Death Penalty For Gitmo Six?

[Telefrog]

The US will be seeking the death penalty (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/911.charges/index.html) for six detainees in Guantanamo bay for their roles in the 9/11 attack. The six accused include alleged terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A total of 169 charges have been leveled against the prisoners.


Also charged are: Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called 20th hijacker in the 9/11 attacks; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, accused of being an intermediary between the hijackers and al Qaeda leaders; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who has been identified as Mohammed's lieutenant; al-Baluchi's alleged assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, who is accused of selecting and training some hijackers.

A military commission will have to be convened after a judge reviews and approves the charges filed by military prosecutors.


One legal issue expected to stall the process is whether prosecutors will be able to use confessions or other information gleaned using controversial interrogation techniques.

On Tuesday, CIA Director Michael Hayden for the first time publicly confirmed Mohammed and two other terror suspects were subjected to a technique called waterboarding, which is intended to simulate drowning.

The technique was used on top al Qaeda detainees in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Hayden said.

"The CIA has not used waterboarding for almost five years," Hayden said. "We used it against these three high-valued detainees because of the circumstances of the time."


So the last time we touched the subject of waterboarding here on EvAv, we had quite the spirited debate. Has anyone's views changed in the intervening time? Does anyone feel even more strongly about what they originally believed? Do you think it's right to use confessions obtained with torture in criminal trials?

[LongStepMantis]

Waterboarding? Pffft. Old news.
The new hotness is Fireboarding.

Same thing, only you light their head on fire and roast marshmallows.

[Slack3r78]

Making Martyrs for Fun and Profit.

Far better to let these types rot with no hope of freedom.

[boratika]

I won't comment on this specifically, but I will say I don't support the death penalty in any circumstances. But maybe it's just because I'm a pansy, hell I'm a vegetarian :D.

And no, I won't answer anyone's hypothetical questions.

[Telefrog]

And no, I won't answer anyone's hypothetical questions.

Would you answer them if we waterboarded you?

[Aggort]

Kill them? Why, that's exactly what they wanted. Let them rot in complete solitary. They deserve nothing less for what they had conceived in their heads.

[LongStepMantis]

Would you answer them if we waterboarded you?

We can Fireboard him instead! I've got marshmallows! ;)

[Typical_Michael]

Fireboarding sounds pretty tough.

[LongStepMantis]

Fireboarding sounds pretty tough.

It's not so bad...If your face is made of asbestos.

[Slack3r78]

Fireboarding sounds pretty tough.

Aren't you the one always advocating the burning of houses?

[Telefrog]

Kill them? Why, that's exactly what they wanted. Let them rot in complete solitary. They deserve nothing less for what they had conceived in their heads.

I would agree except that the concept of martyrdom is considerably different in their current circumstances. Dying in a fiery explosion while killing your enemies is a warrior sacrifice done in a holy war against your god. Dying via firing squad or hanging after confessing under torture is less than 'honorable' in their worldview.

They would still be martyrs to the cause, but the impact is significantly lessened.

[boratika]

Waterboarding? Pffft. Old news.
The new hotness is Fireboarding.

Same thing, only you light their head on fire and roast marshmallows.

Fireboarding sounds awesome!

And that you should do it while on holiday in New Zealand and it should involve a helicopter.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

hell I'm a vegetarian :D.

For every animal you refuse to eat.... I eat 3.

[Johan]

Making Martyrs for Fun and Profit.

Far better to let these types rot with no hope of freedom.

I get what you're saying, but you do realize that what they are enduring there is really far worse than death, right?

They must, at this point, be totally insane; if they weren't when they were first taken there...

[Schnoogs]

I have no ethical or moral problems with seeing these guys put down. The real issue is whether or not their deaths will inspire others. Or even worse yet will it cost us more to execute them than it will to keep them alive for the next 40-50 years. Only in America does it cost more to kill someone.

[Telefrog]

I have no ethical or moral problems with seeing these guys put down. The real issue is whether or not their deaths will inspire others. Or even worse yet will it cost us more to execute them than it will to keep them alive for the next 40-50 years. Only in America does it cost more to kill someone.

What if the primary evidence is the confession obtained under torture? You would really have no issue with convicting someone based on something they said while being waterboarded?

[Typical_Michael]

Aren't you the one always advocating the burning of houses?

Sorry, maybe I should respell the key word:

"Fireboarding sounds pretty TUFF!"

[Slack3r78]

I get what you're saying, but you do realize that what they are enduring there is really far worse than death, right?

They must, at this point, be totally insane; if they weren't when they were first taken there...

Well, I agree that Gitmo is run in a way that's probably below what I'd call reasonable standards for lifetime imprisonment in a civilized society, but I don't think that putting them down is the best alternative to that.

As far as their mental health goes, that's probably a further argument against executing them, to me. We don't execute the mentally handicapped, as a rule. If we contributed/inflicted to a mental disorder, it doesn't seem right to then turn around and execute them. Again, all just my personal opinion.

