NationStates Jolt Archive

dude. just, dude. what the fuck happened to bring us to this point?


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

John McCain: Torture Worked on Me


Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.

Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!

In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain describes how he was severely injured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi - and how his North Vietnamese interrogators used his injuries to extract information.

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate," he wrote.

"I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."

The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

Recalling how he gave up military information to his interrogators, McCain said: "I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number."

The episode wasn't the only instance when McCain broke under physical pressure.

Just after his release in May 1973, he detailed his experience as a P.O.W. in a lengthy account in U.S. News & World Report.

He described the day Hanoi Hilton guards beat him "from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes."

"For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards . . . Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope."

McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities."

"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

That McCain broke under torture doesn't make him any less of an American hero. But it does prove he's wrong to claim that harsh interrogation techniques simply don't work.

so are these crazy fucks actually intending to say that mccain really did commit war crimes? and that torturing him was the best way to get him to admit it? i'm not sure they thought this line of attack through quite far enough.

Didn't seem to really think that through, did he?

dude. just, dude. what the fuck happened to bring us to this point?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml
so are these crazy fucks actually intending to say that mccain really did commit war crimes? and that torturing him was the best way to get him to admit it? i'm not sure they thought this line of attack through quite far enough.

Yup, you gotta love the logic! "They got him to admit to things he didn't do with torture, therefore torture works!" :rolleyes:

But, hey, let's just forget how despicably they treated him, that's apparently a side issue to this circularity. :rolleyes:

Yes, I have to roll my eyes once more because this article is so stupid. :rolleyes:

The Bushevik Revolution is still going on strong.

Didn't seem to really think that through, did he?

sadly, i suspect they actually did and decided coherence and rational thought weren't as important as demanding there be more torture and human rights abuses.

interesting times we live in, no?

Yup, you gotta love the logic! "They got him to admit to things he didn't do with torture, therefore torture works!" :rolleyes:

But, hey, let's just forget how despicably they treated him, that's apparently a side issue to this circularity. :rolleyes:

Yes, I have to roll my eyes once more because this article is so stupid. :rolleyes:

gotta love circular logic...lol

gotta love circular logic...lol

the last bastion of stupidity....:sniper:

I'm not surprised any more, I'm just not.

These are the same group of people who attacked Sen McCain in 2000.
Who attacked Sen Kerry's service record in 2004.
Who have attacked any vet who disagrees with President Bush, and do so all the while holding up as virtueous, rightous, and perfect a man who got his daddy to get him a position with the air guard to get out of Vietnam service, and another who had 'Other priorities'.

I'm really no longer surprised.

Interesting. Torture works because it makes people confess to things they didn't do, and in doing so we could be compared to the Vietnamese army.

Sounds like a winner, folks! I'm convinced -- we need to beat two shades of purple out of everybody we capture from now one, whether they've actually been found guilty of anything or not. Because even if they haven't, they'll confess to something eventually!

Gotta love stupid people...

...But you have to fucking hate them at the same time. Sad thing, inverse relationships.

Interesting. Torture works because it makes people confess to things they didn't do, and in doing so we could be compared to the Vietnamese army.


Remember the good ol' Inquisition? Those were the days.:)

I can just see the neocons crawling all over this to proclaim that it works.

"Are you a terrorist?"

"No"

*crunch*

"Are you a terrorist?"

"Aaah! My fingers! No! I'm not"

*snap*

"Are you a terrorist?"

"My arm! Noooooo!"

(and it goes on until "yes")

If your goal is to get people to sign false confessions, then it works.
If your goal is to get information that you will then cross-reference with other information to verify its accuracy, then it works.

I think McCain's point is that you can get anyone to talk, or get anyone to confess. In that sense, it works.

It sure worked on Khalid Sheik Muhammed, who lasted only a bit longer than a few minutes while being waterboarded.

It has its limitations - you still have to verify what was said, because someone being tortured will say just about anything.

I would also note that there are some forms of deception that some people regard as "torture" even though no pain is inflicted. A common technique is injecting the prisoner with a harmless saline solution and telling them it is a truth drug. Many hardcore people are really only looking for something they can use as an excuse ("I talked only after they gave me this drug"). It not only works, but when people do talk, they give accurate information.

