450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 1 of 5
If there was any doubt that the Left is bat shit crazy, and cares purely for 1 thing and 1 thing only, there's no doubt any longer.
The Left's ridiculous, phony and 100% fabricated indignation over non-torture torture is nothing more than a purely partisan, politically driven side show intended for one purpose only - to get more power by demonizing anyone who stands in their way.
They don't CARE that Islamo fascists are going to try to kill 1000's more. That's what the Left wing leadership WANTS ! They want to cause crisis after crisis after crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel says, do what could not be done otherwise, w/regards to taking more and more power.
From illegal immigration, to gay marriages, to terrorist attacks, the Left is hoping and praying ( well, not literally, as they don't really buy into God™ ) to create such chaos in this country, they'll have no other choice than to remake it in their socialist Utopian template. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll ask again, since you keep avoiding the issue in the other thread...
Quote:
Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:
Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.
So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?
By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.
Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...
By the way, your thread title is misleading. "Interrogating" those who want to kill us isn't a worse crime than them wanting to kill us. TORTURING those who want to kill us actually IS a worse crime than them wanting to kill us.
Hell, right now I *may* WANT to kill you - that's not a crime at all. Some would even call it good common sense. I'm not saying I actually want to kill you, just pointing out that even if I did want to kill you, that's not a crime. Torturing me to find out if I wanted to kill you would be a crime, though.
And hey, it's not like the previous administration didn't use events to expand their power and grab more, so that's kind of a non-starter as an issue. Hell, Bush figured if he could get us neck-deep in the bullshit in Iraq, we'd HAVE to re-elect him, and then he'd be able to go on an even BIGGER power-grab.
And you were his loyal cheerleader all the way. Tell me, Rappy the Wonder Dog, did you borrow his darlin' little cheerleader outfit that he wore back in his school daze, and did you sniff the crotch of his panties before you put them on?
You've always been about power for the sake of power, and you've never cared one iota who gets killed along the way - be they "camel jockeys", "Achmeds", or anyone else you don't like because of the color of their skin.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Is it right to make a man feel like he's drowning?
That's one of the central questions of this issue, and when I try to figure out why there's any confusion over it, I can only come to one inescapable conclusion.
The people who advocate torture (whether or not they are bold enough to use the term) do so because they believe they are torturing someone IN SELF DEFENSE.
I came to this conclusion when I realized that I would never murder someone, but I would kill them IN SELF DEFENSE. As abominable as I consider murder to be, I consider killing under certain CIRCUMSTANCES to be JUSTIFIED.
Once I came to this shocking realization, I understood Auraptor and his ilk, who see no difference between TORTURE and ANY OTHER ACTION taken in SELF DEFENSE. The aspect of danger, to themselves or their countrymen, makes the act JUSTIFIED to their minds.
Where I realized the moral divide lay is in the directness and immediacy of the intervention. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is a direct and immediate action to stop a verifiably imminent danger.
This is the main thrust of the difference. The nearness and certainty of danger that narrows a panoply of options to just a critical few.
I believe that advocates of torture lack the ability to look deeper into a situation and recognize when danger needs must be met with the hard option, and when a softer sideways path will do more ably.
I also believe that advocates of torture lack the emotional maturity to recognize how torture debases and contaminates the torturer. It is even more dehumanizing to torture than to be tortured. It is a process that leaves a psychic wound on the processor.
Perhaps it is Hollywood programming that makes them believe that torture is the best way to get information that will save lives. Perhaps it is a sense of fear they themselves have of torture, that they believe they would surrender important details quickly and accurately if they themselves were tortured by an enemy.
I have come to the conclusion that advocates of torture are by-and-large misguided, and not necessarily evil. I mean, certainly there are sadists among them, but they can't all be sadists.
Does anyone else share these thoughts?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The guards at Abu Grhaib seemed to enjoy it... But I'm hoping they're exceptions.
Mostly I think that situation arose from a lack of training. They weren't made aware of Geneva Conventions, and psychological experiments have shown that prison situations can generate those kinds of abuses if the guards aren't trained in proper methodology.
Supposedly, there's something about being given complete power over people, and the dehumanizing circumstances of prison itself, that can bring out the worst in some of the people on duty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that in the past that the US executed people for doing the same thing to American prisoners quite telling.
Does that it might save lives make it right ?
Lets say I am fighting Americans...
Is it okay if I start waterboarding, etc my prisoners of the off chance I can learn something of your plans ? Maybe save some of my guys
Will AURaptor agree in that case, or will he scream bloody murder at that ?
Come on Rap, admit it is okay to waterboard US troops, or admit to being a hypocrite
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:On what do you base that belief?
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is the main thrust of the difference. The nearness and certainty of danger that narrows a panoply of options to just a critical few.
I believe that advocates of torture lack the ability to look deeper into a situation and recognize when danger needs must be met with the hard option, and when a softer sideways path will do more ably.
I also believe that advocates of torture lack the emotional maturity to recognize how torture debases and contaminates the torturer. It is even more dehumanizing to torture than to be tortured. It is a process that leaves a psychic wound on the processor.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Essentially, it seems unlikely that a person with empathy could willfully and knowingly inflict pain and suffering without hurting themselves in the process.
There of course may be people without empathy, but then they are already suffering from mental and emotional damage.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Didn’t you just say that you could knowingly and willingly kill another person and be justified for it if you had reason to believe that your life was in danger? If there was reason to believe that a person had information that could save many lives but refused to talk, why wouldn’t you be just as justified in coercing that person? In one case, you say that killing a person to save another life is acceptable, but coercing a person to save many lives is not?
