Would Right Wingers Condone Using A Crown Of Thorns In Interrogation?

I know it is an "unusual method" but do they think it qualifies as torture?

Let's take a hypothetical shall we?

If the Romans had reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth had information that could prevent a terror attack, possibly saving thousands of lives, would it be OK then? I am not talking about full blown crucification here. Just the crown of thorns. Well, if that did not loosen his tongue, maybe a few lashes would be in order? Come on it is just a few lashes. That won't kill him!

Knowing how stoic Jesus was, it might have taken more to make him spill his secrets. May have to beat him while you make him drag a large wooden cross through the streets. You know, "Mock" execution style. Really make him think you are going to do it and maybe he would be ready to talk then. I would think so. Certainly would be scary (but non-lethal)!

But, what if he was still clammed up? Remember the Romans have good intelligence suggesting that he does have the info. Would a nail of two be in order? Maybe hang him up there for a while to see if that can break him.

Still nothing? Well, doesn't one life outweigh the POSSIBLE lives that COULD BE LOST if we do not get the information? May have to just leave him up there. Even if he does not talk, he will serve as an example to others.

What do you think? Would the fundies go along with that logic? Maybe make excuses about how they REALLY, REALLY needed the information or how what they were doing was not THAT bad, considering what these people are capable of?



That does not look like it hurts THAT bad!

You know, maybe they didn't really mean for him to die? Maybe those Roman soldiers who pierced his side were just some bad apples.

:sarcasm:

O8)

I can hear them now - well our troops train by crawling under barbed wire. It really isn't any worse than that - are you reading me Senator
Bond from Missouri.
Excerpt:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/8/184743/538
"n a debate regarding torture. Durbinkept taking the high road, Bond kept denying we engage in torture. The talking points were spewing from his mouth as if he had just downloaded the podcast into his brain...

When he started loosing the battle, as was inevitable...

Bond attacked with the usual, out of context "you compared us to nazi's....WHHAAAA!" character assassination. Dick Durbin who was shown side by side to Bond, just shook his head and looked at Bond with a dissapointed look. Like the kind your mom used to give you when she knew you were lying to her...

Durbin: "I can't believe you are doing this"

Bond: "You You ... Ya You ...Said it on Blah WHAA WHAA WHAA.
End of Excerpt

:puke: :mad:

BUT, they'd never find the guy. He doesn't look like that. We'd be hearing they had captured him every couple weeks.

:evilgrin: :rofl:

of course, any saintly person caring about the poor or others would be considered evil by today's administration.

and there is plenty they have already done that's beyond your own worse nightmare. They enjoy it.

Which ammendment bans that? The eighth? The ninth? I know it's in the BoR.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c182.htm

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT - The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.

'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.)

'The Lynch court fashioned a three-pronged test to aid in determining whether a particular punishment is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the offense for which it is imposed; the test is not determinative, but is a tool to aid in the court's inquiry. Under the first prong, the court examines the nature of the offense and/or the offender, paying particular attention to the danger each poses to society. Secondly, the court may compare the challenged punishment with punishments prescribed for other, more serious, crimes in the same jurisdiction. Finally, the challenged penalty may be compared with punishments for the same offense in other jurisdictions.' People v. Almodovar (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 732, 739-740.


-MORE AT LINK-

Fetus Jesus being tortured, I'm sure most of them whould have no problem with it as long as it's done in a place far from our eyes. Hopefuly with troops who have had their cameras taken away.

Why should we trouble our beautiful minds about it after all?

Seriously.

The one that shall remain unspoken.

They are torture apologist scum. They say what we are doing is needed, they talk about beheadinds as if everyone we are torturing weilded a knife. They act like the acts temselves do not meet the definition of torture. They demand proof that we are torturing people. As soon as you gve it to them, they dismiss it out of hand.

They simply live in denial. No point trying to enlighten them. I do try to shove me finger in their eye as often as possible.

that prior to the waterboarding, Jesus dined on Lemon fish, two types of fruit and two types of vegetables.