I REALLY, REALLY HOPE THIS ARTICLE IS BEGINNING SARCASTIC. REALLY, I DO.

If not, my faith in humanity was just slipped a few more rungs.:(

Some torture monkeys will find any reasoning they can to justify dehumanization, even if it doesn't make any sense.
the last bastion of stupidity....:sniper:Really? The very last one? I think stupid is still going strong.

If your goal is to get people to sign false confessions, then it works.
If your goal is to get information that you will then cross-reference with other information to verify its accuracy, then it works.

I think McCain's point is that you can get anyone to talk, or get anyone to confess. In that sense, it works.

It sure worked on Khalid Sheik Muhammed, who lasted only a bit longer than a few minutes while being waterboarded.

It has its limitations - you still have to verify what was said, because someone being tortured will say just about anything.

I would also note that there are some forms of deception that some people regard as "torture" even though no pain is inflicted. A common technique is injecting the prisoner with a harmless saline solution and telling them it is a truth drug. Many hardcore people are really only looking for something they can use as an excuse ("I talked only after they gave me this drug"). It not only works, but when people do talk, they give accurate information.

Torture may work, in a very limited and unreliable way. That's probably why Saddam Hussein used it. Does that mean that we should use it too? Nope.

dude. just, dude. what the fuck happened to bring us to this point?


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml



so are these crazy fucks actually intending to say that mccain really did commit war crimes? and that torturing him was the best way to get him to admit it? i'm not sure they thought this line of attack through quite far enough.
This is Newsmax--thinking isn't their strong suit.

If you have the information available to cross reference with what you get out of torture, then why do you need to torture in the first place?

In the "ticking bomb" scenario, you'd just go with the original information...why waste time torturing?

Basically, those who go along with the idea of torture are beyond hope already. They'll go along with anything they are told (as long as it isn;t told to them by an evil "bleeding heart.")

Torture is known to be an unreliable method of extracting information. But that isn't the point anyway. Torture isn't about information, or justice, or even revenge. It's about power. It demonstrates to the torturers that they have power over the people they are torturing.

In other words, only a pathetic wanker who needs to feel powerful in order to disguise his own inadequacy would ever use, or support the use of, torture.

:rolleyes:

Torture may work, in a very limited and unreliable way. That's probably why Saddam Hussein used it. Does that mean that we should use it too? Nope.
The limitations are in what you bother to verify.

In intelligence work, you never rely on a single source. Even if you don't receive information via torture, you never rely on a single source.

There are many times when "torture" works. Khalid Sheik Muhammed gave up a long list of senior and mid-level al-Qaeda names and their locations - which were ultimately verified. It took just a few minutes of simulated drowning.

There are other activities, such as outright deception, that some would classify as "torture" and other would not. There are even some who say that the mere asking of questions, no matter how nicely done, is "torture" since the person being questioned is obviously in a psychologically powerless and dependent state.

So, would you say that asking questions of detainees is also wrong?

It sure worked on Khalid Sheik Muhammed, who lasted only a bit longer than a few minutes while being waterboarded.

It has its limitations - you still have to verify what was said, because someone being tortured will say just about anything.

I have yet to see this confirmed, that it worked and yielded credible information. And also that it only took a few minutes.

I have yet to see this confirmed, that it worked and yielded credible information. And also that it only took a few minutes.

He apparently holds the record for resisting waterboarding. 2 minutes 15 seconds.

Most people don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Done correctly, you're never really at risk of drowning - you're tied to a board, and there's plastic wrap over your face (you can breathe, but only if you breathe slowly and don't gasp). They take your shirt off, and invert you, and pour water on your back.

Your body, whether you like it or not, and whether you have seen this done before or not, will react as though you are drowning. You will retch and gag and gasp for breath as though you were drowning - pure reflex action. And your brain will be convinced that you are drowning. It goes on for as long as they keep the water running - you're never in any danger, but there's no way to make your brain believe it.

He apparently holds the record for resisting waterboarding. 2 minutes 15 seconds.

Most people don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Done correctly, you're never really at risk of drowning - you're tied to a board, and there's plastic wrap over your face (you can breathe, but only if you breathe slowly and don't gasp). They take your shirt off, and invert you, and pour water on your back.

Your body, whether you like it or not, and whether you have seen this done before or not, will react as though you are drowning. You will retch and gag and gasp for breath as though you were drowning - pure reflex action. And your brain will be convinced that you are drowning. It goes on for as long as they keep the water running - you're never in any danger, but there's no way to make your brain believe it.

ahh, there's no way like the American way!

He apparently holds the record for resisting waterboarding. 2 minutes 15 seconds.

Most people don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Done correctly, you're never really at risk of drowning - you're tied to a board, and there's plastic wrap over your face (you can breathe, but only if you breathe slowly and don't gasp). They take your shirt off, and invert you, and pour water on your back.

Your body, whether you like it or not, and whether you have seen this done before or not, will react as though you are drowning. You will retch and gag and gasp for breath as though you were drowning - pure reflex action. And your brain will be convinced that you are drowning. It goes on for as long as they keep the water running - you're never in any danger, but there's no way to make your brain believe it.
I think the key words were "credible information." There's no question that torture will yield an answer or answers--the question is whether it will yield credible information instead of just what the person being tortured thinks the torturers want to hear.

I think the key words were "credible information." There's no question that torture will yield an answer or answers--the question is whether it will yield credible information instead of just what the person being tortured thinks the torturers want to hear.
No source of information is "credible" until it is corroborated through a separate source.

Not even satellite photos are credible, unless you can corroborate what you see in another way.

One of the main interrogation techniques is to immediately separate people on capture in order to prevent them from collaborating on a story together. Not all need to be tortured - some will break or collaborate willingly. Others are interrogated by separate teams who do not know the results from the other interrogations.

Drugs that induce short term memory loss are used to keep the questioned from remembering what lies they told, or what questions were asked. Repeat sessions, and the cross reference of information from the other captured personnel gives you results.

Interrogation is not ALL torture - most of it is convincing the person in question that for them, the war is over. This can be done in different ways, depending on the psychological makeup of the person. Some require major deception, and others require torture in order to talk.

To some human rights advocates, any questioning of any kind, even asking their name, is torture. They say that the psychological overburden of being captured and imprisoned, no matter how pleasantly done, is a power and control situation that psychologically oppresses the detainee.

So, if we want to be the men in the white hats, and live up to a standard as high as you can possibly hold it in the name of human rights, we shouldn't even ask them their names, or any questions at all.

Done correctly, you're never really at risk of drowning

sort of like how not actually having a gun when you hand the teller a note that says "i have a gun, give me all of the money" keeps you from being guilty of armed robbery.

oh wait...

sort of like how not actually having a gun when you hand the teller a note that says "i have a gun, give me all of the money" keeps you from being guilty of armed robbery.

oh wait...
I'm not saying it's not torture - I'm saying it's not lethal. I suppose someone could have a heart attack from the fear...

When word gets out that a foreign nation has been actively torturing Americans, we can all thank Cheney and Rumsfeld for giving the rest of the world the green light.

Just like they did with the craptastic concept of Pre-Emptive Strike, which I like to call The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine.

Just like they did with the craptastic concept of Pre-Emptive Strike, which I like to call The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine.

Not like the US invented it.

Not like the US invented it.

Of course if say for example, India or Pakistan decides to open up full bore on each other with the publically declared excuse of "We were under imminent danger so we did it" then the US really doesn't have a moral high ground to stand on to say "No you can't do that," which will be the natural response to a shitstorm like that.

Of course if say for example, India or Pakistan decides to open up full bore on each other with the publically declared excuse of "We were under imminent danger so we did it" then the US really doesn't have a moral high ground to stand on to say "No you can't do that," which will be the natural response to a shitstorm like that.

No, it's the job of the UN to stand on the "moral high ground" and pontificate uselessly.

I think the current US policy is to tell people to stop doing it because if you don't, we'll wreck your country. No morality involved.

I think you're applying the "moral high ground" thing.

Interesting. Torture works because it makes people confess to things they didn't do, and in doing so we could be compared to the Vietnamese army.