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Essentially, it seems unlikely that a person with empathy could willfully and knowingly inflict pain and suffering without hurting themselves in the process.
There of course may be people without empathy, but then they are already suffering from mental and emotional damage.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
This is the very argument I imagine advocates of torture to be making.
Incidentally, if I ever have to end someone, I expect to suffer psychic damage because of it. I expect it will bother me always.
The answer to your question, of course, is no. When someone is literally about to kill you or someone else, your panoply of options are shrunk to a precious few. All of them bad. You are left only to choose the least possible evil to prevent harm to yourself and others.
However, when you have a captured individual, your options are no longer painfully shrunk to a handful of bad choices. Torture would be a bad choice, not only for its dehumanizing effect, but also for its potential inaccuracy. There is no immediate death you are going to prevent with torture. The Jack Bauer model is a fallacy.
You can't rely on information to be accurate when it is obtained by torture. Torture does not motivate truth. It motivates a scheme to end the pain.
Further, the evidence of torture's lack of effectiveness is plain, in the face of prisoners who needed to be waterboarded dozens of times or more. Prisoners who were tortured for months on end. This does not evidence a critical piece of information needed right now to save a life right now.
Information, even from 'enhanced interrogation' is not unilaterally acted upon. It is compared and contrasted with other sources of intel. It is rated for potential accuracy after review by analysts. It is even compared to other information and statements from the same source. It is a long process, one of a sea of processes, that does not meet the imminent qualifier for the 'hard option.'
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony,
One aspect of authoritarian psychology is that the desire to punish the wicked can be even more important than self preservation. To them it's almost as if violence isn't really violence when it's perpetrated against "the evil doer." Authoritarians don't advocate war and torture to save American lives, so much as they see it as an opportunity to kick some righteous ass.
War is a moral imperative with them.
I see the defenders of torture beginning and ending with the premise, "the terrorists deserved it." If "the terrorists" deserve it, then there is no debate. It's an open and shut case. Torture's effectiveness as the just punishment for wickedness has a long and well respected history. If you disapprove of torture, it means you don't believe "the terrorists" deserve it and thus, you are a terrorist "symp," or you are a child, or you are hopelessly deluded.
So, I tend to see their arguments about "saving lives" as a pretext they reserve for the rest of us weaklings, but they all know what they're really talking about. They hear the dog whistles. They all share the righteous hatred of the evil doer. To them, we're nothing but appeasers, cowards and fools.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you claim, but I’m still waiting to hear upon what you base this belief. Because in fact, I can conceive of situations in which the options are painfully small and bad in a case in which a captured individual is your only source of information. Killing in self-defense is just as inaccurate, you don’t know if the person you killed was actually going to kill you, the best you can know is that is what you believed at the time.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
This is the very argument I imagine advocates of torture to be making.
Incidentally, if I ever have to end someone, I expect to suffer psychic damage because of it. I expect it will bother me always.
The answer to your question, of course, is no. When someone is literally about to kill you or someone else, your panoply of options are shrunk to a precious few. All of them bad. You are left only to choose the least possible evil to prevent harm to yourself and others.
However, when you have a captured individual, your options are no longer painfully shrunk to a handful of bad choices. Torture would be a bad choice, not only for its dehumanizing effect, but also for its potential inaccuracy. There is no immediate death you are going to prevent with torture. The Jack Bauer model is a fallacy.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.
People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.
All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.
How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
In the case of self-defense, you have a person who is capable of doing harm, indicating that they are going to do harm, right there in front of you. It's true that they might be giving a false impression. Bravura for the sake of coercion. This is why I say all options at this point are bad options.
In the case of torture, it is an intelligence operation. All intelligence is analyzed and compared with other intelligence. One blurted statement can't be trusted enough to be used to save anybody. That's the Jack Bauer fallacy: That one quick piece of torture will result in one quick piece of information that will unilaterally be acted upon to save the day at the crucial hour.
That's simply not how intelligence agencies do things.
You repeatedly ask how I come to this belief, and I've continuously explained my thinking to you. On what basis do you demur?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I get at the fruit of an orange with a sledgehammer, there’s a good chance there won’t be much orange left. It is true that the sledgehammer is not the best orange peeler, but that doesn’t mean that other ways of peeling an orange won’t be effective. One of the problems with the issue of torture is that so few people have the courage to discussion it with any sort of intellectual honesty. When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.
People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.
All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.
How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Finn,
Considering that people under harsh police interrogation have been known to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit...
Do you really think boiling in oil is the magic infliction that gets unreliable information?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sometimes intel is gotten the Jack bauer way. In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial. In any case, if intel can be corroborated it is. Much of the time it is not and it can’t be. The accuracy of intel is sometimes a fuzzy subject when the need to act is deemed imperative. That’s just the way the world is. The crucial difference between killing in self defense and the use of coercive interrogation is perhaps that the interrogator is not himself in danger. That doesn’t change the fact that a single piece of intel gathered from a single source could in fact save the lives of innocent people.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
In the case of self-defense, you have a person who is capable of doing harm, indicating that they are going to do harm, right there in front of you. It's true that they might be giving a false impression. Bravura for the sake of coercion. This is why I say all options at this point are bad options.
In the case of torture, it is an intelligence operation. All intelligence is analyzed and compared with other intelligence. One blurted statement can't be trusted enough to be used to save anybody. That's the Jack Bauer fallacy: That one quick piece of torture will result in one quick piece of information that will unilaterally be acted upon to save the day at the crucial hour.
That's simply not how intelligence agencies do things.
You repeatedly ask how I come to this belief, and I've continuously explained my thinking to you. On what basis do you demur?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Finn, you seem to have more information than me on this issue.
Perhaps if you shared some examples where this was the case, I'd better understand why torture was the critical option.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think it is intellectually dishonest to compare coercive interrogation to torturing witches. It is intellectually dishonest to insist that there is no continuum in the degree of coercion that can be applied in interrogation. There are few witch trials in which anyone expected the witch to live. That’s not really in general an accurate description of people detained for interrogation in this country, nor is it what I’m talking about. People have confessed to crimes they didn’t commit under police interrogation that wasn’t harsh. So it’s not always the method of interrogation, sometimes the source is just not reliable.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Finn,
Considering that people under harsh police interrogation have been known to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit...
Do you really think boiling in oil is the magic infliction that gets unreliable information?
--Anthony
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know that there are any real world examples that can be really discussed in much detail. And I’m not really trying to bring up the real world. I’m not trying to convince you to accept any administrations’ policies, whatever they may be. I would simply like you to consider that the issue is much greyer then it is described. Too often people go to extremes on this subject in an attempt to avoid dealing with the subject at all.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Finn, you seem to have more information than me on this issue.
Perhaps if you shared some examples where this was the case, I'd better understand why torture was the critical option.
Maybe it would be a good idea to find some real world examples. They would necessarily have to be historical examples that are at least 25 years old, because no current events could be discussed on the internet.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Do you believe that information is more reliable when obtained under torture?
Do you believe that reliable information is more quickly acquired under torture?
I'm trying to understand the critical factor of torture that you feel justifies torture, making it superior to other interrogation techniques. What about torture makes it justified as a means of defense? What makes it the better option?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I will look into incidents where coerced confessions were proven false, to support my belief. It may be I shan't find any. I'm not the very best researcher. :-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How reliable or quickly information is obtain depends on a lot. But when you are dealing with a hardened subject, such as some of the terrorist we encounter, you have to face the reality that these people are trained true believers. They aren’t going to spill the beans because you arrest them. In some cases, the perceived danger to life may be sufficient to believe that it is necessary to cut through the resolve of a hardened subjected.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Do you believe that information is more reliable when obtained under torture?
Do you believe that reliable information is more quickly acquired under torture?
I'm trying to understand the critical factor of torture that you feel justifies torture, making it superior to other interrogation techniques. What about torture makes it justified as a means of defense? What makes it the better option?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It probably won’t take the best researcher to find that information. If that’s what you want to believe you will be able to find evidence to support that. I can find plenty of evidence that people get run over while trying to cross the street, and then claim that people should never cross the street. The real test is to find examples of the use of coercive interrogation that worked and decide if that was justified.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I will look into incidents where coerced confessions were proven false, to support my belief. It may be I shan't find any. I'm not the very best researcher. :-)
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
So far I only have these two examples, as found in the document "Educing Information - Interrogation: Science and Art" by the Intelligence Science Board Phase 1 Report, National Defense Intelligence College.
1) If there was any case whereby harsh interrogation practices would seem justified, it may have been World War II. The world was aware of the atrocities of the Nazi regime and “eye for an eye” seemed to be the rule of the day. The actual record is somewhat surprising: The Western world was so repulsed by the Nazi spectacle that the “high ground” seemed the safest. In fact, the most successful British interrogator was reputedly “Old Tin Eye,” Lieutenant Colonel Robert Stephens at Camp 020, Latchmere House at Ham, on the edge of London. According to his biographer, Alan Judd, his success was a result of thorough preparation by the interrogators, linguistic fl uency, and the right mixture of firmness in questioning and sympathy in handling. Violence of any sort was forbidden. The interrogators who worked at Camp 020 knew the difference between “talking” and “truth.”
2) An account of the conditions in one notorious 13th century inquisitorial prison and their impact on the “truth” paints a grim picture: Some of these cells are dark and airless, so that those lodged there cannot tell if it is day or night…. In other cells there are kept miserable wretches laden with shackles…. These cannot move, but defecate and urinate on themselves. Nor can they lie down except on the frigid ground…. And thus coerced they say that what is false is true, choosing to die once rather than to endure more torture. As a result of these false and coerced confessions not only do those making confessions perish, but so do the innocent people named by them…. Many of those who are newly cited to appear [before the inquisitors], hearing of the torments and trials of those who are detained…assert that what is false is true; in which assertions they accuse not only themselves but other innocent people, that they may avoid the above mentioned pains…. Those who thus confess afterward reveal to their close friends that those things that they said to the inquisitors are not true, but rather false, and they confessed out of imminent danger.
Unfortunately, neither of these examples really meets the criteria of interrogation to get information immediately usable to save lives. I will keep looking.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Stephens
That man was an absolute master of his craft and has my deepest respect not only for that, but for his firm stance against conduct that winds up poisoning the well with garbage.
"Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information"
""Never strike a man, In the first place it is an act of cowardice. In the second place, it is not intelligent. A prisoner will lie to avoid further punishment and everything he says thereafter will be based on a false premise"
He not only broke enemy spies, but in more than one case turned them, and through them their own assets, to the cause of his superiors therefore doubling them against their own intelligence services.
And never, NOT EVEN ONCE, did he have to lift his hand in violence to them in order to do it.
Violence is the last resort of an utterly incompetent interrogator, or one who has a purpose entirely other than obtaining accurate information.
My primary objection to it has always rested on the grounds of it's ineffectiveness rather than any moral stance - but it's true that any commission of violence, even that which is committed in pure self-defense, does harm to the one comitting it as well, just as the use of a hammer damages it, as well as the struck surface.
