Civil rights theoretical quiz

[southsider2k5]

So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them.

 

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect?

 

In the same situtation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur?

 

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen?

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely discusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography?

 

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others?

 

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certianty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member?

Edited November 8, 2007 by southsider2k5

[Jenksismyhero]

So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them.

 

I'll take a stab -

 

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? - Depending on the "hands were tied." If water-boarding would have gotten the information out, then yes I would have been pissed. If the interrogation would have required the use of bamboo near the finger nails, than no. I think the whole torture issue is hysterical, only because of the context - a major argument is always that are enemies could use it against us. Well guess what, terrorists don't torture, they just chop off heads. I think its a bit naive to think that torturing Muhammed Ahkbar is really going to deter Muhammed Aekban from doing something bad to one of our troops. Of course torture is bad and should never be done, but no matter what techniques are used there's always going to be a thin line between acceptable and not acceptable.

 

In the same situation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? - IMO no, unless the legal representation would be to stop an execution or something as serious.

 

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? - No. There's not way I could be impartial and represent them to the best of my ability. I've heard stories of guys who represent detainees at Guantanamo. They are torn daily helping people who literally pray for the death of all Americans.

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely disgusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? Unfortunately yes, though if I would try to create exceptions. For example the recent funeral protests. Some have argued it's their right to say it. I'm on the side that they're infringing on a private moment, even if they are technically on public land. IMO such a situation could create a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of free speech - at a cemetery, during a funeral. There's no long-term detriment to the right to speak freely. And I don't think its the words that are spoken mostly, it's in what context they are spoken.

 

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? Probably not no - I'm only 25 and don't plan on kids for another couple of years, but I'm already terrified of what my kids will be exposed to. I think this question would be answered solely on the factual setting.

 

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certainty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? No civilians - 50%, Civilians - 95%, unless we have firm evidence that he's got the only key to a nuke that's pointed towards Chicago (or any other American city). If my family member is present - I'd defer my decision to some other disinterested person, but obviously my answer would be 100% certain and even then there better not be an alternative.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'll take a stab -

 

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? - Depending on the "hands were tied." If water-boarding would have gotten the information out, then yes I would have been pissed. If the interrogation would have required the use of bamboo near the finger nails, than no. I think the whole torture issue is hysterical, only because of the context - a major argument is always that are enemies could use it against us. Well guess what, terrorists don't torture, they just chop off heads. I think its a bit naive to think that tortuturing Muhammed Ahkbar is really going to detter Muhammed Aekban from doing something bad to one of our troops. Of course torture is bad and should never be done, but no matter what techniques are used there's always going to be a thin line between acceptable and not acceptable.

 

In the same situation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? - IMO no, unless the legal representation would be to stop an execution or something as serious.

 

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? - No. There's not way I could be impartial and represent them to the best of my ability. I've heard stories of guys who represent detainees at Guantanamo. They are torn daily helping people who literally pray for the death of all Americans.

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely disgusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? Unfortunately yes, though if I would try to create exceptions. For example the recent funeral protests. Some have argued it's their right to say it. I'm on the side that they're infringing on a private moment, even if they are technically on public land. IMO such a situation could create a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of free speech - at a cemetery, during a funeral. There's no long-term detriment to the right to speak freely. And I don't think its the words that are spoken mostly, it's in what context they are spoken.

 

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? Probably not no - I'm only 25 and don't plan on kids for another couple of years, but I'm already terrified of what my kids will be exposed to. I think this question would be answered solely on the factual setting.

 

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certainty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? No civilians - 50%, Civilians - 95%, unless we have firm evidence that he's got the only key to a nuke that's pointed towards Chicago (or any other American city). If my family member is present - I'd defer my decision to some other disinterested person, but obviously my answer would be 100% certain and even then there better not be an alternative.

