It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Slothrop
an agent of a foreign government steals weapon technology for his employers. he is caught by the united states government. does the government have the right to execute and possibly torture him? (i think everyone in their right mind says yes to this)
okay now it's a couple of drunk college girls wandering around near groom lake. ordinarily the camo dudes would just scare them witless but this time they see something that can't be denied. they've seen something that puts national security in grave peril if anyone ever ever finds out. when the camo dudes pop those shots into them, are they morally justified? i say "yes" to all these cases but i'm curious what my fellow ats types think.
Originally posted by Slothrop
this is treason
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Originally posted by Slothrop
to execute and possibly torture
Are there exceptions to the prohibition against torture?
No. Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Has the United States accepted the obligations set forth in the Convention against Torture?
The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.
just ask the rosenbergs. they spied for israel and we still executed them. \
Guess I'm not in my right mind. You know, I think there used to be a time where there was just one set of 'laws' the government had to follow, and just one set of 'rights', and they applied to 'all people'. Now, it seems, the idea is, more and more, there's one set of laws and rights for 'good citizens', people the governments likes and deigns to grant them to, and another set of for 'enemy agents', 'terrorists', etc. - people the government doesn't like. When did that change? I want the old system back.
this is treason. treason has always been punishable by death. just ask the rosenbergs. they spied for israel and we still executed them.
But did you know DUE PROCESS appears more times in the Constitution than the word TREASON? Did you know Julius and Anna Rosenberg were NOT convicted of treason? The US Con requires TWO witnesses to the same overt act for conviction. it's a rarity. Instead, the Rosenbergs were convicted of violating the National Espionage Act. It obviously does not require the same high standard of proof for conviction. Justice on the cheap.
The college girl scenario is the toughest for me to say "yes" to though. I would rather some memory altering drug be given them or extreme form of hypnosis to wipe their memory--surely our government has created something like that already.
Originally posted by unnamedninja
reply to post by Slothrop
I'd like to field you a few questions instead of answering yours.
If American spies are found abroad checking up on the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and finding out their military secrets, would those states have the right to torture and murder them? The idea of an American being tortured probably fills you with disgust. The idea of _anyone_ being tortured should fill you with disgust.
I'd like to field you a few questions instead of answering yours. If American spies are found abroad checking up on the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and finding out their military secrets, would those states have the right to torture and murder them?
The worst documented example of torture began on March 16, 1984, when William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Lebanon, was kidnaped by Hezbollah operatives. Buckley was kidnaped shortly after 8 AM Beirut time, on his way to work at the American Embassy. Several hours passed before senior Embassy officials concluded he had been abducted. A priority signal was sent to the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.
On Monday morning, May 7, 1984, the United States embassy in Athens received a video posted in the city. Flown to W-DD, in CIA Director Casey's office, the director and senior staff began to view the video. It showed William Buckley undergoing torture. The absence of sound made it all the more shocking. The camera zoomed in and out of Buckley's nude and damaged body. He held before his genitalia a document marked "MOST SECRET."
The second video arrived twenty-three days later. It was proof the burn-bag had failed. The video had been shot against a similar background as the first one. It revealed Buckley continued to be horrifically treated. There was sound on the tape.
On Friday, October 26, 1984, two hundred and twenty-four days since Buckley was kidnaped, a third video arrived at the CIA. The tape was even more harrowing than its predecessors. Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking.
William Buckley's kidnaping was into its second year by the spring of 1985. By late May 1985, CIA Director William Casey had finally given up hope of getting Buckley back.
In October 1985, confirmation that Buckley was dead came in an announcement by the Hezbollah. Accompanying it was a photograph of his corpse, together with copies of some of the once secret documents from Buckley's burn bag.
Post Script. Searching for Buckley's body. Early in October 2002, two young Arabs drove a battered van out of West Beirut heading for the Beka'a Valley. One using a pick, the other a shovel, the youths began to dig. Finally they gave up, realizing they had been the victims of a con-man. www.canadafreepress.com...
Although the notes typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was relevant to the Soviet atomic bomb project, this was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the conspiracy to commit espionage charge . . Their case has been at the center of the controversy over Communism in the United States ever since, with supporters steadfastly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of persecution typical of the "hysteria" of those times . . en.wikipedia.org...
In a hearing U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein decided to make public the grand jury testimony of 36 of the 46 witnesses but not that of Greenglass. Citing the objections of Greenglass and two other living witnesses, the judge claimed that their privacy rights “overrides the public’s need to know.” Georgetown University law professor David Vladeck argued on behalf of historical groups that because of recent interviews Greenglass forfeited the privacy he now claims and that the testimony should be released. Judge Hellerstein was not moved. The testimony of the other seven witnesses will be released upon their consent, or confirmation that they are dead or not findable. en.wikipedia.org...