The latter is a lesson I'd have liked to have learned a lot earlier than I did, to be honest with you.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As for you Rappy, your own disgusting conduct in combination with sychophantism, blatant racism, partisanship, intolerance and sheer petty spitefulness, on top of the abject cowardice you display at the thought of being fed into the maw of a political war machine you cheered the construction of before it fell under the control of people who do not agree with your own distorted and psychotic worldview, compounded by your complete refusal to accept any notion of a worldview different from yours, has rendered you unworthy of my time and effort beyond merely insulting you because it amuses me to grind your gears.
I'll gladly discuss matters with the other adults around here, but I have no more to discuss with you than I do than an exterminator would have with a nest of roaches, since I personally consider you in exactly the same level of regard.
By all means continue to spew the vile filth you seem to have mistaken for logical argument if you like, just don't expect me to bother paying any mind to it unless by some miracle you show evidence of something that might cause me to consider you a human being.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:If I get at the fruit of an orange with a sledgehammer, there’s a good chance there won’t be much orange left. It is true that the sledgehammer is not the best orange peeler, but that doesn’t mean that other ways of peeling an orange won’t be effective. One of the problems with the issue of torture is that so few people have the courage to discussion it with any sort of intellectual honesty. When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.
People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.
All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.
How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??
They weren't exactly boiling them in oil, either. Torture 500 years a go was a slow-building process designed to frighten and cause pain, not kill, just as it is now.
The started with plain interrogation, then progressed to show people the instruments that would be used to torture them, procressed to putting the instruments on without pressure, applied slight pressure, and then increased from there.
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.
Pain, fear of death, exhaustion... it's all the same.
The point to me is not whether torture is justified under certain circumstances of threat, because that assumes that it is reliable and effective. It is NOT reliable and effective. Therefor it is never justified. You never seem to address that point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How reliable or quickly information is obtain depends on a lot. But when you are dealing with a hardened subject, such as some of the terrorist we encounter, you have to face the reality that these people are trained true believers. They aren’t going to spill the beans because you arrest them. In some cases, the perceived danger to life may be sufficient to believe that it is necessary to cut through the resolve of a hardened subjected.
But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.
Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.
It all just seems wholly uneffective.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn:
When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.
No, we're talking about drowning them in water. That's completely different - one is a slow way of killing someone, while the other is a way of killing someone slowly!
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sometimes intel is gotten the Jack bauer way. In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial. In any case, if intel can be corroborated it is. Much of the time it is not and it can’t be. The accuracy of intel is sometimes a fuzzy subject when the need to act is deemed imperative. That’s just the way the world is. The crucial difference between killing in self defense and the use of coercive interrogation is perhaps that the interrogator is not himself in danger. That doesn’t change the fact that a single piece of intel gathered from a single source could in fact save the lives of innocent people.
Cites?
You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rappy bump:
Quote:
Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:
Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.
So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?
By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.
Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...
The utter inability to address the question at hand is really showing up your cowardice, Rappy.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No, we're talking about drowning them in water. That's completely different - one is a slow way of killing someone, while the other is a way of killing someone slowly!
Any evidence that the U.S. has killed anyone by waterboarding them?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.
The fact that you constantly feel the need to express 'rage and anger toward the terrorists' I find more interesting.
The rest of us are calm and objective most of the time in discussing the terrorist threat - why should we be constantly in a rage? Think about it, there's a time for fury and outrage - it's not ALWAYS. That would pretty much make you a crazy person...
I suspect deep down you know this. Either that or you are trying to prove the argument that right wing ideology is 'governed by fear'...?
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Does that it might save lives make it right ?
No. Nothing makes it right to torture someone for information.
However, the prospect of saving lives creates a legal condition known as "exigent circumstances".
Generally this is recognized situations where there is a reasonable belief that life, property, or evidence may be in jeopardy. If this is the case the State may use that as justification to violate a person's Constitutional rights (such as a warrant requirement for entry into a private residence).
"When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry." See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.
The harm is still there, so the mere fact that the lives are on the line does not make it right...rather it mitigates the harm...in effect cancelling out the wrong (ie still not right, but no longer wrong).
In order to effectively judge the correctness of the Bush administration's decsion we need to know the basis of that decision (what they reasonably believed) and the results of the interrogation (terror plots uncovered and lives saved). To that end President Obama should have and should now declassify ALL the memos and records. Should any sort of prosecution be undertaken it is likely those additional memos will be declassified by the Court as they would be essential to the defense.
Frankly, it was irresponsible to declassify the torture memos...but the President chose to do it, now it is completely unreasonable to declassify those without the others to give us the "rest of the story".
Cheney says they stopped a 9/11 second wave attack and saved thousands of lives. If thats true, we deserve to know, if its not...we need to know that too.
Truth is Obama is now in a corner. He's stopped these interrogations, then released the memos, which led to us learning the interrogations were effective in stopping attacks. If we are attacked again then he's completely screwed, if he tries to reverse his policy and it comes out, he's completely screwed. He'd have been better off keeping the whole thing secret so he'd have a card to play should we capture a person with information we need when lives are on the line.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cites?
You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?
How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, in today's news.
Quote:
Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores
Violence is predicted to rise as US troop numbers start to be reduced
In Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives as police distributed aid to a crowd of homeless families, killing at least 28 people.
Another suicide bomber attacked a group of Iranian pilgrims in the north-eastern city of Baquba killing at least 45, reports say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stm
Quote:
Hamas 'killing' Palestinian foes
Hamas must stop killing and torturing its political rivals in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has said.
At least 32 Palestinians have died and several more have been maimed in such cases during and since Israel's January military assault, the group said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007756.stm
I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass murder while ranting about waterboarding. "It's not our country.", "We need to clean up our own house first", and the old reliable "It's all Bush's fault."
But really, isn't the life of the guy trying to run a fruit stand in a Baghdad market as valuable as that of a suspected terorist? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that market deserve at least a precentage of the rage you exhibit over inhumane, but non-lethal, interrogation?
Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So if people started a thread of outrage over every suicide bombing taking place, would they then have your blessing to voice their opposition to torture?
What would the point be? Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cites?
You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?
How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
You mean this memo?
Quote:
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
Yup. Good stuff.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Meanwhile, in today's news.Quote:
Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores
Violence is predicted to rise as US troop numbers start to be reduced
In Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives as police distributed aid to a crowd of homeless families, killing at least 28 people.
Another suicide bomber attacked a group of Iranian pilgrims in the north-eastern city of Baquba killing at least 45, reports say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stmQuote:
Hamas 'killing' Palestinian foes
Hamas must stop killing and torturing its political rivals in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has said.
At least 32 Palestinians have died and several more have been maimed in such cases during and since Israel's January military assault, the group said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007756.stm
I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass murder while ranting about waterboarding. "It's not our country.", "We need to clean up our own house first", and the old reliable "It's all Bush's fault."
But really, isn't the life of the guy trying to run a fruit stand in a Baghdad market as valuable as that of a suspected terorist? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that market deserve at least a precentage of the rage you exhibit over inhumane, but non-lethal, interrogation?
Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Of course, there's a very high probability (99%+) that those suicide bombings wouldn't have happened had we not invaded in the first place...
Hell, maybe the Iraqis should start capturing and torturing - er, I mean "harshly interrogating" - OUR guys, to see if they can save any innocent lives.
Would you agree to that?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, the issue is gray. There is a continuum. But morals- at least according to you- shouldn't be. aren't you engaging in moral relativism?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
More empty, gutless lies and rhetoric from the likes of you. It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.
Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The discussion has wandered way from rappy's original point, BTW. rappy uses terrorists' actions to justify our less worse ones. The discussion has become a cost/benefit one, which isn't quite the same.
So, to specifically address rappys' point: You're setting the bar very low if the only thing you can claim is that we're "not as bad as them."
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The discussion has wandered way from rappy's original point, BTW. rappy uses terrorists' actions to justify our less worse ones. The discussion has become a cost/benefit one, which isn't quite the same.
So, to specifically address rappys' point: You're setting the bar very low if the only thing you can claim is that we're "not as bad as them."
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER:
I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass collateral damage while ranting about suicide bombings. "It's not what we intended.", "They did it on purpose", and the old reliable "It's all Islam's fault." But really, isn't the life of a Sunni family trying to live Mosul as valuable as that of a fruit-stand guy in Baghdad? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that city deserve at least a percentage of the rage you exhibit over suicide bombings? Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.
OR, you could substitute Palestinians and Israelis just as well. My point is: A life is a life, whether it is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian, or Russian or a woman or a child or a young man. Whether is was taken specifically or carelessly (collateral damage).
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:yes, but it wasn't rappy's original point. Also, nobody has addressed his paranoid rantings that "the left" WANTS thousands more killed as part of a power-grab. Rappy's original points have - thankfully- been derailed by more rational ones. I just wanted to go back and address his specifically,
But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?
ETA- just to point out what a nut-case he is.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:yes, but it wasn't rappy's original point. Also, nobody has addressed his paranoid rantings that "the left" WANTS thousands more killed as part of a power-grab. Rappy's original points have - thankfully- been derailed by more rational ones. I just wanted to go back and address his specifically.
But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
That's true. Until I just reread it, I had completely forgotten the giggle-fit I had when I first read his post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?
Just makes me wonder why you have to repeatedly voice your outrage over torture that has ceased, and never about the on-going carnage and cruelty. There are currently three or four threads ongoing about waterboarding, but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW Finn... Your points seem to be primarily imaginary. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios and I'm not talking about real life and I can't provide details.. Yanno what? The script-writers of "24" can imagine all kinds of scenarios too. So can I. But we're talking about REAL LIFE stuff. Real interrogations on real people with real consequences- moral, security, political.
Part of the issue is whether the same information could be gained any other way. The other part is: WHY did they have to waterboard 2 people a total of 266 times? What was THAT all about?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:or the daily death that occurs in Africa due to starvation? Or the number of fatalities due to air pollution?
but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?
Just makes me wonder why you have to repeatedly voice your outrage over torture that has ceased, and never about the on-going carnage and cruelty. There are currently three or four threads ongoing about waterboarding, but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I don't think people are primarily arguing about specific instances of torture but about the more abstract conflict between "Torture is effectice, reliable and justified" and "Torture is ineffective, unreliable and not justified". It's a conflict of values and ideas. That's why it never gets old.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER:
"It's all Islam's fault."...OR, you could substitute Palestinians and Israelis just as well.
Find any statement I've made that blames Islam, or Palestinians, or Israelis as a group for anything. I am very specific in accusing the actual perpetrators of bombings, etc. not whole groups.
Quote:
My point is: A life is a life, whether it is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian, or Russian or a woman or a child or a young man. Whether is was taken specifically or carelessly (collateral damage).
True. So where's the outrage when it's not the U.S. (or Israel) causing the collateral damage? Where's the outrage when civilians are specifically targeted? Why more outrage about non-lethal waterboarding that's no longer being done than about very lethal car-bombs that are used daily?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.
And yet, you engage in the exact same behavior. Everyone has to agree ONE HUNDRE PERCENT with you, or they're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGAINST YOU. There's no middle of the road for you, no compromise. You treat all liberals as a specific "race" - and you feel that you are superior to them, and they inferior to you. You spew the words "liberal" and "Left" as if they were racial slurs.