[Slack3r78]

Only in America does it cost more to kill someone.
This is a good thing. If we're going to have a death penalty, set the barrier to entry as high as possible to help ensure that it only gets used in cases where it's truly deserved and not in a frivolous manner.

[LongStepMantis]

This is a good thing. If we're going to have a death penalty, set the barrier to entry as high as possible to help ensure that it only gets used in cases where it's truly deserved and not in a frivolous manner.

I liked the Texas approach. If you're convicted of a violent crime, in which 2 or more witnesses saw you commit it, you go to the front of the "Death Row" line. No waiting for years, your number is next.

Say what you want about the death penalty, but someone who murders a handful of people should just be executed by firing squad the very instant the jury foreman says "Guilty"

*BANG, fuck, I'm dead!* The End.

[Adam Blue]

I dunno. I would rather have people just die. Maybe you get satisfaction by them rotting in a cell, but I don't want to have to worry about them anymore. No food, no clothes, nothing.

But if it is true that it cost more to kill some one then to keep them alive for 40-50 years....I'm baffled. Either way, I shouldn't have to pay for that. But I especially don't want to pay to keep someone alive. We've got too many damn people in this world. All because of modern medicine...people are still around that shouldn't be.

[Slack3r78]

I liked the Texas approach. If you're convicted of a violent crime, in which 2 or more witnesses saw you commit it, you go to the front of the "Death Row" line. No waiting for years, your number is next.

Say what you want about the death penalty, but someone who murders a handful of people should just be executed by firing squad the very instant the jury foreman says "Guilty"

*BANG, fuck, I'm dead!* The End.

How about we adopt the China method and just start sending mobile execution buses around the place?

I'm not particularly opposed to the death penalty, I just think that its use should be reserved for particularly extreme cases.

[Slack3r78]

But if it is true that it cost more to kill some one then to keep them alive for 40-50 years....I'm baffled.
Court time and legal costs add up quickly if you have a thorough appeals process in-place to prevent people from simply being railroaded through. We're talking about executing people here; you can't go 'oops, sry bout that ^_^' and undo it if it turns out the conviction was anything less than completely solid after the fact.

Like I said, I'm okay with having a death penalty in place, but I think we should still be wary of how much leeway we give the state in terms of ending somebody's life.

[SuicideKing]

I still don't consider waterboarding to be torture, and I still refuse to believe that torture is out of the question no matter what the circumstances. As to those 6, I say kill them and let it be done. With all the talk of shutting down Gitmo etc, I say get on this right away and nail the fuckers while we can.

[torrefaction]

How about we adopt the China method and just start sending mobile execution buses around the place?

I'm not particularly opposed to the death penalty, I just think that its use should be reserved for particularly extreme cases.

Not me. If a person is okay with killing multiple people, I don't want to pay for him to sit on his ass for the rest of his life.

From what I can find, the average cost of a life sentence is $22,000. Let's assume that on average it's about 50 years (I feel like that's reasonable.)
That's $1,100,000 wasted on a worthless murderer. If there's clearly no reason to doubt the murders (Multiple eye witnesses), then they should just be done with.

Also, what are these cases, if not extreme?

[DaedalusFolly]

I liked the Texas approach. If you're convicted of a violent crime, in which 2 or more witnesses saw you commit it, you go to the front of the "Death Row" line. No waiting for years, your number is next.
Just make sure that you didn't shoot a cop in self defense and then get railroaded for a different crime later by his friends and the DA. But I digress, Texas is a nice place.

[Slack3r78]

If there's clearly no reason to doubt the murders (Multiple eye witnesses), then they should just be done with.
I wouldn't really call multiple-eye witnesses the default case, however.

I don't think such a rule for expedited executions in those cases is necessarily unreasonable, but those kinds of cases are somewhat extraordinary anyway.

[LongStepMantis]

How about we adopt the China method and just start sending mobile execution buses around the place?

I'm not particularly opposed to the death penalty, I just think that its use should be reserved for particularly extreme cases.

As I noted in my example, that only applies if you murdered someone and at least 2 people saw you do it. In that case, fry the fucker. That's proof enough for me.

And as far as corruption and being "railroaded", yea it happens, but I don't think humanity is going to go "corruption free" anytime soon. Meanwhile people are gunning down strangers at an alarming rate these days, and something has to be done about it. Our prisons are full up, time to start taking out the trash.

[Slack3r78]

As I noted in my example, that only applies if you murdered someone and at least 2 people saw you do it. In that case, fry the fucker. That's proof enough for me.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Texas law, but even then, you really need to have some safeguards in place. The foremost, off the top of my head, would be that you really need to disallow the testimony of people who are acquainted with the convict from being counted toward this rule; otherwise you run the risk of people conspiring to use the state as a legal mechanism for murder.

[Aggort]

I would agree except that the concept of martyrdom is considerably different in their current circumstances. Dying in a fiery explosion while killing your enemies is a warrior sacrifice done in a holy war against your god. Dying via firing squad or hanging after confessing under torture is less than 'honorable' in their worldview.

