Lindsey Graham: 'torture is ok so long as it's not used in court'

[Matt Collins]

[h=5]Lindsey Graham on CNN just said that the government should be able to torture suspects to gather intel, even if they can't use that intel against them in court.[/h]

 

[compromise]

Lindsey Graham is on both sides of this argument.

 

[Aratus]

john marshall, earl warren and john roberts are all more politically and morally evolved
than the legendary warhawk senator from south carolina? we are lucky in that the very
brusk "Law of Lindsey" aint the law of the land? he has a most curious viewpoint, indeed.

 

[Origanalist]

Is there ANYTHING that involves death, torture and mayhem that warpig doesn't approve of?

 

[jmdrake]

Lindsey Graham is on both sides of this argument.

Wait a minute. Lindsey Graham was more anti-torture in the waning days of the Bush administration than at the start of the Obama administration? How more RINO can you get? He's a wino RINO. He has to be drunk to say stuff like this.

Oh, and as to the OP, put this into context of what he said about Miranda. Now Miranda doesn't apply if the statements aren't used in court or if any of the evidence derived from the statements aren't used in court. But Graham is saying "Oh....we don't need to Mirandize these terror suspects." So he must want to be able to use such statements in court. Why? If you've got so much evidence against someone that you believe its okay to strip him of his rights, then don't you have enough evidence to convict him without his confession?

Also, the right against self incrimination was largely derived as a backlash against torture. So here's a scenario for ole Lindsay. They capture a terror suspect. He's never read his rights. He doesn't understand them. He gets tortured initially really bad. He becomes conditioned to saying whatever it is his captors want him to say. They stop torturing him. At what point can his words be used against him? For those who don't say "never" please watch the interrogation of Michael Crowe.

 

[Aratus]

"DARKNESS AT NOON" the novel by Arthur Koestler was published in 1940
and then in about eight years we have George Orwell's fictional novel 1984.
DARKNESS AT NOON reads like as if Fyodor Dostoyevski has been updated or
modernized, it is about the slow brutalization of a prisoner and false evidence.

 

[Kotin]

Graham is such a complete piece of shit.. We need to get him and McCain out of the senate..

 

[TaftFan]

Graham is such a complete piece of shit.. We need to get him and McCain out of the senate..

They actually disagree on this. Maybe they will start fighting.

 

[anaconda]

They actually disagree on this. Maybe they will start fighting.

But how tender and passionate the make up will be..