REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 04:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15032
PAGE 2 of 10

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

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.
or the daily death that occurs in Africa due to starvation? Or the number of fatalities due to air pollution?



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.


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. 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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:45 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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.


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.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:47 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:48 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial.

Which instances, specifically, sir?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:50 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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.




Oh, well, that certainly proves it; someone SAID it. That's good enough for me!



The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:52 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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.

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RAPPY
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.
"False, baseless portrayal" from the guy who accuses "the left" of WANTING thousands of people killed? Of saying that we want chaos?

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

One still must decide if what they are being told is the truth regardless of the techniques used.
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.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:10 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.

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.




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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:13 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:14 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

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.

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:16 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:16 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:19 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?

Perhaps because there is reason to believe that lives are at stake.
Quote:

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?

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?



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:22 AM

STORYMARK


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:22 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?

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.




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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:23 AM

HKCAVALIER


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:26 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?.

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.
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?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:28 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How do you feel about killing in self-defense?


How do you feel about someone walking off a cliff?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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.

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:30 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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?


I smell some moral relativism comin' off that statement.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:30 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Which makes them different how?

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.




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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?

Depending on what's being targeted, it might not be okay either way.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.


Crack is the key word. If one is willing to die, letting go of sanity for the cause is no biggie.
I don't know that you've taken that into account.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:35 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

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.

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.




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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:35 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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.

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.
Quote:

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"?

Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
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.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:40 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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?

Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.


Predictably deflective.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:43 AM

AGENTROUKA


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:

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"?

Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.
and
Quote:

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.
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?

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, and just so it doens't get lost in the shuffle: RAPPY
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.
"False, baseless portrayal" from the guy who accuses "the left" of WANTING thousands of people killed? Of saying that we want chaos?

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:49 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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.

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.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:53 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

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?

Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect.




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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Yes. But they didn't necessarily know that.

They did know it. They whole process was designed around sending the suspect to either heaven or hell.
Quote:

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.

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It seems to me that inflicting injury is more likely to result in shock then diminished resolve.
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.
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:

I think I've been pretty clear in drawing a line between extracting confessions and interrogation.
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.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:59 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Kind of a non-answer.

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.
Quote:

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)?

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.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:04 AM

AGENTROUKA


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

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.
See Finn? You think you're being very clear, but you're not. Clearly!

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:08 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
If it's not a moral question of harming another person to benefit yourself than what it is?

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?



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL