450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 7 of 46
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