They would still be martyrs to the cause, but the impact is significantly lessened.

Nice to point that out. I am against torture, but with people with such tortured minds, killing them feels like a kind act. If they do kill them, it should be at the hands of US citizens, it's absolutely barbaric, but that is the ammount of animosity we have toward these people for trying to tear down this nation.

[Telefrog]

As I noted in my example, that only applies if you murdered someone and at least 2 people saw you do it. In that case, fry the fucker. That's proof enough for me.

And as far as corruption and being "railroaded", yea it happens, but I don't think humanity is going to go "corruption free" anytime soon. Meanwhile people are gunning down strangers at an alarming rate these days, and something has to be done about it. Our prisons are full up, time to start taking out the trash.

What about these particular six defendants? There are no 'witnesses' to the 'murders' at all. Much of the evidence is their own confessions implicating each other and secret intelligence that will not be made public in our lifetimes.

[Project Arcturus]

F' the death penalty, let's strip 'em naked and pile em up on television. That'll send the right message, provided those America-hating foreign news stations have the cojones to carry it.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Prisoner problem?? Let Ray Liotta handle them.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7869/noescapevy9.jpg

I look forward to the day we can just dump societies worthless shit onto a giant island and watch them take care of themselves. Shit we could sell broadcasts on pay per view.

[Schnoogs]

You would really have no issue with convicting someone based on something they said while being waterboarded?

I don't recall once endorsing waterboarding.

[Johan]

I still don't consider waterboarding to be torture...

You're obviously wrong.

Why? Because others think you are, so...you are! :D In fact, I'm sure the new A.G. will get around to prosecuting over the issue soon.

Also, the fact that most people think it's torture (most do) is enough to declare it so. However, the fact that most people think marriage is an institution between one man and one woman (according to national and international surveys) doesn't count. Most people only count when they agree with what you think :D

I love double-mindedness...

[Schnoogs]

This is a good thing. If we're going to have a death penalty, set the barrier to entry as high as possible to help ensure that it only gets used in cases where it's truly deserved and not in a frivolous manner.

The flaw in your argument is that even for felons where its "truly deserved" their lawyers and sometimes activitists will stall the entire process. It ends up turning into a 30 year process.

[Slack3r78]

The flaw in your argument is that even for felons where its "truly deserved" their lawyers and sometimes activitists will stall the entire process. It ends up turning into a 30 year process.

Well, you either have a slow thorough process that prevents people from wrongfully and irreversibly dying or a swift process where a few innocent people fall through the cracks and get executed by mistake.

At the end of the day, you still get to execute the guilty guy. I'll take my chances on the slow and expensive process on this one.

[Schnoogs]

Well, you either have a slow thorough process that prevents people from wrongfully and irreversibly dying or a swift process where a few innocent people fall through the cracks and get executed by mistake.

At the end of the day, you still get to execute the guilty guy. I'll take my chances on the slow and expensive process on this one.

I'll take the middle route myself.

[Slack3r78]

I'll take the middle route myself.

Which is what, precisely?

[H2o Ninja]

I honestly think that in this case, even though the death penalty is most likely deserved, it's the wrong way to go. It'd just add more fuel to the fire, and we'd most likely get attacked again, whereas if we just imprisoned them and made the media drop it... Then it would go away slowly, with far less bloodshed.

[Schnoogs]

Which is what, precisely?

Obviously not the one you described where the death penalty becomes useless because everyone found guilty then sits on death row for 30 years because of the appeal process, etc.

[Telefrog]

I don't recall once endorsing waterboarding.

I didn't say you endorse waterboarding. You do, however, endorse executing these men.

I have no ethical or moral problems with seeing these guys put down.

The government has already established that waterboarding was used to gain evidence against them. Technically, the US used it to get evidence of their roles in the attack and what further plots were in consideration, but if you don't think that won't be used against them in a trial, then you're alarmingly naive.

So, the question is do you endorse their execution even if much of the evidence against them came to us as a result of waterboarding?

[Slack3r78]

Obviously not the one you described where the death penalty becomes useless because everyone found guilty then sits on death row for 30 years because of the appeal process, etc.

Just for reference, from a quick bit of searching around, the average time on death row seems to be somewhere around 10-12 years. You're exaggerating quite a bit.

[Johan]

Which is what, precisely?

Execute them and imprison their corpses for "life?"

[kid cabelgo]

Making Martyrs for Fun and Profit.

Far better to let these types rot with no hope of freedom.

QFT. I couldn't agree more. It seems like death isn't exactly a deterrent for terrorists. Life in prison sounds a lot more appropriate.

[Schnoogs]

then you're alarmingly naive.


Fuck you too.