They got loads more infomation out of him too, not just his confession

so what gives the US the specific right to wreck people's countries?

They got loads more infomation out of him too, not just his confession


And that info would be?

No, it's the job of the UN to stand on the "moral high ground" and pontificate uselessly.

I think the current US policy is to tell people to stop doing it because if you don't, we'll wreck your country. No morality involved.

I think you're applying the "moral high ground" thing.
Actually, if you read the speeches of practically every US president who has ever used military force in other countries, it always comes back to the notion that the US is on the moral high ground. Reagan's "shining city on a hill" pops immediately to mind, but I'm pretty sure you could find other situations where the use of military force, even for blatant imperialistic land grabs, was couched in terms of morality.

so what gives the US the specific right to wreck people's countries?
Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

Morality and ethics are an illusion - just another game that nations and groups play in order to gain advantage over one another in different venues.

We can do it because we have the technical ability and the will to do it.

Actually, if you read the speeches of practically every US president who has ever used military force in other countries, it always comes back to the notion that the US is on the moral high ground. Reagan's "shining city on a hill" pops immediately to mind, but I'm pretty sure you could find other situations where the use of military force, even for blatant imperialistic land grabs, was couched in terms of morality.

And you believed what Reagan was saying? I can hardly believe it...

dude. just, dude. what the fuck happened to bring us to this point?


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml



so are these crazy fucks actually intending to say that mccain really did commit war crimes? and that torturing him was the best way to get him to admit it? i'm not sure they thought this line of attack through quite far enough.

No, they're just proving McCain factually wrong. Torture got the North Vietnamese what they wanted. Their argument would be that if they could get McCain to sign a false confession, we could get terrorists to get real information.

Note that I don't agree with them. Torture is generally bad, and McCain's bill is a good thing. However, their argument isn't as dumb as you think it is.

And you believed what Reagan was saying? I can hardly believe it...
Where did you get that from? I know our history, and how little morality plays into any decision. I was saying that the rhetoric always invokes morality, that for a long time we've talked, through our leaders, this great game as regards morality, even though we never actually follow through on it in practice. It was in response to your statement that it was the UN's job to pontificate--I was merely saying that we do it all the time too.

Actually, if you read the speeches of practically every US president who has ever used military force in other countries, it always comes back to the notion that the US is on the moral high ground. Reagan's "shining city on a hill" pops immediately to mind, but I'm pretty sure you could find other situations where the use of military force, even for blatant imperialistic land grabs, was couched in terms of morality.

William McKinley: "to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them."

They were "our little brown brothers," Governor General William Howard Taft later said.

Source: Ghttp://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:csuOCS9r7jsJ:memory.loc.gov/ammem/papr/nycamcen.html+%22educate+the+Filipinos,+and+uplift+and+civilize%22&hl=en&start=1

Where did you get that from? I know our history, and how little morality plays into any decision. I was saying that the rhetoric always invokes morality, that for a long time we've talked, through our leaders, this great game as regards morality, even though we never actually follow through on it in practice. It was in response to your statement that it was the UN's job to pontificate--I was merely saying that we do it all the time too.
Ah. Well, some of the people who believe in the UN actually believe the pontification.

I certainly don't.

So he signed a document getting him to admit to things he never did... Sounds effective to me:rolleyes:

(The first example is valid, the second one is idiotic)

No source of information is "credible" until it is corroborated through a separate source.

Not even satellite photos are credible, unless you can corroborate what you see in another way.

I disagree with your apparent interpretation of the word "credible". It is commonly used to describe if information is plausible or capable of being believed, not if it's the truth or a fact. To try to determine the truth of a matter, you may need additional sources.

In a court of law, the judge has to determine the credibility of a witness - if he is a habitual liar, his statements are less credible than those of an average person. Also if he is coerced, the credibility of his statements will be lower.

For example, satellite photos are highly credible as the pictures of the ground show exactly what is there. There are very good reasons to believe them. Even if the tanks featured on the photos only are fakes planted there by the opposition in a deliberate attempt to decieve and the truth is that there are no real tanks, then the photos will still have a high credibility.

So my question is, is a statement that is given following a round of torture something you have any reason whatsoever to believe? Was the information that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may have given in that situation credible?

That is what I have not found any confirmation of.

So he signed a document getting him to admit to things he never did... Sounds effective to me:rolleyes:

(The first example is valid, the second one is idiotic)

I think the point is that if I torture you, I can get you to do anything.

Not only admit to things you never did, but you'll tell me anything else I want to know as well.

All I have to do is cross-reference that information with another source.

So if I capture four insurgents, immediately separate them, and torture them separately, I'm going to get four sets of answers. I can correlate the answers and I will definitely get valuable information.

Very effective.

I disagree with your apparent interpretation of the word "credible". It is commonly used to describe if information is plausible or capable of being believed, not if it's the truth or a fact. To try to determine the truth of a matter, you may need additional sources.

In a court of law, the judge has to determine the credibility of a witness - if he is a habitual liar, his statements are less credible than those of an average person. Also if he is coerced, the credibility of his statements will be lower.

For example, satellite photos are highly credible as the pictures of the ground show exactly what is there. There are very good reasons to believe them. Even if the tanks featured on the photos only are fakes planted there by the opposition in a deliberate attempt to decieve and the truth is that there are no real tanks, then the photos will still have a high credibility.

So my question is, is a statement that is given following a round of torture something you have any reason whatsoever to believe? Was the information that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may have given in that situation credible?

That is what I have not found any confirmation of.


This isn't information to be used in court. You are making the common mistake of assuming that this is a law enforcement action.

No, we're getting names, places, etc., so that more people can be kidnapped or assassinated without trial.

You don't remember Rumsfeld saying, "the gloves are off..." post-911?

The Senate itself got rid of the restriction on assassinations that was in place after the Church hearings of the 1970s.

I think the point is that if I torture you, I can get you to do anything.

Not only admit to things you never did, but you'll tell me anything else I want to know as well.

All I have to do is cross-reference that information with another source.

So if I capture four insurgents, immediately separate them, and torture them separately, I'm going to get four sets of answers. I can correlate the answers and I will definitely get valuable information.

Very effective.

And then when a foreign nation applies the same things to Americans and it becomes public news, the Bush White House makes a moral high ground speech about the Evil, Terrorist Despot Regime that has no regards for Freedom and Human Rights and that the UN should do somethinig about it.

:rolleyes:

Who gives a shit if it works or not? The whole point is the government shouldn't be allowed to torture people in the name of the greater good. Even if it means that we take a terrorist hit.

This is not only based on moral grounds. It's based on self-interest. The victims of state terrorism far outnumber the victims of regular terrorism.

This isn't information to be used in court. You are making the common mistake of assuming that this is a law enforcement action.

No, I'm using the court-reference to illustrate the meaning of the term "credible".

I'm arguing that the use of torture might not yield any credible information, and that it might be pointless in action.

And then when a foreign nation applies the same things to Americans and it becomes public news, the Bush White House makes a moral high ground speech about the Evil, Terrorist Despot Regime that has no regards for Freedom and Human Rights and that the UN should do somethinig about it.

:rolleyes:

Exactly. Game, set, and match - you now realize and admit that all of the talk about morality and ethics, especially at the UN, is a farce - a game played by other nations.

No, I'm using the court-reference to illustrate the meaning of the term "credible".

I'm arguing that the use of torture might not yield any credible information, and that it might be pointless in action.

That's why you have to cross-reference the information and find out if it is valid.

Do you honestly believe that people get tortured, say a few names, and then that's considered solid gold evidence?

Exactly. Game, set, and match - you now realize and admit that all of the talk about morality and ethics, especially at the UN, is a farce - a game played by other nations.

And with your cynical indifference, you basically condone and perhaps approve of the torture.

And with your cynical indifference, you basically condone and perhaps approve of the torture.

In this world, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about it.

In this world, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about it.
Oh please. If people's opinion didn't matter we'd still have slaves, women would be where they belong and USA would still be in Vietnam.


EDIT: Ok, "In This world". Yes, I can see it now.

Oh please. If people's opinion didn't matter we'd still have slaves, women would be where they belong and USA would still be in Vietnam.