And then you act surprised when the same is hurled back at you.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:or the daily death that occurs in Africa due to starvation? Or the number of fatalities due to air pollution?
but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.
Well, I did try and get people here interested in the mis-management of Zimbabwe by the Mugabe government, but interest - judging by responses - was pretty low. Have also noted the starvation in North Korea. Again, no interest.
It pretty much seems that if you can't blame it on the U.S., no one here is very interested in any disaster or crisis.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for the link, Hero, but really, it tells me squat. So they waterboarded some dudes 226 times & LA didn't go boom. I killed an ant in the kitchen & my hot water still flows.
Originally posted by Hero:
How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.
CONNECTION please?? Oh, they can't talk specifics, eh? So it's useless hearsay as far as I'm concerned.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You dolt! We respond in greater intensity to things we CAN directly do something about (voting) than stuff we cannot touch. We ALL hate suffering, but when WE cause it, WE get more immediately irritated.
Originally posted by Geezer:
It pretty much seems that if you can't blame it on the U.S., no one here is very interested in any disaster or crisis.
Geeze, you were singing this song when I joined in 2005, time to retire it, dude.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Oops.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The difference is that coercive interrogation techniques are used with the intent of finding information. Witch trials and inquisitions were used with the intent of extracting confessing and then execution.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which instances, specifically, sir?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, well, that certainly proves it; someone SAID it. That's good enough for me!
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Oops.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They seem prepared to withstand questioning in general. And they could just as easily lie under normal interrogation. Coercion is used to penetrate that resolve. The interrogation process is not made any easier by it. One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.
Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.
It all just seems wholly uneffective.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY
Quote:"False, baseless portrayal" from the guy who accuses "the left" of WANTING thousands of people killed? Of saying that we want chaos?
Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.
C'mom, rappy! SURELY you understand that you are at least as guilty of false, baseless portrayals as anyone else here! Shit, man, you STARTED the whole thread with one! Admit your part in this. You spew so much one-sided shit and venom that nobody takes you seriously anymore. Man up.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which means corroboration with information gathered by other techniques. It's like the confessions extracted from suspects... or even those people who voluntarily confess to crimes they didn't commit just because they're bat-shit crazy. Those confessions have to be weighted against other evidence. In police-work, circumstantial evidence is actually MORE RELIABLE than either confessions eyewitness accounts. I imagine- since we're into the realm of imagining scenarios- that the same holds true for counter-terrorism.
One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:The difference is that coercive interrogation techniques are used with the intent of finding information. Witch trials and inquisitions were used with the intent of extracting confessing and then execution.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.
Which makes them different how?
Are you arguing moral difference or actual technical difference of types of torture? Because the former I disagree with and the latter I simply don't see.
Plus, the witch hunters were operating on their own conviction that they were protecting the public from what could be considered magical terrorists. They tortured for confessions and also to get the names of accomplices, of meeting points, common practices, plans... I'm not saying that terrorists are as nonsical a threat as witches were, but that torture is a nonsensical method of getting reliable information quickly, which is illustrated by the fact that these nonsensical confessions and "intel" were revealed during torture.
Those with something to hide will have an easier time hiding it by lying. Those with nothing to hide cannot prove it by withstanding torture. Pain and fear don't force truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- We tortured someone so we could learn about al Qaida's chain of command???? (A chain which morphs as circumstances require.)
AFA decrying killing- I'm pissed off as all hell about the Somali government. In fact, there are a LOT of leaders I think should be locked up and the key thrown away, and in my more base moments I imagine strung up by their balls. (Kinda like the CEOs and CFOs that sold us down the river.) But, to be perfectly honest: We are here to persuade or dissuade each other- a primarily American audience with an American government. There's nothing we can do to the Somali government or for the Somali people, especially when aid is hijacked and aid-workers are held for ransom. Anything we do, we do through our government. That's why the focus is on what OUR GOVERNMENT does.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. Moral relativism would be like arguing that it’s more acceptable for terrorists to kill innocent people because they’re terrorists but outraged because the US used coercive interrogation, because we’re Americans. That would be more relativism, which is an argument I’m not making, but one that some of you have.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, the issue is gray. There is a continuum. But morals- at least according to you- shouldn't be. aren't you engaging in moral relativism?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:They seem prepared to withstand questioning in general. And they could just as easily lie under normal interrogation. Coercion is used to penetrate that resolve. The interrogation process is not made any easier by it. One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.
Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.
It all just seems wholly uneffective.
So if the information extracted is just as likely to be false as during non-torture interrogation, why bother? You win nothing. I sincerely doubt that pain is going to motivate any fanatic to suddenly sell out their ideals when they could just as easily lie and obfuscate, so "penetrating that resolve" doesn't seem like something that would happen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So moral relativism is saying that its better to kill someone even thought you weren't specifically targeting them, than to kill someone on purpose? Does "intent" come into this? Or just the final outcome?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
They seem prepared to withstand questioning in general. And they could just as easily lie under normal interrogation. Coercion is used to penetrate that resolve. The interrogation process is not made any easier by it. One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.
If there is still a question of validity than why risk infringing on human rights? Why risk damaging our country's image? Why risk the sanity of interrogators?
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’ve already told you how they are different. The US doesn’t use, to my understanding, any coercive interrogation that is solely intended to extract confessions and/or kill the suspect. They aren’t the same thing.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Perhaps because there is reason to believe that lives are at stake.
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If there is still a question of validity than why risk infringing on human rights? Why risk damaging our country's image? Why risk the sanity of interrogators?
Quote:No more so then the question of killing in self defense. You’re killing another person to benefit yourself in that case? How do you feel about killing in self-defense?
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, so in your mind INTENT is the key difference? We torture, but we don't "intend" to kill? And when we do kill, we kill for a good cause, and kinda by accident? So even if our means are questionable our goals are good?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A crime is a crime. Torture isn't worse than murder, but it's still a fucking crime.
And you chickenshits justifying it as not being torture are cowardly little chumps afraid to face the truth. Our country long ago designated waterboarding as torture, and imprisoned many apanese for that very crime.
You excuses are meaningless.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, moral relativism means that you are applying different judgments to different cultures. The acceptable morals are relative based on culture or ethnicity or environment.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So moral relativism is saying that its better to kill someone even thought you weren't specifically targeting them, than to kill someone on purpose? Does "intent" come into this? Or just the final outcome?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.
Not to muddy the water with facts, but the memos that just came out state that the torture of Iraqis was not conducted to save 1000's of lives, but to establish a link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, in other words, political CYA for an unjustified war.
And for 100 years, according to the Geneva Conventions which our nation upheld until the Bush Admin. decided to pretend it was legal and appropriate, waterboarding was a serious issue, was considered torture, and outside the authoritarian fringe, it is still a serious issue and is still considered torture.
One wonders how far you would be willing to further move the goal post, since we are a long long way away from frat hazing here.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The intent does motivate methods. If the intent is to find information, then it doesn’t really do that much good to torture a person to point that he can no longer provide truthful information. On the other hand, if the intent is to extract confessions, then that is exactly what you want to do. There is a difference.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, so in your mind INTENT is the key difference? We torture, but we don't "intend" to kill? And when we do kill, we kill for a good cause, and kinda by accident? So even if our means are questionable our goals are good?.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's kind of what I'm getting at. If you had simply said that it's worse to kill a lot of people with a car bomb than it is to waterboard a single person I would agree. OTOH it seems to make a difference to you WHO is doing the killing, and for what reason. It's not okay for "terrorists" to kill people with car bombs, but okay for "governments" to kill people with missiles?
Signym, moral relativism means that you are applying different judgments to different cultures. The acceptable morals are relative based on culture or ethnicity or environment.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How do you feel about someone walking off a cliff?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How do you feel about killing in self-defense?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So if the information extracted is just as likely to be false as during non-torture interrogation, why bother? You win nothing. I sincerely doubt that pain is going to motivate any fanatic to suddenly sell out their ideals when they could just as easily lie and obfuscate, so "penetrating that resolve" doesn't seem like something that would happen.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I smell some moral relativism comin' off that statement.
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's not okay for "terrorists" to kill people with car bombs, but okay for "governments" to kill people with missiles?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I’ve already told you how they are different. The US doesn’t use, to my understanding, any coercive interrogation that is solely intended to extract confessions and/or kill the suspect. They aren’t the same thing.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?
But they did not torture to kill. They tortured for information along with confession.
The killing might have happened accidentally. It was not the intent. They were going to be publicly executed afterwards.
And I still don't understand how torturing for a confession is different from torturing for any other kind of information. How is it different? Do you think people respond that differently to "Say you are a witch" than they do to "Say where the bomb is"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Depending on what's being targeted, it might not be okay either way.
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's kind of what I'm getting at. If you had simply said that it's worse to kill a lot of people with a car bomb than it is to waterboard a single person I would agree. OTOH it seems to make a difference to you WHO is doing the killing, and for what reason. It's not okay for "terrorists" to kill people with car bombs, but okay for "governments" to kill people with missiles?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Crack is the key word. If one is willing to die, letting go of sanity for the cause is no biggie.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.
I don't know that you've taken that into account.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's get rid of the question "Is waterboarding torture?" for the moment. Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Right?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So if the information extracted is just as likely to be false as during non-torture interrogation, why bother? You win nothing. I sincerely doubt that pain is going to motivate any fanatic to suddenly sell out their ideals when they could just as easily lie and obfuscate, so "penetrating that resolve" doesn't seem like something that would happen.
And what are those circumstances? How can the torturers know whether the victim is telling the truth or a lie? Do they just keep torturing on and check later? Do they stop each time to check and then start again? Do you increase the intensity of the torture further and further each time a lie was proven?
At what point does it go too far and at what point does the excuse of imminent danger run out of time?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The whole process was designed to extract a confession. The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But they did not torture to kill. They tortured for information along with confession.
The killing might have happened accidentally. It was not the intent. They were going to be publicly executed afterwards.
Quote:Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And I still don't understand how torturing for a confession is different from torturing for any other kind of information. How is it different? Do you think people respond that differently to "Say you are a witch" than they do to "Say where the bomb is"?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's get rid of the question "Is waterboarding torture?" for the moment and focus on your last statement. Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Electric shock. Pulling fingernails. Right? As long as doctors are there to control the infection, revive if necessary, keep the person alive and available for further questioning.
The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
Where do YOU draw the line?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And what are those circumstances? How can the torturers know whether the victim is telling the truth or a lie? Do they just keep torturing on and check later? Do they stop each time to check and them start again? Do you increase the intensity of the torture further and further each time a lie was proven?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Predictably deflective.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The whole process was designed to extract a confession. The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
Yes. But they didn't necessarily know that.
Quote:Quote:Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And I still don't understand how torturing for a confession is different from torturing for any other kind of information. How is it different? Do you think people respond that differently to "Say you are a witch" than they do to "Say where the bomb is"?
Don't you think that's kind of an arrogant thing to say? You insist there is a difference, so you can kindly explain to me what that difference is. You're not even trying to explain, you just keep stating that there is one. I'm asking HOW they are different.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:and
I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.