[Wolvie]

If it were up to me, I'd find a nice jail basement, submerge coffin like metal cells into the floor(standing vertical) with heavy lids in concrete with only the lids showing. Then all six of these deviants would get thrown into these cells, the lids would get welded shut and they'd spend the rest of they're days in constant agony as they're legs cramp from the stress of standing all day.
And to keep them alive I'd shove feeding tubes down the prisoners throats via a small slit in the lid and force feed them a slurry of old left overs and dog food. They'd spend the rest of they're lives like that, until they die of whatever. Hopefully a long, lonely, depressing, painful life. They deserve no less.

Is that too much? I can never tell!

[Schnoogs]

Just for reference, from a quick bit of searching around, the average time on death row seems to be somewhere around 10-12 years. You're exaggerating quite a bit.

You crack me up....you say 10-12 like it's a good thing. I didn't realize their sentence was 10-12 plus execution.

Just what is going on during those 10-12 years for guys who, using your words, "truly deserved" the death penalty?

[bKangy]

I have a problem with this, the prosecution and detainment of these individuals has been questionable from the start, and it's again a worrying trend that the US is willing to execute them following a trial not on US soil. It wouldn't be so questionable if the trials were to be held on territory proper, instead of a military base converted into a method to subvert the ordinary laws.

[Telefrog]

Fuck you too.

So, you disagree that we would use the evidence we obtained under duress, or do you disagree with the way I phrased it?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, here. I really am interested in why/how some people find torture repellent but execution of prisoners convicted primarily with evidence gained under toture okay.

[Slack3r78]

You crack me up....you say 10-12 like it's a good thing. I didn't realize their sentence was 10-12 plus execution.

Just what is going on during those 10-12 years for guys who, using your words, "truly deserved" the death penalty?

Multiple layers of appeals and vetting of the evidence. Judges and juries do get things wrong from time to time and the more sets of eyes you get examining things, especially when we're talking about permanently and irrevocably removing someone's right to live, the better.

The entire point of the process is so that people don't get railroaded through the system unjustly. The sheer logistics of our current system result in that 10-12 year number.

Which corners would you suggest we cut in the path to executing someone?

[Schnoogs]

So, you disagree that we would use the evidence we obtained under duress, or do you disagree with the way I phrased it?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, here. I really am interested in why/how some people find torture repellent but execution of prisoners convicted primarily with evidence gained under toture okay.

Maybe you know far more about this than I do...what is your evidence that the bulk of their confession was obtained under torture?

[Schnoogs]

Multiple layers of appeals and vetting of the evidence. Judges and juries do get things wrong from time to time and the more sets of eyes you get examining things, especially when we're talking about permanently and irrevocably removing someone's right to live, the better.

The entire point of the process is so that people don't get railroaded through the system unjustly. The sheer logistics of our current system result in that 10-12 year number.

Which corners would you suggest we cut in the path to executing someone?

Whatever ones that allow those that "truly deserve" to be executed to sit on death row for 10-12 years. Unless you're suggesting that they only "truly deserve" to die after those 10-12 years.

[Slack3r78]

Whatever ones that allow those that "truly deserve" to be executed to sit on death row for 10-12 years. Unless you're suggesting that they only "truly deserve" to die after those 10-12 years.

The most far-reaching study of the death penalty in the United States has found that two out of three sentences were overturned on appeal, mostly because of serious errors by incompetent defense lawyers or overzealous police officers and prosecutors who withheld evidence.

The study, an examination of appeals in all capital cases from the time the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, in 1976, to 1995, also found that 75 percent of the people whose death sentences were set aside were later given lesser sentences after retrials, in plea bargains or by order of a judge. An additional 7 percent were found not guilty on retrial.

[...]

While some death penalty supporters have argued that Illinois is an aberration and produces less reliable death sentences than other states, the Columbia study found that the rate of serious error detected by court reviews in Illinois capital cases was 66 percent, slightly below the national average of 68 percent.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/061200death-penalty.html

Okay then, which of the corners that hold up the ones that 'truly deserve it' overlap the ones that saved the 7% who were found not guilty on retrial?

Feel free to draw up a Venn Diagram as a visual aid, if you'd like.

[Telefrog]

Maybe you know far more about this than I do...what is your evidence that the bulk of their confession was obtained under torture?

I don't think the 'bulk' of the evidence was their tortured confessional at all. I'm sure there are reams of intelligence that we won't be privvy to for decades. I am, however, reasonably sure that much of that intelligence would've been impossible to get without the initial statements and direction that our agencies obtained via waterboarding.

In a normal trial, I know that evidence gets thrown out if it was obtained illegally and/or was obtained only because of improper investigative actions. IE - The bloody knife found in the closet after an illegal search, etc.

However, to put it in more realistic terms, we're never going to know what evidence is used against them. It could be entirely reasonable and irrefutable, or it could be a complete witch-hunt with all the requisite torture. Without transparency, who can really say?

[Generation ABXY]

I'm all for getting rid of these people. Frankly, the longer they sit around, the more time there is for some bleeding heart/money-grubbing person to try and free them for some silly reason or another.

As for whether or not we should use confessions gained under waterboarding, hell yeah! If it has been defined as toture (not sure if it has or not yet), this was done after these men confessed - we didn't run around during after alcohol was banned and arrest anybody who ever had a drink in the history of the U.S.

And, frankly, I trust information more when the person is fearing for their life than when they have time to sit around in stew. I don't know about you, but if someone is drowning me, I'm going to tell them what they know, not make up some elaborate plot. A confession, I suppose, is slightly different (you might give in just to get them to stop), but I don't really think there is a question of these men's guilt.

[Slack3r78]

And, frankly, I trust information more when the person is fearing for their life than when they have time to sit around in stew. I don't know about you, but if someone is drowning me, I'm going to tell them what they know, not make up some elaborate plot.
No, you're going to tell them whatever you think they want to hear. It's the primary reason that torture is pretty widely criticized as generally ineffective for intelligence gathering, humanitarian concerns aside.

[Telefrog]

No, you're going to tell them whatever you think they want to hear. It's the primary reason that torture is pretty widely criticized as generally ineffective for intelligence gathering, humanitarian concerns aside.

I would imagine if someone waterboarded me, it wouldn't take long for my brain to click to the fact that "yes" is the only correct answer to the question "were you involved in the 9/11 planning?"

[GrinR]

Considering their treatment is almost assuredly the most legally processed and compassionate treatment any prisoner of their caliber has received in most of human history, I have no qualms about supporting the outcome.

I will say, however, that in my world I would the have CIA borrow them for a while so we could have them calmly and convincingly tell the world on TV that they were so wrong in what they originally believed and they truly wish their Islamic brothers would lay down their arms.

[Slack3r78]

I will say, however, that in my world I would the have CIA borrow them for a while so we could have them calmly and convincingly tell the world on TV that they were so wrong in what they originally believed and they truly wish their Islamic brothers would lay down their arms.

I honestly think that holding them until they die in relative obscurity would also do more to send that message than to just turn them into another casualty of the jihad.

[Telefrog]

Considering their treatment is almost assuredly the most legally processed and compassionate treatment any prisoner of their caliber has received in most of human history, I have no qualms about supporting the outcome.

I will say, however, that in my world I would the have CIA borrow them for a while so we could have them calmly and convincingly tell the world on TV that they were so wrong in what they originally believed and they truly wish their Islamic brothers would lay down their arms.

I am fairly certain that having them urge their people to lay down their arms would do less than nothing for us, since everyone would know they buckled under torture to get there. I would imagine that it would just stir up more ill will, if possible.

[Oxonian]

Slack, I think you have a decent argument here, but I have some concerns.

First, one of the primary arguments for the death penalty is deterrence. But deterrence is much more likely to work if the punishment is swift and reliable. I might be dissuaded from committing a murder if I know I'll be executed, but I might not be deterred if I think there's a small chance I'll be executed 20 years from now.

Second, while 10-12 years might be the average time someone spends on death row, that average varies a lot by state. California has deathrow inmates who have been sitting there for decades, and Mumia Abu-Jamal killed David Faulkner before you were born.

Third, it's wrong to cite the 7% who are found not guilty on retrial as evidence that those 7% were innocent. Witnesses die, move away, or forget things. Physical evidence decays. Crucial and probative evidence is excluded for one reason or another. There's a reason we have statutes of limitations for crimes: you can't conduct a trial decades after a crime and hope to get a fair result. That applies to both sides.

Fourth, relatively little capital litigation is focused on whether the convict committed the crime. True innocence is not usually the major claim, and (because appellate courts use a very deferential standard of review) it is rarely the basis for reversal or retrial. Evidentiary claims, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Eighth Amendment claims are much more common.

[GrinR]

I am fairly certain that having them urge their people to lay down their arms would do less than nothing for us, since everyone would know they buckled under torture to get there. I would imagine that it would just stir up more ill will, if possible.

I'm not talking about a broken man confessing. I'm talking about a nice stay in a special place with trained psy-ops and whatever drugs they want. I'm talking about these fellas walking out of that place genuinely believing they made a mistake and peacefully, calmly explaining to others why.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

I'm not talking about a broken man confessing. I'm talking about a nice stay in a special place with trained psy-ops and whatever drugs they want. I'm talking about these fellas walking out of that place genuinely believing they made a mistake and peacefully, calmly explaining to others why.




You're not suppose to know about room 101.....

[Telefrog]

I'm not talking about a broken man confessing. I'm talking about a nice stay in a special place with trained psy-ops and whatever drugs they want. I'm talking about these fellas walking out of that place genuinely believing they made a mistake and peacefully, calmly explaining to others why.

Ah, well. That is different. I'm not sure how effective that would be to those that are willing to die to commit acts against the US, but it would probably sway a few fencesitters. At the very least, it would make us look better when we dealt with other countries.

[GrinR]

Ah, well. That is different. I'm not sure how effective that would be to those that are willing to die to commit acts against the US, but it would probably sway a few fencesitters. At the very least, it would make us look better when we dealt with other countries.

I imagine having Khalid Shiek Mohammed speak passionately about the error of his ways would be enormously demoralizing. At this point who doesn't know we've held him in the "horrifying" gitmo suffering Allah knows what. The expectation is 100% extraction of information, then execution.

I think conversion would be a hell of a lot more convincing. Besides, we need something to make the hard guys scared of us again. As is, it's pretty sad we need to use rendition to get these jokers to talk.

[Slack3r78]

First, one of the primary arguments for the death penalty is deterrence. But deterrence is much more likely to work if the punishment is swift and reliable. I might be dissuaded from committing a murder if I know I'll be executed, but I might not be deterred if I think there's a small chance I'll be executed 20 years from now.
Well, again, on this point I think it's largely a matter of balance. To me, things are weighted much heavier toward avoiding wrongfully executing somebody. It may somewhat lessen the deterrence factor of the death penalty, but, at the end of the day, they still get executed if they make it through the safeguards in place.

Second, while 10-12 years might be the average time someone spends on death row, that average varies a lot by state. California has deathrow inmates who have been sitting there for decades, and Mumia Abu-Jamal killed David Faulkner before you were born.
I don't mean to imply that it's not possible to stretch the process out to the point where it reaches self-parody. Rather, I was mostly pointing out that those cases are upper-outliers statistically and that the 'norm' is a much shorter length of time. I'd actually suspected that the average might be slightly higher before looking it up, so 10-12 years is a more or less acceptable time frame for me, personally.

Third, it's wrong to cite the 7% who are found not guilty on retrial as evidence that those 7% were innocent. Witnesses die, move away, or forget things. Physical evidence decays. Crucial and probative evidence is excluded for one reason or another. There's a reason we have statutes of limitations for crimes: you can't conduct a trial decades after a crime and hope to get a fair result. That applies to both sides.
Honestly, it was a bit silly for me to cite any particular number as it's a bit beside the point anyway. The point was largely just to reiterate the fact that the appeals process is in place because the court doesn't always get things right the first time; 'right' including things ranging from correct verdict to ensuring a procedurally correct trial.

Fourth, relatively little capital litigation is focused on whether the convict committed the crime. True innocence is not usually the major claim, and (because appellate courts use a very deferential standard of review) it is rarely the basis for reversal or retrial. Evidentiary claims, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Eighth Amendment claims are much more common.
Definitely fair to say I overstepped things there. Really the primary thing I can say there is that while innocence is my primary concern, that does manifest itself largely in terms of wanting the procedural end of things to be as rigorous as is reasonable. Given the stake in a capital case is someone's life, I consider the lengths I would consider reasonable to be pretty wide.

The short of it being that I consider our current system to be relatively reasonable on the whole, if you're going to have a system which includes capital punishment. I'm not wholesale against expediting the process under particular circumstances, but, again, I think when we're talking in terms of giving the state the right to terminate a person's life, it's for the better if the system generally grinds fairly slowly.

It's worth noting that there are other reasons I think it might not be such a bad idea for capital punishment to take some time, but the logistics of it that I've been discussing so far are the primary ones.

[Generation ABXY]

No, you're going to tell them whatever you think they want to hear. It's the primary reason that torture is pretty widely criticized as generally ineffective for intelligence gathering, humanitarian concerns aside.

If you notice my last line, you'll see I did say a confession is slightly different. However, when it comes to getting information - such as about future attacks - I think they're more likely to tell the truth under the circumstances. Oh, well. Someone asked for a straight-up answer rather than some of the dancing around that's been going on, so I offered one.

[Dag-Sabot]

I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with torture. Especially in this case. There are ethical considerations of course, but those pale with the potential info windfall something like a "field-phone interrogation" could produce. The CIA farms out this type of work to countries who, like me don't have a problem ruffing up dirtbags for cash. If torture wasn't a great way to get information, it wouldn't be so popular throughout the years -So long as you don't give leading questions...
As far as execution ideas, I would volunteer to personally throw them out of a moving helicopter. That is, unless of course, 911 wasn't an inside job.

[torrefaction]

If you notice my last line, you'll see I did say a confession is slightly different. However, when it comes to getting information - such as about future attacks - I think they're more likely to tell the truth under the circumstances. Oh, well. Someone asked for a straight-up answer rather than some of the dancing around that's been going on, so I offered one.

That's the problem. It's widely accepted in the intelligence community that they'll just try and tell you anything to get you to stop torturing them. Wouldn't you? That was basically your initial point.

[Slack3r78]

If you notice my last line, you'll see I did say a confession is slightly different. However, when it comes to getting information - such as about future attacks - I think they're more likely to tell the truth under the circumstances. Oh, well. Someone asked for a straight-up answer rather than some of the dancing around that's been going on, so I offered one.
And the interrogator has no way of knowing what he's given is genuinely useful information and what's been given in an attempt to appease the torturers. Like I said, there's a reason most intelligence types I've read from on the subject seem to think it's a pretty poor way of gathering data.