In a manner of speaking, we are still in Vietnam, or at least that is the assertion of the Democrats.

In a manner of speaking, we are still in Vietnam, or at least that is the assertion of the Democrats.
Not still in Vietnam--just not learning the lessons of the past.

Not still in Vietnam--just not learning the lessons of the past.
Ergo, no one is listening. Ergo, it doesn't matter what you and I think.

Ergo, no one is listening. Ergo, it doesn't matter what you and I think.

And if you sincerely believe that what you or I think doesn't matter, then your posts are nothing more than trolling for attention.

And if you sincerely believe that what you or I think doesn't matter, then your posts are nothing more than trolling for attention.
No, we can certainly discuss it. But to think that it will change the world is inane.

No, we can certainly discuss it. But to think that it will change the world is inane.
The fact that you think people discussing matters won't/can't change the world, to me, is inane. Must be a matter of perspective.

Who gives a shit if it works or not? The whole point is the government shouldn't be allowed to torture people in the name of the greater good. Even if it means that we take a terrorist hit.

This is not only based on moral grounds. It's based on self-interest. The victims of state terrorism far outnumber the victims of regular terrorism.

I got a question for you, and its a hypothetical one butit works,
say one of those terroristskidnapped one of your family memebrs, and you
luckily caught one of the perps who did it, but hes not talking.
So what do you do?

Or one fthem was planning a nuclear hit on a major city, and you caught one of the masterminds before it should happen. so, what do youdo? Torture the hell outofhim to tell you where it is, or go the moral way and not touch him, and then have 1 million or more dead on your hands? Andthen answer to the public when they found out you had one of the bastards and you could of prevented it? You people disgust me.

That's why you have to cross-reference the information and find out if it is valid.

Do you honestly believe that people get tortured, say a few names, and then that's considered solid gold evidence?

You may get them to talk, but it's not reliable information (as they might just say what you want to hear), and you have to be dependent on other information anyway?

Then what is the point of torture, considering the many drawbacks it brings to the table? There are other techniques of interregation which then would work just as well. If accepting torture, the country only ends up in a morally reprehensible position in exchange for an inefficient interrogatory tool.

I got a question for you, and its a hypothetical one butit works,
say one of those terroristskidnapped one of your family memebrs, and you
luckily caught one of the perps who did it, but hes not talking.
So what do you do?

Or one fthem was planning a nuclear hit on a major city, and you caught one of the masterminds before it should happen. so, what do youdo? Torture the hell outofhim to tell you where it is, or go the moral way and not touch him, and then have 1 million or more dead on your hands? Andthen answer to the public when they found out you had one of the bastards and you could of prevented it? You people disgust me.

No, these hypotheticals would not occur.

If terrorists kidnapped one of your family members, if the government did manage to catch someone, they would torture him whether you liked it or not.

Same for the second scenario.

You would not be in a position to make the decision.

what aboutthe dirty bomb suspect?
And why wouldntthey occur?
We had info on 9-11 duringthe clinton years and clinton didnt listen.

I got a question for you, and its a hypothetical one butit works,
say one of those terroristskidnapped one of your family memebrs, and you
luckily caught one of the perps who did it, but hes not talking.
So what do you do?

Or one fthem was planning a nuclear hit on a major city, and you caught one of the masterminds before it should happen. so, what do youdo? Torture the hell outofhim to tell you where it is, or go the moral way and not touch him, and then have 1 million or more dead on your hands? Andthen answer to the public when they found out you had one of the bastards and you could of prevented it? You people disgust me.
What if, IF...

The perps who did kidnap a member of your family issued a statement saying they know you got one of theirs, but; "We have another lair Iphraim knows nothing about, so torture away - make Iphraim a martyr (he was a tool anyway). Inshallah"

What if ? HUH?

<snip>

Appeal to emotion and appeal to fear of consequence. Great post.

Why do I disgust you? Because I feel that an organized body employing thousands of people is inherently more dangerous than a lone psycho?

Put simply, even if terrorist had captured my family or were in possession of a nuclear weapon, I'd be better off if then if the government believed it was their right to kill, torture or disappear anyone that they didn't like. End of story.