 

That sounds very reasonable, I and can agree to most of it. However, with regards to the bolded part:

 

It won't stop Muhammed Aekban, who's already a fanatic, but it will tarnish America's image that much more for the millions of other Muhammeds who aren't yet radicalized. It seems like the cost-benefit ratio is way off on techniques like waterboarding, which sound horrible to most people and aren't even very effective at producing reliable intelligence.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That sounds very reasonable, I and can agree to most of it. However, with regards to the bolded part:

 

It won't stop Muhammed Aekban, who's already a fanatic, but it will tarnish America's image that much more for the millions of other Muhammeds who aren't yet radicalized. It seems like the cost-benefit ratio is way off on techniques like waterboarding, which sound horrible to most people and aren't even very effective at producing reliable intelligence.

 

 

But we're not taking everyday muslims and fake drowning them to get them to tell us if a cousins friends brothers wife is a terrorist. If we're doing that sort of interrogation we're doing it against people we've caught in the battlefield. I don't think its rational to assume that jo-schmo muslim will think less of America because we are acting aggressively against our enemies. Obviously "acting aggressively" is my view on it, but its at least in the grey area, so it's not some abhorrent immoral practice that everyone knows is wrong and against the Geneva Convention.

 

It's the same argument that by continuing our presence in Iraq we're getting more and more muslims to hate us. If you're arguing that by random bombs we kill innocent civilians and people associated with those innocent civilians now think less of America, ok I'll grant you that. But muslims in egypt or pakistan or wherever understands we aren't attacking them, we're attacking the radicals. And if they don't understand that then already have a poor opinion of us or they just simply don't follow world news.

[southsider2k5]

No one else?

[jasonxctf]

So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them.

 

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? Yes I would.

 

In the same situtation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? Yes it should.

 

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? No, I couldn't.

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely discusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? It would be tough, but yes I could. Probably child porno would be the toughest.

 

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? Yes, all but child porno.

 

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certianty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? 75% or higher, confirmed by multiple sources.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No one else?

I have to concur with Rex. The relevant question, to me, is whether or not its even effective. If its not, then the other discussions are moot.

 

In the ticking time bomb scenario, which basically never happens, I'd be OK with breaking the rules. But that's just it - the rule should still be no torture.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That's just it though, what is "torture?" I consider having to smell a bum on the train for 10 minutes torture. Would forcing detainees to smell piss and crap and b.o. for hours and hours be torture? Or is it just making them uncomfortable?

[Mplssoxfan]

So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them.

 

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? I would understand. I might not be very happy at first, but I understand limitations of interrogations.

 

In the same situtation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? This is pretty vague, as is the first question. Where is this imaginary person being held? Near a battlefield? Cook County Jail? What charge is s/he being held under? If someone has been arrested for a visa issue, they should have representation.

 

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? I was told once by a lawyer that everyone has a right to council, regardless of their degree of culpability. If I were a defense attorney and was asked to take the case, I would not dismiss it out of hand. Ultimately, I probably wouldn't take it, though. There are things in this world more important than money.

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely discusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? Child Porn is illegal and has been held to be by every jurisdiction in the land, so I wouldn't be defending anyone involved with that. Once we start carving out too many exceptions to the First Amendment, it becomes cheapened, though.

 

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? I don't have any, but I'd be leery letting kids see or be exposed to certain things at certain ages. Common sense, I think, not to let 10-year-olds read Playboy or see Pulp Fiction.

 

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certianty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that the threshold is pretty high. I don't seriously think that any President throws a cruise missile at a target with 25% certain intel. Any civilians around Osama Bin Laden are utter fools for being there or allowing themselves to get into that situation. Again, I'd be angry, but I would understand.

 

[Texsox]

Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect?

 

I believe the information would be unreliable and potentially hurt, rather than help, saving my loved one. So yes, I would understand.

 

In the same situtation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur?

 

If we are going to later prosecute them under our laws, then we have to accept all the laws. Anything else makes a mockery of our way of life. To say this only works in some cases, is kind of hypocritical.

If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen?

 

If you believe in America and our legal system, then I don't see any other way.

 

Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely discusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography?

 

I draw the line at harming children.

Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others?

 

No. And I do not see where they are mutually exclusive.

If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certianty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member?

Our laws do not allow for the assassination of individuals.