Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

So even though this type of treatment does not serve a purpose we should not be concerned about it?

What do Deer eat?
 

Congratulations. You made the big time.

http://lawtalkers.com/forums/showthr...019#post182019

What do Deer eat?
 

If you want to get the best info on that, you may need to post it on the FB or the SF/SV Board. Paigow doesn't come here often. I think she's a vegetarian, BTW.

eta: stp

If you have neighbors who are gardeners, they will be irate that you are feeding the deer.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

We all realize bad stuff happens in war. What has happened is not random, accidental "oops, my bad!" stuff. It's institutionalized.

We're also awareof the difficulties in applying criminal law-type procedure to international terrorists. I don't think a regular criminal trial is necessary. As for the AQ we've picked up, they can rot away in prison for all I care. But we at least need some semi-public forum to determine that they were actually AQ. I don't want my tax dollars used to settle Afghan tribal scores.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

You guys are starting to make me feel liberal. When we let them "rot" in prison there is no reason to torture them. Correct?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Correct. They chose the wrong side. Fuck 'em.

BUT when I say "rot," I mean it metaphorically. I do not think the US should be in the business of torture, or even mistreatment. My bleeding heart believes the old saying about how you can judge a civilization by how it treats its prisoners.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Right, because these situations are so similar.

It's not just me, no one has been able to figure it out, other than those that say they should be affored the protections under the Constitution.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Concern yes, but outrage? Sorry, I can't get that worked up given who these people and the relatively minor discomfort to which they are allegedly being subjected.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

So I think you and I kind of agree, no?

ETA: does that make me the dumbest?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

"Minor discomfort"? I suppose that's fact based, but unless you're comparing it to the beheadings that al qaeda use on their prisoners, it seems more than minor. and I don't think you really want to use al qaeda as your baseline.

But spanky has a point--is the treatment actually serving a purpose? Because torture to obtain useful information is morally ambiguous. torture "just because" is not.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Well, there's a possibility that they will get information, and as Rumsfeld (or Cheney?) said, "the prisoners in Guantanamo are, for the most part, very bad people."* And if there's a 90% chance that you are a very bad person, you deserve to be sitting in your feces and forcibly deprived of sleep and stuff like that, right?

*I paraphrase, but there was some kind of a "for the most part" or "on the whole" in there.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

That's why I used the "relatively" modifyer.

No and agreed.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

It is a very, very strange conception of individual rights that holds that a state may torture an individual who may or may not be guilty of a crime simply in order to obtain information from him or her in the name of the public interest, but that the state cannot diminish the value of an individual's property in the name of the public interest, whether or not compensation is paid.

It's sort of like Locke meets de Sade, or something.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Maybe the gov't can take his stuff because they need the money for the war, and war is special circumstances.

This actually would work really well for me.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

You've made this point before. Do we really need to go through the discussion again?