[Generation ABXY]

And the interrogator has no way of knowing what he's given is genuinely useful information and what's been given in an attempt to appease the torturers. Like I said, there's a reason most intelligence types I've read from on the subject seem to think it's a pretty poor way of gathering data.

The thing is, nothing really bad comes from investigating those sources. Oh sure, you could miss the real attack, but in that case you aren't any worse off than you were before. However, if it is a dead end, you go back and "torture" them again and again, and eventually they will get the idea, "Hey, this guy isn't going to stop until I tell him the truth." Then you're getting somewhere...

[torrefaction]

The thing is, nothing really bad comes from investigating those sources. Oh sure, you could miss the real attack, but in that case you aren't any worse off than you are before. However, if it is a dead end, you go back and "torture" them again and again, and eventually they will get the idea, "Hey, this guy isn't going to stop until I tell him the truth." Now we're getting somewhere...

What? You violate human rights, waste precious intelligence resources on false leads, and potentially miss the real attack as you said, and you don't consider that bad?

Ugh.

[Generation ABXY]

What? You violate human rights, waste precious intelligence resources on false leads, and potentially miss the real attack as you said, and you don't consider that bad?

Ugh.

You sure as hell aren't going to catch the attack if you are mired in court trials for the next 20 years, with your "resources" constantly getting pulled into court. And, for the record, I said nothing bad comes from INVESTIGATING those sources - there is no human rights violation there. The torture, sure, but not investigating the info.

[Oxonian]

Rather, I was mostly pointing out that those cases are upper-outliers statistically and that the 'norm' is a much shorter length of time.
I understand that, but the upper outliers aren't so much peculiar cases or peculiar litigants as they are peculiar jurisdictions. Take my state of Pennsylvania. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Pennsylvania juries have sentenced hundreds of criminal defendants to death. Three of them have been executed. All three were only executed because they specifically asked to die. Leon Moser pled guilty in 1985 and maintained throughout the proceedings that he wanted to be executed, and it still took ten years for his litigation to wind through the appellate process.

[Bad_Buddha]

I honestly think that holding them until they die in relative obscurity would also do more to send that message than to just turn them into another casualty of the jihad.

Quoted.

Let them eat pork!

[torrefaction]

You sure as hell aren't going to catch the attack if you are mired in court trials for the next 20 years, with your "resources" constantly getting pulled into court. And, for the record, I said nothing bad comes from INVESTIGATING those sources - there is no human rights violation there. The torture, sure, but not investigating the info.

What aren't you getting about this? Intelligence experts say there are significantly better means of getting information from torture. I'm not saying anything about trials or due process here, so you're really fucking stretching. I'm saying there are better methods of gaining information.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."


http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050725_innocent_confess.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

[Telefrog]

You sure as hell aren't going to catch the attack if you are mired in court trials for the next 20 years, with your "resources" constantly getting pulled into court. And, for the record, I said nothing bad comes from INVESTIGATING those sources - there is no human rights violation there. The torture, sure, but not investigating the info.

1. The waste of limited intelligence assets to investigate every possible thing said under duress is a big negative. Speaking as someone who was in US Army intelligence as a 96B in the first Gulf War, the last news you want to go to your superiors with is that following a false lead caused you to miss something else. Y'know something like 9/11.

2. You're cutting a fine line between "investigating" leads based on torture and the act of torture. I'm fairly certain the waterboardee makes no such distinctions.

[Generation ABXY]

What aren't you getting about this? Intelligence experts say there are significantly better means of getting information from torture. I'm not saying anything about trials or due process here, so you're really fucking stretching. I'm saying there are better methods of gaining information.




http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050725_innocent_confess.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Okay, fine, say I grant you that some people are willing to talk without torture. What's to say they are still telling the truth? People lie all the time without being "forced" into it - you're still going to end up wasting resources if they give you false information, are you not. If you say, "There are other, less violent ways to extract information, though we still can't guarantee the validity," I say, "Well, best to let them know we mean business - get the bucket!" Granted, as I've said, I don't know if it has officially deemed torture yet, but if it has, fine, don't use it.

[Telefrog]

Okay, fine, say I grant you that some people are willing to talk without torture. What's to say they are still telling the truth? People lie all the time without being "forced" into it - you're still going to end up wasting resources if they give you false information, are you not. If you say, "There are other, less violent ways to extract information, though we still can't guarantee the validity," I say, "Well, best to let them know we mean business - get the bucket!" Granted, as I've said, I don't know if it has officially deemed torture yet, but if it has, fine, don't use it.

In one case, you are committing a morally (at least by most standards) repugnant act to get to the false information, in the other scenario you're getting the same result without psychologically destroying the torturer and damning the government in the process. Worldwide, we've lost a lot of support over this.

Again, same result; different ways to get there. I'm not saying that we would ever get a 'good' response from these guys - they really, really hate the US - but if you're going to get a negative result, why bother with the torture? Is it part of the retribution?

[Generation ABXY]

In one case, you are committing a morally (at least by most standards) repugnant act to get to the false information, in the other scenario you're getting the same result without psychologically destroying the torturer and damning the government in the process. Worldwide, we've lost a lot of support over this.

Again, same result; different ways to get there. I'm not saying that we would ever get a 'good' response from these guys - they really, really hate the US - but if you're going to get a negative result, why bother with the torture? Is it part of the retribution?

I won't say no to that last part. Sorry, I have strong feelings on the matter. In some cases, stronger than other people. Sue me.

[Telefrog]

I won't say no to that last part. Sorry, I have strong feelings on the matter. In some cases, stronger than other people. Sue me.

Nope. No vilification here. Just discussion.

I have strong feelings as well. Like I mentioned, I was there in Desert Storm and then Northen Iraq/Southern Turkey for Provide Comfort. I saw (never took part) in interrogations done in the "have a seat, let's discuss this" manner and the "hold him down while I stand on his fingers" method. (The latter done by other nationals.)

Honestly, neither method produced much in the way of actionable intelligence. We wound up with a lot of crap in both scenarios.

I do know that I one method made me leave the military while the other made me proud to be serviceman.

[Generation ABXY]

I think in many cases, people are willing to condemn what we are doing, but when put in a more personal situation, they'd be a lot less civil. Not to be dramatic, but say your wife/child/mother were taken or threatened, would you calmly sit down with the person responsible and try to find out what happened? I have a feeling most people would be willing to beat the answer out of them, and I have a feeling it would work a heck of a lot better.

Of course, you say you have first hand experience and I could be mistaken. Given what is at stake, though, I'm a little less worried about how we look to other nations.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

We should beat them with tube socks soaked in pigs blood and filled with bacon.

[Telefrog]

I think in many cases, people are willing to condemn what we are doing, but when put in a more personal situation, they'd be a lot less civil. Not to be dramatic, but say your wife/child/mother were taken or threatened, would you calmly sit down with the person responsible and try to find out what happened? I have a feeling most people would be willing to beat the answer out of them, and I have a feeling it would work a heck of a lot better.

Of course, you say you have first hand experience and I could be mistaken. Given what is at stake, though, I'm a little less worried about how we look to other nations.

Well, now what you're talking about is the very personal threat of harm to my loved ones. I don't for a second doubt that my response in such a situation would be quite different from a vague terrorist threat that may or may not happen. We covered this another thread regarding what parents would be willing to do to protect their children.

The academic question is would I resort to torture if I thought there was going to be a terrorist attack in my city in which my wife and kids stood a good chance of coming to harm? Would I approve of torture conducted on prisoners that had information about a terrorist attack in the same circumstances?

Honestly, that's a tougher question and I'm not sure if I can honestly answer that sitting in my office.

I can say that right now, sitting here, I do not approve of the waterboarding. I also do not think it's justice to use evidence gained from torture to convict and execute prisoners.

[Generation ABXY]

Well, now what you're talking about is the very personal threat of harm to my loved ones. I don't for a second doubt that my response in such a situation would be quite different from a vague terrorist threat that may or may not happen. We covered this another thread regarding what parents would be willing to do to protect their children.

The academic question is would I resort to torture if I thought there was going to be a terrorist attack in my city in which my wife and kids stood a good chance of coming to harm? Would I approve of torture conducted on prisoners that had information about a terrorist attack in the same circumstances?

Honestly, that's a tougher question and I'm not sure if I can honestly answer that sitting in my office.

I can say that right now, sitting here, I do not approve of the waterboarding. I also do not think it's justice to use evidence gained from torture to convict and execute prisoners.

See what I mean. The way I think of it, if there is a credible threat (which I'm sure there is, somewhere), my family is potentially at danger, as is yours, as are the lives of countless others. I'd rather have the blood of few on my hands through action, than the blood of many through inaction.

[Telefrog]

See what I mean. The way I think of it, if there is a credible threat (which I'm sure there is, somewhere), my family is potentially at danger, as is yours, as are the lives of countless others. I'd rather have the blood of few on my hands through action, than the blood of many through inaction.

I see what you mean, but I just can't bring myself to agree. In principle, I object to torture. In real life, I did object to torture when I didn't know for sure that my loved one's lives weren't at stake. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that my family was in immediate danger, then that might change, but that's a hypothetical that didn't happen and I would certainly know that my actions would be scrutinized later.

More here (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1164121320080211):


The commission must almost certainly rule on whether waterboarding is torture and whether Mohammed's confession can be admitted as evidence, Addicott said. The commissions do not allow use of evidence obtained by torture.

The United States insists it does not torture and that its use of waterboarding was legal. But Hayden, two days after publicly confirming the use of waterboarding, said last week it may no longer be legal given changes in U.S. law.


Realistically, I doubt that anything will come of the whole issue. I expect these guys will be executed with little fanfare or really much of a trial at all. I don't think we, the US, is going to get squeamish now when we've demonstrated that we're more than willing to sell our moral highground to get results.