if our government has it's way.

Sez you. A majority of Canadians do not condone or advocate torture. Politicians know that and politicians have to get elected. I do not share your slippery slope theory.