Quote:Let's get rid of the question "Is waterboarding torture?" for the moment and focus on your last statement. Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Electric shock. Pulling fingernails. Right? As long as doctors are there to control the infection, revive if necessary, keep the person alive and available for further questioning. Because it's all about "effective interrogation", right?
The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
Where do YOU draw the line?
And why?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and just so it doens't get lost in the shuffle: RAPPY
Quote:"False, baseless portrayal" from the guy who accuses "the left" of WANTING thousands of people killed? Of saying that we want chaos?
Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.
C'mom, rappy! SURELY you understand that you are at least as guilty of false, baseless portrayals as anyone else here! Shit, man, you STARTED the whole thread with one! Admit your part in this. You spew so much one-sided shit and venom that nobody takes you seriously anymore.
Man up.
---------------------------------
Rappy? Is anybody home????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s not what I said. Nothing I’ve said even suggests that. It seems to me that inflicting injury is more likely to result in shock then diminished resolve. I think I've been pretty clear in drawing a line between extracting confessions and interrogation.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's get rid of the question "Is waterboarding torture?" for the moment. Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Electric shock. Pulling fingernails. Right? As long as doctors are there to control the infection, revive if necessary, keep the person alive and available for further questioning.
And by the way, this is an example of you telling people what their opinion is.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And what are those circumstances? How can the torturers know whether the victim is telling the truth or a lie? Do they just keep torturing on and check later? Do they stop each time to check and them start again? Do you increase the intensity of the torture further and further each time a lie was proven?
Kind of a non-answer.
Are you saying that sleep-deprivation is a good kind of torture or are you saying torture them until they can't stand it anymore (which is silly because they could well start lying early and keep lying when they are echausted)?
And where and how does verification come into this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They did know it. They whole process was designed around sending the suspect to either heaven or hell.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Yes. But they didn't necessarily know that.
Quote:It’s not arrogant at all. I explained to you how they are different. You don’t have to accept the explanation, but asking me to explain the difference over and over again because you don’t like the answer I gave you is not conducive to discussion. So I don’t know where else we can go with that line of questioning.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Don't you think that's kind of an arrogant thing to say? You insist there is a difference, so you can kindly explain to me what that difference is. You're not even trying to explain, you just keep stating that there is one. I'm asking HOW they are different.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hell, Frem, it's EASY to control shock. You're putting up artificial barriers of "Can't be done" when in fact it CAN be done. Just keep a couple of cooperative doctors around with epinephrine and glucose.
It seems to me that inflicting injury is more likely to result in shock then diminished resolve.
So, eliminating the (non)issue of "shock" creating an ineffective interrogation context why would you not use boiling oil, electric shock, and fingernail/ toenal extraction?
Quote:Apparently not because I'm not the only one wh'o' asking for a clarification. So please explain it because so far the only differences that I got out of it was (1) one is intended to kill and (2) too much pain causes shock, which creates an ineffective response.
I think I've been pretty clear in drawing a line between extracting confessions and interrogation.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re asking me about details of the trade. I’m not an interrogator, so I don’t know how detailed I can explain the process. If you query me on the details of basket weaving you’ll get just as vague a response.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Kind of a non-answer.
Quote:Ah, so there is a distinction between interrogation and extracting confessions. The first, sleep-deprivation, would be a method of interrogation designed to weaken the will of the suspect. The later would be a means of extracting confessions designed to force the suspect to say what you want to hear.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Are you saying that sleep-deprivation is a good kind of torture or are you saying torture them until they can't stand it anymore (which is silly because they could well start lying early and keep lying when they are echausted)?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree that they knew they would necessarily die. Why else were there all these "tests" to see if someone was actually a witch? The theory was that you'd withstand torture if you were innocent. A theory that soon found its critics even in those times.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not arrogant at all. I explained to you how they are different. You don’t have to accept the explanation, but asking me to explain the difference over and over again because you don’t like the answer I gave you is not conducive to discussion. So I don’t know where else we can go with that line of questioning.
Okay, honestly. I'm not trying to be irritating, but I have not noticed you explaining the difference. Maybe I didn't catch it from your words.
So, I guess, in the interest of clarity I will request you to be so kind and restate in very specific terms the exact difference is between torturing for a confession and torturing for information. Please.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:See Finn? You think you're being very clear, but you're not. Clearly!
Okay, honestly. I'm not trying to be irritating, but I have not noticed you explaining the difference. Maybe I didn't catch it from your words.
But as I gather from your statements- It all goes back to INTENT. "Interrogation" is anything that you do to break a person with the intent of getting the truth. That COULD include electric shock, or boiling oil, if in the eyes of the interrogator it was necessary or helpful. The one thing it COULDN'T include is death, because at that point no more information is available. (Unless of course the interrogator thought that all useful information had been extracted and simply didn't want the victim to go squealing to the press later.) Whereas "extracting a confession" is anything you can do to break a person with the INTENT of getting them to tell you what you want to hear!
Right? So thank you for the clarification! (You moral relativist, you!)
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:No more so then the question of killing in self defense. You’re killing another person to benefit yourself in that case? How do you feel about killing in self-defense?
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?
There is an immediacy and fear of death that we're disconnecting on here. I don't feel torture coercion is appropriate in interrogation for even terrorists who threaten to bomb my hometown.
I do feel it might become necessary to defend my own life with equal fierceness if a real and present physical attack is currently upon my person or a person near me.
While I'm here, I'll just add the loss of life in war, suicide bombings, accidental deaths, and genocide are equally upsetting to me.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME