NationStates Jolt Archive

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

If he is crazy enough to plant a bomb in a highly populated area, I doubt he would tell the truth under torture.
The only solution is: Chuck Norris.

If he is crazy enough to plant a bomb in a highly populated area, I doubt he would tell the truth under torture.
The only solution is: Chuck Norris.

and what would you have chuck do?
disarm the bomb with a roundhouse kick?
:p

I'd like to say I wouldn't. I'd like to say I'm a better person then that.

But I'm not. When it's my ass on the line, I would do anything and everything necessary.

so evrybody dies,
then end

:)

you torture the kid, he lies, you go look where he tells you and the bomb goes off, then you are charged with crimes against humanity and locked up for life. good choice!

you torture the kid, he lies, you go look where he tells you and the bomb goes off, then you are charged with crimes against humanity and locked up for life. good choice!

Simple solution: You brutally murder all the witnesses.

I'd send every possibly officer of the state out hunting for the bomb, hoping that eventually we can come up with some intelligence that may lead us to the correct location.

Other than that, nothing. Torture would be pointless.

I voted to abort all inane hypothetical threads like this one.

Reality /= 24

Reality /= 24
thank you god for reasoning

torture would be unnecessary, if he's fanatical enough to not talk under torture whose to say he's not like David Koresh and his bunch, they didn't even buckle when their children were being tortured by the government, they didnt seem to care as long as the cult was safe.

So I'd say hypnotizing him and getting the truth from him that way, people can't lie when hypnotized I hear.

Reality /= 24

Reality = Walker Texas Ranger

Torture does work. That's just propaganda. It's extremely effective.

The arguments about false information are ridiculous, you get the same thing in any kind of interrogation.

Torture doesn't work. All it does is get you unreliable information.

torture would be unnecessary, if he's fanatical enough to not talk under torture whose to say he's not like David Koresh and his bunch, they didn't even buckle when their children were being tortured by the government, they didnt seem to care as long as the cult was safe.

So I'd say hypnotizing him and getting the truth from him that way, people can't lie when hypnotized I hear.

I don't mean to take this off-topic, but WTF are you babbling about? The government didn't torture any children in the Waco situation.

Torture doesn't work. All it does is get you unreliable information.

Anyone with an older brother can tell you that torture works perfectly well - the question is whether someone believes in their cause over and above any other consideration, because at that point nothing works.

Still, I'm not sure I'd try over any other available method though.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

I just found this on the interweb. ;)

William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

(link (http://www.imohr.org/11-21-2001-torture.html))

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

He WANTS to die. He WANTS to be tortured and most of all, he WANTS us to prove our own barbaric natures. Why give hm what he wants? Continue to try to find the device by legal means and should you fail, the criminal stands trial and spends the rest of his days withering in a prison until he dies a broken hollow shell of a man with no glory, no pride and no salvation.

He WANTS to die. He WANTS to be tortured and most of all, he WANTS us to prove our own barbaric natures. Why give hm what he wants? Continue to try to find the device by legal means and should you fail, the criminal stands trial and spends the rest of his days withering in a prison until he dies a broken hollow shell of a man with no glory, no pride and no salvation.

Remind me never to fling a pie at you.(in a meanspirited way of course:p)

But I do agree with your methodology.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

Since neither I nor nobody I love live in a highly populated area, no.

On a side note, if I were the terrorist, I'd just tell you exactly where the bomb is.. but give you the detonation time as five hours later then it really is, so you'd get there just as it exploded.

Edit: Wait, shit, I just realized that a dirty bomb would kill a lot of birds and do some nasty environmental damage. So, yes. I would resort to torture.

Torture does work. That's just propaganda. It's extremely effective.

The arguments about false information are ridiculous, you get the same thing in any kind of interrogation.

You seem to make a lot of statements that all evidence against something you favor is just "propaganda" but you never provide a source.

I don't mean to take this off-topic, but WTF are you babbling about? The government didn't torture any children in the Waco situation.

Try witnessing carefully at 1:12 of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sBzs3ZBihk)

"My God! Torturing babies?! And saying it's part of their job?!"-guy in documentary clip

I suppose it depends on a few things,
1. Would torturing this person be fun?
2. Would I get in trouble?

Remind me never to fling a pie at you.(in a meanspirited way of course:p)

But I do agree with your methodology.

In my mind, death is a relatively mild punishment compared to long-term imprisonment.

Torture is fun! :D

Try witnessing carefully at 1:12 of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sBzs3ZBihk)

"My God! Torturing babies?! And saying it's part of their job?!"-guy in documentary clip

Guy in youtube video says it's true. Who the fuck is this person, what the fuck are his qualifications, and why the fuck should I care what he, or you, has to say?

Remember kiddies, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it is true!

I would ask for a clean bomb.

Guy in youtube video says it's true. Who the fuck is this person, what the fuck are his qualifications, and why the fuck should I care what he, or you, has to say?

Remember kiddies, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it is true!

What? It must be true, this website (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/stopchildrape.net/) clearly provides evidence.

Your denial only serves evil government.

Unless you're one of them :eek:

Guy in youtube video says it's true. Who the fuck is this person, what the fuck are his qualifications, and why the fuck should I care what he, or you, has to say?

Remember kiddies, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it is true!

It was on a documentary, they don't put unqualified people on those or else people wouldn't watch them.

Actually you HAVE to give a fuck of what I have to say or you wouldn't constantly be all over my ass and my posts like a rash. If you truly meant what you said about not giving a damn about what I have to say you wouldn't react at all but instead you imply that I'm nothing. Do yourself a favor and STFU before you get yourself in trouble.

It was on a documentary, they don't put unqualified people on those or else people wouldn't watch them.

Actually you HAVE to give a fuck of what I have to say or you wouldn't constantly be all over my ass and my posts like a rash. If you truly meant what you said about not giving a damn about what I have to say you wouldn't react at all but instead you imply that I'm nothing. Do yourself a favor and STFU before you get yourself in trouble.

I think there's a need for some context - I doubt the documentary meant direct torture, it was more that, for 51 days or whatever it was, the children were probably kept in a state of terror given the amount of helicopters, loudspeakers and general threat of invasion by the ATF.

There was a lot wrong with Waco, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that children were tortured by the government - it might be fair to say that, as a result of government actions, children were both terrified and then killed in quite horrible circumstances.

Do yourself a favor and STFU before you get yourself in trouble.
There is something very, very ironic about this I just can't place.
So aside from the clean bombs, yeah, qualifications.
PS torture is bad

It was on a documentary,

So the fuck what?

they don't put unqualified people on those or else people wouldn't watch them.

People watch loose change, and that's one of the stupidist pieces of crap ever put to film.

I'll ask you again, who is this person, what are his qualifications, and why should I consider his word with any validity?

Hmmm?

Do yourself a favor and STFU before you get yourself in trouble.

Was that a threat? Tsk tsk, poor form.

What? It must be true, this website (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/stopchildrape.net/) clearly provides evidence.

Your denial only serves evil government.

Unless you're one of them :eek:

hmmm...

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/stopchildrape.net/images/pyramid_child_abuse.jpg

Lawyers....fuk, I guess I am one of them.

I'll ask you again, who is this person, what are his qualifications, and why should I consider his word with any validity?

Here's the producer and co-writer: Dan Gifford, a former news reporter for CNN, ABC News and "The McNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.

Here's an article on his thoughts on the documentary:

Salon Interview (http://www.salon.com/april97/waco970418.html)

Here's the producer and co-writer: Dan Gifford, a former news reporter for CNN, ABC News and "The McNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.

Here's an article on his thoughts on the documentary:

Salon Interview (http://www.salon.com/april97/waco970418.html)

and yet, I see nothing about evidence for any torture.

So the fuck what?



People watch loose change, and that's one of the stupidist pieces of crap ever put to film.

I'll ask you again, who is this person, what are his qualifications, and why should I consider his word with any validity?

Hmmm?



Was that a threat? Tsk tsk, poor form.

1) Why should I have to listen to anything you have to say? Your motives in "debating" with me are not for debate, its to make you feel good about yourself by trying to get in flamefight with me. Your insecure and you want to make yourself feel big so you pick on mr. unpopular. Well try attacking an equal then you'll achieve something.

2) http://www.salon.com/april97/waco970418.html

3) Fine then continue, have a blast, go overboard and then we'll see what that gets you, because the language your using doesn't seem civil and your posts seem to express more an anymosity towards me than an actual point. ;)

and yet, I see nothing about evidence for any torture.

Yeah - hence my earlier post - I was merely citing the people behind the documentary here,

Ta-daa! My earlier post:

I think there's a need for some context - I doubt the documentary meant direct torture, it was more that, for 51 days or whatever it was, the children were probably kept in a state of terror given the amount of helicopters, loudspeakers and general threat of invasion by the ATF.

There was a lot wrong with Waco, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that children were tortured by the government - it might be fair to say that, as a result of government actions, children were both terrified and then killed in quite horrible circumstances.

Wow

I'd sack the intelligence service(s)

they know enough to know that this guy is a terrorist but the surveillance wasn't good enough to watch where he went or intecept his phone calls.

Is there really a bomb? How could such a crap security service be sure?

Is it the same guys who knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

How will torturing him, or his family make him tell the truth?

Wouldn't your time be better spent evacuating the area you think the bomb is in?

1) Why should I have to listen to anything you have to say? Your motives in "debating" with me are not for debate,

To debate with you would require you demonstrate some capability of actual debate. You have continuously and utterly failed to do so.

To debate requires that you present an opinion substantiated by facts. You presented your ludicrus opinion that the government tortured children at wako, but utterly failed to substantiate that.

For proof you provide some video quoting some guy about torture in some way. You totally fail to qualify your source, explain who the individual was, or provide any information what so ever. You only provided a quote by "some guy" totally devoid of any context what so ever.

Then when your source was challenged as being totally uncited, you only manage to produce a source that somebody else provided for you, and, most importantly, it was a source about the guy who made the video, not the person you were quoting.

In other words, you fail.

Your insecure and you want to make yourself feel big so you pick on mr. unpopular. Well try attacking an equal then you'll achieve something.

It's interesting that you basically just stated you're less then my equal. That's somewhat amusing.

But if you perceive yourself as being unpopular, perhaps you should question why that is.

3) Fine then continue, have a blast, go overboard and then we'll see what that gets you, because the language your using doesn't seem civil and your posts seem to express more an anymosity towards me than an actual point. ;)

My point is as it has been in this thread, you seem completely incapable of substantiating a single point you make.

You were the one who made threats in this thread, not me.

To debate with you would require you demonstrate some capability of actual debate. You have continuously and utterly failed to do so.

To debate requires that you present an opinion substantiated by facts. You presented your ludicrus opinion that the government tortured children at wako, but utterly failed to substantiate that.

For proof you provide some video quoting some guy about torture in some way. You totally fail to qualify your source, explain who the individual was, or provide any information what so ever. You only provided a quote by "some guy" totally devoid of any context what so ever.

Then when your source was challenged as being totally uncited, you only manage to produce a source that somebody else provided for you, and, most importantly, it was a source about the guy who made the video, not the person you were quoting.

In other words, you fail.



It's interesting that you basically just stated you're less then my equal. That's somewhat amusing.

But if you perceive yourself as being unpopular, perhaps you should question why that is.



My point is as it has been in this thread, you seem completely incapable of substantiating a single point you make.

You were the one who made threats in this thread, not me.

2) I am currently, you should mind your own smegging business. And I know I am lowly because as I learn more about myself, my past and why I've done and said things I have become disgusted. Disgusted at what I let others mold me into. Also your response to my statement has verified my argument that you are insecure and enjoy poking at the lower, furthermore doing such in a sense lowers you to my level and you admitted it. Seriously, being amused...

3) The only thing threatening to you right now is yourself, if you go off the handle and enjoy yourself too much with this you'll get yourself in trouble with the MODs and I won't need to report you, they'll see a flamy post and zap ya.

Hmmmm, Drama.

I think that the essential point of contention is what cridentials the person you produced - to support your claim - has. If they have none, then your claim is baseless. Journalists themselves write shit sometimes (often?) and use all sorts of 'experts' to support their contentions. A recent favourite that appeared on these boards was the 'expert' opinion offered on human evolution... by an economist... who was qualified by the journo as an 'evolutionary theorist'. Heck, right now I'm being a 'social theorist', but it doesn't make me learned in the area.

Torture can produce information (although certain people are notorious for resisting torture, and even those who cannot may simply give false information), but the information sought in the OP will never be obtained in the short time before the bomb goes off. This is because torture is not a DIRECT means to information, it is only useful when it is verifiable. You have only one source in this case. Therefore, torture is absolutely useless in this case and any intuition otherwise appears to be motivated by ideas of revenge against the alleged terrorist.

I think that the essential point of contention is what cridentials the person you produced - to support your claim - has. If they have none, then your claim is baseless. Journalists themselves write shit sometimes (often?) and use all sorts of 'experts' to support their contentions. A recent favourite that appeared on these boards was the 'expert' opinion offered on human evolution... by an economist... who was qualified by the journo as an 'evolutionary theorist'. Heck, right now I'm being a 'social theorist', but it doesn't make me learned in the area.

It really depends on your definition of torture as to whether SL had basis to his claims - personally, I'd suspect s/he implied more than there was off one quote but there was basis for that implication.

Prior to storming, sleep deprivation tactics were used among others to break down the resistance of those inside the compound.

By contrast, the negotiators felt that-the efforts of the tactical personnel were directed toward intimidation and harassment. In the negotiators' judgment, those aggressive tactics undermined their own attempts to gain Koresh's trust as a prelude to a peaceful surrender.

In particular, some of the negotiators objected to: (1) the loud music, noise, and chants used as "psychological warfare;" (2) the shut--off of electricity to the compound on March 12 shortly after two people exited the compound; and (3) the removal of automobiles from the compound on March 21 after seven people exited the compound.

Link (http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacothree.html) - the US Dept of Justice so hopefully ok.

We're on the boundaries of what we might call torture, certainly it's not one-to-one physical violence to extract information but it is intimidation to secure an end.

i would place him under the stress of conventional techniques of sleep deprivation etc. in a room where the clock is programmed to count every 2 seconds as one, that way the clock will tell him the bomb will have already gone off whereas i will know that it hasn't.

then i go into his cell, tearful, oscar worthy, and explain that he's facing the death penalty for his actions and his family is going to gitmo, i can spare his family the trauma and all he has to do is talk me through his plan, how he smuggled it etc.

the location of the bomb that has not yet detonated would probably come up.

If the regime practices torture it isn't surprising that people are planting bombs.

Torture does not produce reliable intelligence, throughout history people have found that all that happens is that eventually the person being tortured will tell you what they think you want to hear whether it is true or not. Anything based on this kind of misinformation will fail.

If your definition of freedom means that you feel able to use torture then you are simply another tyrant.

The UK in Exile;13246735']i would place him under the stress of conventional techniques of sleep deprivation etc. in a room where the clock is programmed to count every 2 seconds as one, that way the clock will tell him the bomb will have already gone off whereas i will know that it hasn't.

then i go into his cell, tearful, oscar worthy, and explain that he's facing the death penalty for his actions and his family is going to gitmo, i can spare his family the trauma and all he has to do is talk me through his plan, how he smuggled it etc.

the location of the bomb that has not yet detonated would probably come up.
I wanted to argue in my previous post that only under these (or similar) circumstances would torture be even remotely effective in obtaining SOME sort of information, true or not. But given that the bomb is exploding in the immediate future, there is probably no time for these techniques. Combining the problems of time and effectiveness, torture is useless from all but vindictive pursuits.

OP —

Didn't they tell you that torture, as an intelligence-gathering device..............DOESN'T WORK? :upyours: Only chowderheads like Shrub think it does.

Evacuate the area. They can come back when the bomb goes off.

OP —

Didn't they tell you that torture, as an intelligence-gathering device..............DOESN'T WORK? :upyours: Only chowderheads like Shrub think it does.

Evacuate the area. They can come back when the bomb goes off.

the area in question is the entire united states.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area.

The UK in Exile;13246779']the area in question is the entire united states.

No, it isn't.

fair enough, he said your nation, so in my case the UK, the point still stands, you can't evacuate a nation.

every highly populated area in a nation?

unless its the vatican....

The UK in Exile;13246788']fair enough, he said your nation, so in my case the UK, the point still stands, you can't evacuate a nation.

And you don't have to. You evactuate the area.

Seems like a pretty fuckin' average scenario. If he might lie even if you torture his son, I don't see the point in torturing either of them.

Except maybe him for a little bit of fun on the side. :fluffle:

The UK in Exile;13246796']every highly populated area in a nation?

unless its the vatican....

No, the ones your terror suspect is in or was in recently. Can't plant a bomb in an area you've never been to.

you could fedex it?

The UK in Exile;13246804']you could fedex it?

Which is why you canvass fedex offices and things of that nature with pictures of your suspect.

No, the ones your terror suspect is in or was in recently. Can't plant a bomb in an area you've never been to.

Wait - so he isn't going to tell you anything...except his detailed itinerary over the last couple of weeks.

"Well then I visited my relatives in Bromley-on-Welles, had tea, drove down to Monkhampton, picked up some....ummm....supplies, then I returned to London where I planted a bomb in the V&A museum.....bugger!"

Wait - so he isn't going to tell you anything...except his detailed itinerary over the last couple of weeks.

"Well then I visited my relatives in Bromley-on-Welles, had tea, drove down to Monkhampton, picked up some....ummm....supplies, then I returned to London where I planted a bomb in the V&A museum.....bugger!"

And I'm sure the police have absolutely no way of even trying to find out where's he's been. No way at all. In fact, all of crime fighting is based soley on criminals making admissions under interrogation. All that crap about doing detective work, that's nonsense, only happens on TV.

Err, why would anyone bother to torture him when it's a premise of the scenario that he will not crack?

Err, why would anyone bother to torture him when it's a premise of the scenario that he will not crack?

Because people are sadists?

I wouldn't actually torture his son, but I'd make him THINK that I would or that I was already. Torture isn't the only way to use family against someone.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but in a few fiction accounts where the methods have been decently well researched, empathy is always used to pressure the prisoner as a form of psychological torture. Tom Clancy used that when he wrote Without Remorse. Also, both Star Trek:TNG and Babylon 5 featured an episode where the Captain is interrogated/tortured and at some point the threat of torture against another is used against him. (Beverly Crusher/Drazi, respectively).

I wouldn't actually torture his son, but I'd make him THINK that I would or that I was already. Torture isn't the only way to use family against someone.
Which could be considered to be psychologically torturing him.

Although that would apparently 'waste time', point taken.

It could be that they just want to torture him as a punishment for planting the bomb, rather than as a method of finding it.

Because people are sadists?

Although that would apparently 'waste time', point taken.

And once again the nice people at "Let's torture them" inc. come up with an idiotic scenario (and the same one with small variations at that) to try and justify, this time, not torturing a SUSPECT, but his FAMILY TOO.

This scenario does not hold water for torturing the man, does not hold water for ensuring the safety of any place and does not, AT ALL, hold water for torturing people for the crime of SHARING GENES with him.

Torture does not work. Torturing is not acceptable. Torturing people you KNOW ARE INNOCENTS is the action of someone completely perverted.

It's all an attempt at making torture acceptable. Only this, and nothing more.

And I'm sure the police have absolutely no way of even trying to find out where's he's been. No way at all. In fact, all of crime fighting is based soley on criminals making admissions under interrogation. All that crap about doing detective work, that's nonsense, only happens on TV.

This scenario is only worth considering if you have an extremely short time in which to extract information - if you can settle down to go over records and have a chat over a cup of tea then any assumption can be made.

Essentially this is the very subject plenty of studies explore - it's equivalent to the train car where, by flicking a switch, you divert a train car from running over 5 people to running over 1 person - it's called The Trolley Dilemma
(http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/emotions_determine_moral_judgements.shtml)
This may not have been the OPs intent, but it's the only question worth considering, moral decisions given a very short time span of decision.

Ultimately, the decision comes down to this:

Is there any gain in applying torture over no alternative?

Assuming any other possibilities strips the question of any meaning.

Reality /= 24exactamente.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sBzs3ZBihk
Guy in youtube video says it's true. Who the fuck is this person, what the fuck are his qualifications, and why the fuck should I care what he, or you, has to say?

Remember kiddies, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it is true!Your source for the holocaust is the Internet/Hollywood.. his source is the Internet/Youtube..

why the **** should anyone care about what YOU have to say?

any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

I would threaten him with a vat of dog-slobber. If that didn't work then I doubt torture would.

I have a better idea - use his family as an instrument of torture.

If his kid is young, lock them in a room together. Provide no forms of entertainment. Then, summon the kid to the window. Offer to play the "Scream for Ice Cream Game" with him - whoever screams the loudest gets ice cream. Play for several hours. That should crack him.

Sorry, but that ho is going DOWN. I'd torture 'em.

I have a better idea - use his family as an instrument of torture.

If his kid is young, lock them in a room together. Provide no forms of entertainment. Then, summon the kid to the window. Offer to play the "Scream for Ice Cream Game" with him - whoever screams the loudest gets ice cream. Play for several hours. That should crack him.
That's just cruel and unusualy punishment.
Sorry, but that ho is going DOWN. I'd torture 'em.

What would that achieve?

I don't know if this point was raised or not. If the man is violent enough to enact such violent actions and he is also stubborn enough to not fold under torture, he obviously believes there is something larger then himself or his family. He is killing in the name of the idea. Killing an idea is quite difficult, but the point is he is a fanatic. If he is a religious fanatic (which most people assume when they think terrorist), then you can just threaten him that you will have his children raised in a setting where his beliefs are absent. That way, if he is killing thousands for the salvation of himself and kids, it would be pointless for the perspective if you subtract the children.

Of course that is assuming the man is performing a religious based attack and not a political, social, etc. attack.

Another, even more sinister idea, would be to somehow convince his son to torture him.

Another, even more sinister idea, would be to somehow convince his son to torture him.

I think that was covered in the 'I Scream for Ice Scream' thing :p

Fake audio and/or video footage of his son being tortured.
Convince him that the bomb has already gone off.
Convince him that he's in the city where the bomb is.
Convince him that you'll nuke the country he supports into ash unless he tells you.
Drug him.
Hypnotise him.
Drug him and hypnotise him.
Drug him, hypnotise him, and then try one of the first four options.


The point being, you always have options.

Fake audio and/or video footage of his son being tortured.

The point being, you always have options.Another, even more sinister idea, would be to somehow convince his son to torture him.This thread is going to become a Pissing contest: my torture is bigger than yours.

sooner or later someone will say things like: force his son to rape his mother.. and post the tape in Youtube.. or AIDS rape or other shit like that. :rolleyes:

Fake audio and/or video footage of his son being tortured.
Psychological torture
Convince him that the bomb has already gone off.
If he knows when and where the bomb will be going off then you lose and rapport you might have
Convince him that he's in the city where the bomb is.
He knows where it is, how can you convince him otherwise?
Convince him that you'll nuke the country he supports into ash unless he tells you.
Obviously empty threats are useless.
Drug him.
That might work actually.
Hypnotise him.
That's a lot less certain.
Drug him and hypnotise him.
That's not too certain either.

I think when we're talking about some form of nuclear terrorism then it starts to become more the law of the jungle. When there's a threat of that level then the normal laws of society don't really apply. I understand that torture has a reputation for ineffectiveness, but is it always true? From what I've heard it can be done effectively under the right circumstances, and by a professional. I think torture should always be legally prohibited, but in this instance I think it would be better to turn a blind eye and pardon the torturers for their crimes later (As heads of state are legally permitted to do).

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247183']I understand that torture has a reputation for ineffectiveness, but is it always true?

No, torture doesn't work. He'll say what he thinks you want to hear, you'll waste time searching for a bomb somewhere else, the bomb will go off, wash, rinse, repeat. Torture has a reputation for ineffectiveness for a reason, especially when other interrogation techniques have already been proven to work better. The op is just pushing the same old scenario in order to, guess what, make torture socially acceptable. I think he wants to get a job as the one thing he thinks he's good at.

No, torture doesn't work. He'll say what he thinks you want to hear, you'll waste time searching for a bomb somewhere else, the bomb will go off, wash, rinse, repeat. Torture has a reputation for ineffectiveness for a reason, especially when other interrogation techniques have already been proven to work better. The op is just pushing the same old scenario in order to, guess what, make torture socially acceptable. I think he wants to get a job as the one thing he thinks he's good at.
I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to talk in absolutes. Saying torture never works sounds a bit too simplistic for me. Yes, there are very effective non-torture methods of interrogation, but you those take time, time which you might not have under the most extreme of circumstances. And surely it depends on what sort of information you're looking for? If you're trying to get a guy to incriminate others, then I will agree that torture is ineffective, particularly in the hands of some amateur. But if you're after the location of something, maybe it would be a different situation? Maybe if there was a real professional interrogator who knew the signs of making something up? I can imagine that it would certainly be hard to think straight and make something up if you were being put through relentless physical and phychological torture. Perhaps if his pain is so intense he'll end up saying the first thing which comes into his head, which could possibly be true location of the bomb? I have heard that the French had certain successes with torture in Algeria, same with the Apartheid regime in South Africa, plus plenty of other examples.

But this is all speculation on my part, I don't really know enough on the subject of interrogation to make a proper judgement on the issue. But like I said, I find it hard to talk in absolutes. Human rights organisations like to talk about how torture never works, but I can't help but think that they would be saying that even if they had documented instances of successful uses of torture. I doubt they really know much about the subject of interrogation either. So I'll reserve my judgement on this.

The only way it possibly would work would be to threaten him with endless torture if the bomb DOES go off, in this case the terrorist can't lie to get out of it, but he might be so fanatical that he would rather be tortured anyway.

That's just cruel and unusualy punishment. and what a majority of parents go through on those LOOOOOONG car drives. :p

I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

but I would take full responsibility... success or failure, I would take the full responsibility of my actions.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

Frankly, it's a stupid question. Everyone will crack, but making a person "crack" only gets them to tell you what you want to hear.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247276']I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to talk in absolutes. Saying torture never works sounds a bit too simplistic for me. <snip>
Why not base your judgment on the say-so of every credible intelligence agency in the western world and most of Asia, too, including the CIA, the Pentagon, NATO, and the governments of every single European nation, all of which affirm that torture does not work? Torture has been experimented with, and documented, for nearly 1000 years. It has never been reliable as a way to get information. NEVER. This is proven by 1000 years of governmental and legal records. The fact is, the ONLY use for torture is terrorism -- to instill terror in a population by the threat of torture, as evidenced by victims of torture on display with their broken bodies and shattered psyches. Torture IS terrorism. It is not a weapon against terrorism.

and what a majority of parents go through on those LOOOOOONG car drives. :p

I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

but I would take full responsibility... success or failure, I would take the full responsibility of my actions.
You mean you'd take the responsibility for your failure, because you would not get what you need by that means. Why can't people wrap their brains around the "it doesn't work" thing?

Spend the next 24 hours in a highly dramatized chase to find the bomb and discover that the ringleader of the terrorist cell is actually in the State Department or something like that.

If he knows when and where the bomb will be going off then you lose and rapport you might have

Another poster came up with a brilliant way to make him believe the bomb had already gone off: Put him in a room with a clock that's designed to tick two seconds for every second. As long as you keep him occupied, he probably won't notice the minutes passing by faster.

He knows where it is, how can you convince him otherwise?

Move him around, so that he doesn't know where he is?

Why not base your judgment on the say-so of every credible intelligence agency in the western world and most of Asia, too, including the CIA, the Pentagon, NATO, and the governments of every single European nation, all of which affirm that torture does not work?
Do they really? The CIA seems to have forgotten the "Torture doesn't work" rule, with waterboarding in Guantanamo and all those black sites they run in other countries where detainess have no legal rights whatsoever. The French with their (Seemingly successful) torture in Algeria. Same with Apartheid South Africa. Pretty much all intelligence agencies with their cooperation with foreign acencies that are well known to torture. Just because an agency says they don't torture and that it's ineffective doesn't mean they actually believe it themselves.

You mean you'd take the responsibility for your failure, because you would not get what you need by that means. Why can't people wrap their brains around the "it doesn't work" thing?
The same way you and others got your brain wrapped around the "it always fails" thing.

me, I believe the success or failure of any interrogation technique depends on alot of things.

the OP has given us some info.

1) it's a known terrorist who has knowledge. so there is no chance that it's someone who doesn't know about the bomb.
2) Torturing him won't work, but torturing his son/family infront of him will work. (tho the info may not be accurate.)
3) you are on a time schedule.

as I said, I don't know if I would physically torture people, but playing mind games with him I would do.

he would know we have his family. but whether or not we are torturing his family will be his speculation.

I would mess with his perceptions of things. I would disorent him.

any information he gives will be checked and investigated, but he and his family won't be released... as far a the other knows anyway...

so what would you do to get that information?

Funny how alot of people say "Torture is wrong" yet they don't say what they would do to get that information. So what techniques would YOU employ to get that information?

I guess they would let the bomb go off and kill millions of people for the mental and physical comfort of the bomber.

Another poster came up with a brilliant way to make him believe the bomb had already gone off: Put him in a room with a clock that's designed to tick two seconds for every second. As long as you keep him occupied, he probably won't notice the minutes passing by faster.

Move him around, so that he doesn't know where he is?

Those are some of the mind games I would play with him. but the problem is that...
1) you are gambling that you have enough time to screw his perceptions
2) you choose properly on when to pretend the bomb went off. after all, if you make him think a couple of days went by but he knows the bomb is going of tomorrow... or that the bomb went off but he knows the cell phone remote trigger is in the evidence locker...

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247336']Do they really? The CIA seems to have forgotten the "Torture doesn't work" rule, with waterboarding in Guantanamo and all those black sites they run in other countries where detainess have no legal rights whatsoever. The French with their (Seemingly successful) torture in Algeria. Same with Apartheid South Africa. Pretty much all intelligence agencies with their cooperation with foreign acencies that are well known to torture. Just because an agency says they don't torture and that it's ineffective doesn't mean they actually believe it themselves.
The CIA always understood that torture doesn't work, and that its only purpose is to instill terror. Now, let's take a guess why they do it. As evidence that they don't use torture for intelligence purposes, I offer the fact that no intelligence has ever come from the people they've tortured, but always from non-violent covert operations -- i.e. spying.

And I'd like to know what the French use of torture in Algeria was "successful" at, considering that France no longer controls Algeria, but in fact got forced out pretty messily, and that Algeria is far from free of terrorist/separatist/insurgent/criminal groups today. So, what exactly did it accomplish for the French or anyone else?

Same for your South African example. If the only examples of states that used torture you can offer are the ones that failed miserably and were forced to give up power, then you only support my argument that torture is not a useful tool.

Finally, I enjoy the way you try to dismiss arguments by intelligence agencies that torture does not work by assuming that they don't believe their own words. Obviously, only you can be right, so any evidence to the contrary must necessarily be false because it doesn't say what you want it to say -- even if it comes from people who actually know what they are talking about. What nonsense.

The same way you and others got your brain wrapped around the "it always fails" thing.

me, I believe the success or failure of any interrogation technique depends on alot of things.

the OP has given us some info.

1) it's a known terrorist who has knowledge. so there is no chance that it's someone who doesn't know about the bomb.
2) Torturing him won't work, but torturing his son/family infront of him will work. (tho the info may not be accurate.)
3) you are on a time schedule.

as I said, I don't know if I would physically torture people, but playing mind games with him I would do.

he would know we have his family. but whether or not we are torturing his family will be his speculation.

I would mess with his perceptions of things. I would disorent him.

any information he gives will be checked and investigated, but he and his family won't be released... as far a the other knows anyway...

so what would you do to get that information?

Funny how alot of people say "Torture is wrong" yet they don't say what they would do to get that information. So what techniques would YOU employ to get that information?

I guess they would let the bomb go off and kill millions of people for the mental and physical comfort of the bomber.
And this is just the usual bunch of nonsense we hear all the time from torture apologists and supporters.

1) I say torture never works because the experts say it never works. By "experts" I mean the intelligence officials and interrogators whose job it is to get information out of people, and who have studied the matter extensively, studied the history of it, and in many cases actually tried torture themselves and seen its results. Now I invite you to trot out the parade of competent experts who say it does work, and then we can argue about whose view is more realistic.

2) The OP gives us information? The OP gives us a plot summary of a 24 episode. It's bullshit, from start to finish. It has no bearing on reality whatsoever. I am sick and tired of this fantasy being tossed around as if it has any meaning, while people are facing real threats of torture for no reason whatsoever, in real life, right now.

3) People who oppose torture most certainly do say what they would do to get the information. It's called intelligence work. Emphasis on the "work." It's called questioning and investigation. It's also called legal. And finally, it's also called effective and productive.

4) And as for that bull about coddling terrorists while letting bombs go off willy-nilly, you know what else real intelligence work is called? It's called "not wasting precious time fucking around with some unproductive horsecrap while letting a bomb go off and killing loads of folks because you were too busy playing gotcha with your prisoner."

Result != resort.

And, no, I would never resort to torture. Ever.

Torture doesn't work. All it does is get you unreliable information.

And yet the data indicates it works quite well.

Try witnessing carefully at 1:12 of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sBzs3ZBihk)

"My God! Torturing babies?! And saying it's part of their job?!"-guy in documentary clip

For exactly the reasons Neo Art stated, this is less than convincing. For all we know that was David Koresh's dad saying that.

It was on a documentary, they don't put unqualified people on those or else people wouldn't watch them.

You can't possibly be that naive, can you?

BTW, do you believe every word of Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore? How about Loose Change?

And yet the data indicates it works quite well.

You're exactly right. Without torture we would never have been able to get all those witches to confess in Salem for example.

damn broke my own sarcasm meter.

And yet the data indicates it works quite well.

What data? Every study I have ever heard about concluded otherwise.

I'd not torture but I would use truth serum drugs as well as drugs that I could possibly use to confuse him. Trick him into giving information away.

And this is just the usual bunch of nonsense we hear all the time from torture apologists and supporters. and I am not a torture supporter nor apologist, but I do reconize that people will do things under extreme circumstances. and I also never said that it does excuse their actions. hence the "taking full responsibility of my actions".

1) I say torture never works because the experts say it never works. By "experts" I mean the intelligence officials and interrogators whose job it is to get information out of people, and who have studied the matter extensively, studied the history of it, and in many cases actually tried torture themselves and seen its results. Now I invite you to trot out the parade of competent experts who say it does work, and then we can argue about whose view is more realistic. and these experts do say that it doesn't work 100% of the time? or that it doesn't work for the majority of the time?

2) The OP gives us information? The OP gives us a plot summary of a 24 episode. It's bullshit, from start to finish. It has no bearing on reality whatsoever. I am sick and tired of this fantasy being tossed around as if it has any meaning, while people are facing real threats of torture for no reason whatsoever, in real life, right now. His thread, His scenario.

and you complain about a fantasy setting while posting on a forum built around the concept of running a fantasy nation?

3) People who oppose torture most certainly do say what they would do to get the information. It's called intelligence work. Emphasis on the "work." It's called questioning and investigation. It's also called legal. And finally, it's also called effective and productive. and it takes time to gather that info. time you may or may not have.

and remember, you have the terrorist in custody, so you know he planted the bomb, how do you get the information out of him?

4) And as for that bull about coddling terrorists while letting bombs go off willy-nilly, you know what else real intelligence work is called? It's called "not wasting precious time fucking around with some unproductive horsecrap while letting a bomb go off and killing loads of folks because you were too busy playing gotcha with your prisoner." so you are saying that you will take the responsibility of failing to stop the bomb because you were still 'gathering information' while you had the bomber in your custody.

I just found this on the interweb. ;)

William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

(link (http://www.imohr.org/11-21-2001-torture.html))
^
This...

What data? Every study I have ever heard about concluded otherwise.
^
...and that...

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247276']I have heard that the French had certain successes with torture in Algeria,

You heard wrong. See Does Torture Work? (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html), which discusses this at length.

FYI, here is the first part of the series that discusses how torture is ineffective and counter-productive: Torture's dark allure (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/18/torture_1/index.html)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247276']same with the Apartheid regime in South Africa,

Yeah. That worked out really well for them, didn't it? :rolleyes:

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247276']plus plenty of other examples.

Like what?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247276']But this is all speculation on my part, I don't really know enough on the subject of interrogation to make a proper judgement on the issue. But like I said, I find it hard to talk in absolutes. Human rights organisations like to talk about how torture never works, but I can't help but think that they would be saying that even if they had documented instances of successful uses of torture. I doubt they really know much about the subject of interrogation either. So I'll reserve my judgement on this.

Sorry, but actual experts on interrogation believe torture is not effective.

Some links: Does torture really work? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/). This is an article written by an actual expert.

Here is a lengthy (WARNING: 372 page pdf) report (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) by a group of experts, commissioned by the U.S. Intelligence Science Board and sponsored by by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity, that (1) is critical of the techniques used by interrogators since the United States was attacked by terrorists, and (2) finds there may be no value to coercive techniques -- more specifically, that there is no reliable evidence that coercive techniques work and there is copious evidence that coercive techniques are not effective.

^
This...


^
...and that...

Thanks. Here is also a wonderful article discussing the ethical dilemma at length and explaining why torture is not justified even in extreme cases: Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00355.x) (19-page pdf)

1) I say torture never works because the experts say it never works. By "experts" I mean the intelligence officials and interrogators whose job it is to get information out of people, and who have studied the matter extensively, studied the history of it, and in many cases actually tried torture themselves and seen its results. Now I invite you to trot out the parade of competent experts who say it does work, and then we can argue about whose view is more realistic.


They say it is inefficient and that the ethical costs outweigh it by a huge margin. Not that it universally never works and will never work in 100% of cases. To say so is absurd.

so you are saying that you will take the responsibility of failing to stop the bomb because you were still 'gathering information' while you had the bomber in your custody.

Considering that torture takes MORE time (we're talking DAYS here, people don't crack in 30 minutes. Read the fuck up about it.) than most decent techniques, yeah, I'd say you have no point. Either drop the support for torture or admit your real reasons for wanting it.

Considering that torture takes MORE time (we're talking DAYS here, people don't crack in 30 minutes. Read the fuck up about it.) than most decent techniques, yeah, I'd say you have no point. Either drop the support for torture or admit your real reasons for wanting it.ok, so how would you get the information out of the terrorist that's been already arrested?

and my position isn't FOR torture, nor is it AGAINST torture it's trying to find out the methods those adamantly against torture would use?

sure you would investigate, but there will be a point where the Where and When won't be answered by investigation. Especially when someone else fucks up and arrests the terrorist (like the OP states) so what would you do to get the where and when?

Oh and Investigation also takes DAYS, not 30 mins like those cop shows on T.V.

and I am not a torture supporter nor apologist, but I do reconize that people will do things under extreme circumstances. and I also never said that it does excuse their actions. hence the "taking full responsibility of my actions".
So, you would resort to torture even though you know it's wrong. I'll bet you'd call that being a realist, wouldn't you? People who believe it is ever okay to torture people always claim they are just being realistic. I do not consider it realistic to choose to use a method that does not work.

and these experts do say that it doesn't work 100% of the time? or that it doesn't work for the majority of the time?
So you would be happy wasting your time with an illegal and unethical method that only has an extremely low likelihood of working, and you would choose that over methods that have very high likelihoods of working and are both legal and ethical?

His thread, His scenario.

and you complain about a fantasy setting while posting on a forum built around the concept of running a fantasy nation?
This isn't a role playing forum.

and it takes time to gather that info. time you may or may not have.
Right, whereas getting wrong information takes no time at all. It won't help you find this supposed bomb, but you will have time for a coffee before it explodes.

and remember, you have the terrorist in custody, so you know he planted the bomb, how do you get the information out of him?
Are you trying to force me to show some semblance of respect for this disgusting and childish fantasy scenario?

so you are saying that you will take the responsibility of failing to stop the bomb because you were still 'gathering information' while you had the bomber in your custody.
Just as you will take responsibility for failing to stop the bomb because you were running off chasing fairy tales you heard from a man you were torturing.

They say it is inefficient and that the ethical costs outweigh it by a huge margin. Not that it universally never works and will never work in 100% of cases. To say so is absurd.
Cat-Tribe trotted out the experts who explain why torture is not a good method. I'm still waiting for the torture apologists here to trot out their experts explaining why we should use it despite its failure rates. Feel free to offer some up at any time.

ok, so how would you get the information out of the terrorist that's been already arrested?

and my position isn't FOR torture, nor is it AGAINST torture it's trying to find out the methods those adamantly against torture would use?

sure you would investigate, but there will be a point where the Where and When won't be answered by investigation. Especially when someone else fucks up and arrests the terrorist (like the OP states) so what would you do to get the where and when?

Oh and Investigation also takes DAYS, not 30 mins like those cop shows on T.V.
Both methods take days.

Method A has a high likelihood of producing either wrong information or no information at all. Method B has a high likelihood of producing useful information.

Method A is illegal. Method B is legal.

Method A is unethical. Method B is ethical.

Method A creates harm to society at large by making people fear authorities and antagonizing members of the groups who feel most targeted. Method B can bring a society together by uniting people behind the authorities and making non-criminal members of the target group trust the authorities by fair-dealing.

And as I said, both take days, so there is a chance that neither one will be able to stop this mythical bomb from blowing up.

But in everything that the two methods can do, B is clearly preferable to A, both for its nature and its results. In case you haven't guessed, Method A is torture, and Method B is intelligence gathering, spying, investigations, and police work.

I didn't read the entire thread because I found the OP annoying so sorry if somebody else already pointed this out. The entire hypothetical situation doesn't make any sense. It's like if I said, "The only way to make Jack jump over the candlestick is to give him candy. What would you do to make Jack jump over a candlestick?"

I didn't read the entire thread because I found the OP annoying so sorry if somebody else already pointed this out. The entire hypothetical situation doesn't make any sense. It's like if I said, "The only way to make Jack jump over the candlestick is to give him candy. What would you do to make Jack jump over a candlestick?"

Ah, hey! Good point!

Desperate Times called for you.

Ah, hey! Good point!

Desperate Times called for you.

You wouldn't believe what that guy asks me to do for him at all hours of the night.

I'd not torture but I would use truth serum drugs as well as drugs that I could possibly use to confuse him. Trick him into giving information away.

"Truth serum drugs" don't actually force people to tell the truth.

The CIA also attempted to kill Castro with an exploding clam shell. The CIA attempted to spy on the Soviets with cyborg cats. What I'm saying here is that the CIA does loads of extremely stupid things with regularity.

Was it a cyborg cat? The only thing I remember of that story is that as soon as it was released it was run over by a car.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247336']Do they really? The CIA seems to have forgotten the "Torture doesn't work" rule, with waterboarding in Guantanamo and all those black sites they run in other countries where detainess have no legal rights whatsoever.
The CIA also attempted to kill Castro with an exploding clam shell. The CIA attempted to spy on the Soviets with cyborg cats. What I'm saying here is that the CIA does loads of extremely stupid things with regularity.

Totally...

One of the CIA's most bizarre Cold War efforts was Operation Acoustic Kitty. In declassified documents from the CIA's super-secret Science and Technology Directorate, it was revealed that some Cold-War-era cats were surgically altered to become sophisticated bugging devices. The idea was that the cats would eavesdrop on Soviet conversations from park benches, windowsills and garbage containers. The cat was meant to just stroll up to the sensitive conversations, completely unnoticed. The clandestine cat's electrical internals would then capture and relay the audio to awaiting agents.

The project was funded and work began in 1961. Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti recounts the story of the Acoustic Kitty:

“They slit the cat open, put batteries in him, wired him up. The tail was used as an antenna. They made a monstrosity. They tested him and tested him. They found he would walk off the job when he got hungry, so they put another wire in to override that. Finally, they’re ready. They took it out to a park bench and said, “Listen to those two guys. Don’t listen to anything else – not the birds, no cat or dog – just those two guys!”
After several surgeries and intensive training, the cyborg cat was ready for its first field test. The CIA drove the cat to a Soviet compound on Wisconsin Avenue in Washington, D.C., and let him out of a parked van across the street. The cat ambled into the road, and was struck by a taxi almost immediately. Five years of effort and over $15 million in spending were reduced to roadkill in an instant. Shorty after its demise a CIA operative returned to the accident site and put the cat's remains into a container to prevent the Soviets from getting their paws on the sensitive and expensive listening devices.

The CIA also attempted to kill Castro with an exploding clam shell. The CIA attempted to spy on the Soviets with cyborg cats. What I'm saying here is that the CIA does loads of extremely stupid things with regularity.
Don't forget the exploding cigar to kill Castro, too. They almost actually launched that "mission." Assassination by party joke. Emphasis on the "joke."

It was on a documentary, they don't put unqualified people on those or else people wouldn't watch them.

So, then you agree that Al Gore and Michael Moore were right? After all, they were in documentaries.

They also put some weird shit in his slippers in an attempt to make him lose all his hair including his trademark beard. Because, as we all know, all of Castro's power resides in his beard.
:D
*chuckles uncontrollably*
man...

Don't forget the exploding cigar to kill Castro, too. They almost actually launched that "mission." Assassination by party joke. Emphasis on the "joke."

They also put some weird shit in his slippers in an attempt to make him lose all his hair including his trademark beard. Because, as we all know, all of Castro's power resides in his beard.

Thanks. Here is also a wonderful article discussing the ethical dilemma at length and explaining why torture is not justified even in extreme cases: Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00355.x) (19-page pdf)

Thank you :)

Now, someone has to send that to the Israeli Supreme Court...

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...
Seduce the terrorist, obviously. Men are surprisingly loose-tongued in bed. ;) :p

and you complain about a fantasy setting while posting on a forum built around the concept of running a fantasy nation?


Well, if it's a fantasy scenario I cast dominate person. Problem solved.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

I would not engage in torture under any circumstances... If you approve of torture in one case, then you approve of foreign nations engaging in the torture of our own people... If you do not approve of foreign powers torturing your own people, you do engage in torturing foreigners...

Seduce the terrorist, obviously. Men are surprisingly loose-tongued in bed. ;) :p

Surprisingly?

Well, if it's a fantasy scenario I cast dominate person. Problem solved.

Ha, I have an 18 base will save... so with my roll of...

*rolls a 1*

crap...

19...

shit...

"yes master!"

So, you would resort to torture even though you know it's wrong. I'll bet you'd call that being a realist, wouldn't you? People who believe it is ever okay to torture people always claim they are just being realistic. I do not consider it realistic to choose to use a method that does not work. I would do what I thought was needed. but I would also not use the "it had to be done so I'm blameless" excuse IF I did resort to torture.

So you would be happy wasting your time with an illegal and unethical method that only has an extremely low likelihood of working, and you would choose that over methods that have very high likelihoods of working and are both legal and ethical? please show proof that these legal and ethical "interrogation methods" are more effective and faster.


This isn't a role playing forum. did I say it was or did I say it was built around a role playing concept?

Right, whereas getting wrong information takes no time at all. It won't help you find this supposed bomb, but you will have time for a coffee before it explodes. and again, what method would you use to get accurate and timely information while at the same time being totally legal and ethical?

Are you trying to force me to show some semblance of respect for this disgusting and childish fantasy scenario? dodging the question eh?

Just as you will take responsibility for failing to stop the bomb because you were running off chasing fairy tales you heard from a man you were torturing. as I said I would.

Both methods take days.

Method A has a high likelihood of producing either wrong information or no information at all. Method B has a high likelihood of producing useful information.

Method A is illegal. Method B is legal.

Method A is unethical. Method B is ethical.

Method A creates harm to society at large by making people fear authorities and antagonizing members of the groups who feel most targeted. Method B can bring a society together by uniting people behind the authorities and making non-criminal members of the target group trust the authorities by fair-dealing.

And as I said, both take days, so there is a chance that neither one will be able to stop this mythical bomb from blowing up.

But in everything that the two methods can do, B is clearly preferable to A, both for its nature and its results. In case you haven't guessed, Method A is torture, and Method B is intelligence gathering, spying, investigations, and police work.funny, you and those who are admantly against torture still haven't said what you would do.

so what, in detail, would your Method B entail that won't fall under Mental, physical or emotional harm yet get the information you need? or will you constantly answer "torture is wrong"?

I would do what I thought was needed. but I would also not use the "it had to be done so I'm blameless" excuse IF I did resort to torture.
Noted.

please show proof that these legal and ethical "interrogation methods" are more effective and faster.
Are you kidding? Do you expect me to post links to every documented arrest record and successful prosecution in the history of civil and military law enforcement? What will your next demand be -- prove that air is more breathable than water?

I refer you to the links Cat-Tribe posted. Those are the most convenient sources for the authorities I have been relying on.

did I say it was or did I say it was built around a role playing concept?
Same difference, and still just as irrelevant.

and again, what method would you use to get accurate and timely information while at the same time being totally legal and ethical?
I already listed the methods I would use, several times over.

dodging the question eh?
No. What I'm doing is not wasting time with bullshit.

as I said I would.
Noted.

funny, you and those who are admantly against torture still haven't said what you would do.

so what, in detail, would your Method B entail that won't fall under Mental, physical or emotional harm yet get the information you need? or will you constantly answer "torture is wrong"?
This is the usual disingenuous crap that torture apologists trot out every time, attempting to equate lawful interrogation techniques with torture. It fails. Torture -- both specific methods and broader kinds of methods that fall into the category -- is clearly defined under both US and international law. Obviously, methods that do not meet the legal criteria for torture are not torture, even if they are not fun. So, obviously, waterboarding is torture but prolonged and insistent questioning is not. Why? Because the law says so.

I refuse to play this stupid hair-splitting game. Everyone knows what is or is not torture. They are guided clearly by the law and by their own gut. Those who claim to not know where the line is drawn are always apologists trying to find excuses for torture. I know of no one who does not wish to torture people, who feels any confusion about where that line is drawn.

You want to know what I would do? I would do everything the law allows and nothing the law does not allow. Period.

And yes, I will constantly answer that torture is wrong. Also, torture is illegal, and torture does not work.

please show proof that these legal and ethical "interrogation methods" are more effective and faster.

*snip*

and again, what method would you use to get accurate and timely information while at the same time being totally legal and ethical?

dodging the question eh?

as I said I would.

funny, you and those who are admantly against torture still haven't said what you would do.

so what, in detail, would your Method B entail that won't fall under Mental, physical or emotional harm yet get the information you need? or will you constantly answer "torture is wrong"?

JuNii, the answer to the question is that we would use legal and effective interrogation techniques, such as those that were long ago approved in the
Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html)(my link is to the 1987 version). Its guidelines cover battlefield capture and screening logistics and the third chapter details the planning, approach, questioning, and termination phases of an interrogation. According to the FM 34-52, the interrogator's goal during the approach phase is to establish rapport with the detainee, which can be done via 17 different methods, including:

"Emotional": taking advantage of a source's strong feelings;

"Fear-up": exploiting a source's fears, real or imagined;

"Pride and ego": flattering a source or attacking his pride, both to serve the purpose of putting him in a frame of mind to reveal information;

"Futility": using facts to prove to the source that his or her current situation is hopeless.

These methods each have several sub-categories, such as "fear-up (harsh)" or "ego-down," and are recommended to be used in combination with each other for the best effect.

The Manual clearly explains, however:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm), emphasis added)

There are time-tested techniques that have been proven to work and are used in compliance with the law. These techniques are not only legal and ethical, but more effective.

I already listed the methods I would use, several times over. in this thread? Quote the methods you said other than "not torture"

I see no 'list' in this thread.

This is the usual disingenuous crap that torture apologists trot out every time, attempting to equate lawful interrogation techniques with torture. It fails. Torture -- both specific methods and broader kinds of methods that fall into the category -- is clearly defined under both US and international law. Obviously, methods that do not meet the legal criteria for torture are not torture, even if they are not fun. So, obviously, waterboarding is torture but prolonged and insistent questioning is not. Why? Because the law says so. now this is the clostest you came to stating a method. Prolong? how long would you question him. remember, you only have 24 hours to legally hold him, any longer and it's not legal. and if he doesn't have a laywer present, it's not legal interrogation.

I refuse to play this stupid hair-splitting game. Everyone knows what is or is not torture. They are guided clearly by the law and by their own gut. Those who claim to not know where the line is drawn are always apologists trying to find excuses for torture. I know of no one who does not wish to torture people, who feels any confusion about where that line is drawn.and yet Lawyers play the hair-splitting game at trial. it can be argued that Waterboarding leave no PHYSICAL harm (scars and whatnot) and thus is not torture, yet it does leave mental ones which is torture. it's that hair-splitting that you hate so much that is involved in each court trial... both on the defense and prosecution.

You want to know what I would do? I would do everything the law allows and nothing the law does not allow. Period. so you would release the bomber after 24 hours when he gives nothing up and continue the investigation. hope that is enough when you are called up by the comittee on why you failed to stop the bomb even tho you had the bomber.

And yes, I will constantly answer that torture is wrong. Also, torture is illegal, and torture does not work. and I for one never said otherwise.

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government.

Sorry for jumping in in the middle of a conversation but the word 'unpleasant' caught my eye. Surely that is too broad of a word, I would consider any kind of intense interrogation unpleasant but I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

The point, to me, is that you have captured the person, assumably upon the authority of your government, which specifically condemns torture. So it is not only a question of would your torture him, but would you go against the specific policy of your government as well?

I personally think torture in a situation like this would be justified, if it were authorised. But it isn't, and a vigilante and a terrorist is ultimately the same thing.

in this thread? Quote the methods you said other than "not torture"

I see no 'list' in this thread.
You didn't look hard enough, then.

now this is the clostest you came to stating a method. Prolong? how long would you question him. remember, you only have 24 hours to legally hold him, any longer and it's not legal. and if he doesn't have a laywer present, it's not legal interrogation.
And? Obviously, I would work within the law. What part of this is so hard for you to follow?

and yet Lawyers play the hair-splitting game at trial. it can be argued that Waterboarding leave no PHYSICAL harm (scars and whatnot) and thus is not torture, yet it does leave mental ones which is torture. it's that hair-splitting that you hate so much that is involved in each court trial... both on the defense and prosecution.
I disagree. The law is clear, and the law is what I follow. The squirmings of lawyers (apologies to CT) do not change that.

so you would release the bomber after 24 hours when he gives nothing up and continue the investigation. hope that is enough when you are called up by the comittee on why you failed to stop the bomb even tho you had the bomber.
I would follow the law. I ask you again, what part of that is so hard for you to follow?

And I repeat, that under your choice of action, you would still have the prisoner in custody while the bomb was blowing up. Kindly point out the practical difference between your way and mine, in terms of bomb blowage. Or could you possibly be fantasizing that the bomb will wait for you to finish torturing your prisoner before blowing up, so as long you keep him and keep poking him, you'll be able to keep your window of opportunity on the bomb open?

and I for one never said otherwise.
Then why do you keep challenging me about it?

You didn't look hard enough, then. tell ya what. I'll quote all of your posts in this thread and you can point out your "Several times listed" methods. agreed?

And? Obviously, I would work within the law. What part of this is so hard for you to follow? that a short, lawyer present session of questioning without harrasement will be successful in producing the information in a short period of time.

I disagree. The law is clear, and the law is what I follow. The squirmings of lawyers (apologies to CT) do not change that. yet it's the squirmings of lawyers that would decide how the law was interpreted and if it was followed.

I would follow the law. I ask you again, what part of that is so hard for you to follow?the success part givin the limitations of the situation given.

And I repeat, that under your choice of action, you would still have the prisoner in custody while the bomb was blowing up. Kindly point out the practical difference between your way and mine, in terms of bomb blowage. Or could you possibly be fantasizing that the bomb will wait for you to finish torturing your prisoner before blowing up, so as long you keep him and keep poking him, you'll be able to keep your window of opportunity on the bomb open? no, no fantasy. I never said Torture was more successful. nor did I say it was better than legal and ethical interrigation. I only was asking how can you say that, outside of legal and ethical being the reason, non-torture techniques would work within the constraints of the given situation. Sure the situation practically screams 'use torture'. but given that situation, how can one say they won't. especially if the location of the bomb is also unknown.

sure if we knew we had months/weeks/days, slow and steady would work better. but given that we got the guy but not the bomb usually means the bomb is planted or going to be planted and that means explosion in a short period of time (short being a couple of days at the most)

Then why do you keep challenging me about it?I'm not. I'm only asking what method would you use within the confines of the situation. you keep saying you will NEVER use torture under any circumstances no matter how dire or desperate. also I never said such situation would make any form of torture legal. hence my "I will take full responsibility for my actions, success or failure".

in other words. IF I do torture someone and get the information and it just happened to be correct and hundreds of thousands of lives saved, I will still turn myself in for my actions and take whatever consequences for my actions.

I say this because, I cannot say what I will do knowing my family, My friends, any large number of innocent lives are at risk and their lives depends on me getting that information of When and where. Would I use torture? I honestly don't know. would I try to escape the responsibility of my actions? no.

Torturing him defeats the purpose of the existence of this nation. So I would never engage in it, no matter how many lives were at stake.

Torture does work. That's just propaganda. It's extremely effective.

The arguments about false information are ridiculous, you get the same thing in any kind of interrogation.

You could torture almost anybody and get them to admit to anything whether or not they actually had any knowledge of the situation.

You don't get reliable information, you get what the torture victim believes you want to hear.

Torture the Bush twins in front of George W Bush and I would bet he would be willing to admit that the true cause of the Iraq war was a gay lover's spat between him and Saddam Hussien. It wouldn't matter if it was true, as long it would save his daughters.

Well, if it's a fantasy scenario I cast dominate person. Problem solved.

Zone of Truth works better, in this case.

There's a dead magic zone.

So why the hell do you think Dominate Person would work then? :p

Zone of Truth works better, in this case.

There's a dead magic zone.

Zone of Truth works better, in this case.

It'll stop the terrorist from lying. It won't make him or her speak. You'd need magical compulsion for that.

It'll stop the terrorist from lying. It won't make him or her speak. You'd need magical compulsion for that.

Or a glass/Daedric dagger?

So why the hell do you think Dominate Person would work then? :p

Because I'm the god damned DM, that's why! :D

It'll stop the terrorist from lying. It won't make him or her speak. You'd need magical compulsion for that.

Oy, I've been playing it wrong all this time.

Well, I play Wizard, and never did cast it (never played Cleric to)...

Because I'm the god damned DM, that's why! :D
*Sic's a 'What's New' dragon on you and ready's the garden hose!* :D

tell ya what. I'll quote all of your posts in this thread and you can point out your "Several times listed" methods. agreed?
If you have nothing better to do, knock yourself out. As I recall, I stated I would use the techniques of intelligence work, investigation, questioning, and police work. Those are what I said and they are not less specific than your "torture."

that a short, lawyer present session of questioning without harrasement will be successful in producing the information in a short period of time.
So in other words, you just don't believe in the law or in following it. And you persist in this disbelief despite an extensive history of lawful methods producing results and torture not producing results in the real world. And you would base your opinions about the effectiveness of the law not on reality but on what you cannot understand in the context of a fantasy scenario.

Yep, that's what I figured your line of thinking was. It doesn't make me doubt my line of thinking, however, which is based on reality and the assurances of real experts.

yet it's the squirmings of lawyers that would decide how the law was interpreted and if it was followed.
This sounds a lot like those Bush supporting TV pundits who try to predict that there could possibly be a circumstance in which an act of torture could be declared OK under the law, but for that to happen we'd have to move to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, where torture is already permitted. As long as any nation adheres to international law and as long as that nation is the US and adheres to US law, then there is no way it could happen -- as evidenced by the cover-ups engaged in by the Bush admin.

the success part givin the limitations of the situation given.
OK, here's where the disconnect is happening. Let me clear it up:

I am not basing my argument on "the situation given" because the situation given is bullshit. I am basing my argument on reality. I am doing this because NSG is not a role playing forum, as I pointed out to you earlier.

no, no fantasy. I never said Torture was more successful. nor did I say it was better than legal and ethical interrigation. I only was asking how can you say that, outside of legal and ethical being the reason, non-torture techniques would work within the constraints of the given situation. Sure the situation practically screams 'use torture'. but given that situation, how can one say they won't. especially if the location of the bomb is also unknown.
Once again, the "given situation" is total bullshit, but torture is a serious real life issue. Therefore, I refuse to debase this serious issue by pretending that this bullshit scenario is anything but an insult to the debate about it. This is life we're talking about. It is not a game.

sure if we knew we had months/weeks/days, slow and steady would work better. but given that we got the guy but not the bomb usually means the bomb is planted or going to be planted and that means explosion in a short period of time (short being a couple of days at the most)

I'm not. I'm only asking what method would you use within the confines of the situation. you keep saying you will NEVER use torture under any circumstances no matter how dire or desperate. also I never said such situation would make any form of torture legal. hence my "I will take full responsibility for my actions, success or failure".
As I said, the "situation" is bullshit, and I will not entertain it. I made this clear to you at least twice before now. I also clearly stated my refusal to play this idiotic game. So I wonder why you insist on asking me to play it.

in other words. IF I do torture someone and get the information and it just happened to be correct and hundreds of thousands of lives saved, I will still turn myself in for my actions and take whatever consequences for my actions.

I say this because, I cannot say what I will do knowing my family, My friends, any large number of innocent lives are at risk and their lives depends on me getting that information of When and where. Would I use torture? I honestly don't know. would I try to escape the responsibility of my actions? no.
Funny, I can say what I would do if I had the choice of torturing someone or not torturing someone. I would not torture them. Period. You want to make your point that at least you wouldn't try to weasel out of punishment for it later, fine. But I am more confident than I can describe that I would not do it at all, because I could not bring myself to do such a thing to another living creature. I cannot say, if I had the chance to shoot someone in the head before they detonated a bomb, that I would not do that, but torture? No, that I could not do. The very thought of it is making me feel sick to my stomach even now. Seriously, I would rather die myself. I mean it.

EDIT: I guess the line in the sand for me is this (and this sounds really trite and canned but it's true, I really feel this way):

I would rather die with honor than live in shame. I would never, never do anything that would burden my life with so much shame. And if someone else committed torture to save me, I would still feel so shamed by that action, that my life would be forever tainted, even ruined by it. I could not tolerate it -- for myself, I mean.

And yes, I guess it is cold and unfeeling, or even selfish of me, but I assume that same feeling for everyone else in the world. I seriously cannot imagine how anyone could ever be grateful to me for doing that and saying it was for them. I would almost feel motivated to kill the person who claimed they committed torture to save or protect me.

If you have nothing better to do, knock yourself out. As I recall, I stated I would use the techniques of intelligence work, investigation, questioning, and police work. Those are what I said and they are not less specific than your "torture."ah, but I didn't state I would torture, I stated "I would do what needs to be done." if YOU think that means I will employ torture techniques then that is what you interpreted it as.

Also the Scenario states an unknown time factor. now since it's assumed that we KNOW he's the bomber, some form of Intelligence/police work and investigation was done. so at this point Bomber was picked up and now all we are missing is the Where and exact When.

by employing Ethical and Legal procedures you limit yourself even further to your questioning technique and time (you can only hold him for 24 hours without charging him and his lawyer has to be present... else you have to let him go.) that puts more strain on finding out the last two peices of the Puzzle and gives him more power.

So in other words, you just don't believe in the law or in following it. And you persist in this disbelief despite an extensive history of lawful methods producing results and torture not producing results in the real world. And you would base your opinions about the effectiveness of the law not on reality but on what you cannot understand in the context of a fantasy scenario. nice diversionary tactic. that part you are quoting is actually facts that make legal and ethical interrogation/questioning harder and longer. as long as the bomber knows you cannot hold him longer than 24 hours, he can stall. and he will know because he will have his lawyer present to inform him of his rights.

under normal circumstances where time is on your (the questioners) side, yes, ethical and lawful techniques are more effective (I never stated otherwise) but the situation the OP is putting out doesn't allow for the luxury of time.

Sure the OP situation is fantasy. sure it's his version of the "Kobayashi Maru".

you chose to say "you will use ethical and lawful means and Never torture". I never said it wouldn't work, I never said torture or any other illegal/unethical means would work better. I just wanted to be sure that given the extraordinary circumstances you realize the pressure that will be on you to find and stop that bomb.

Yep, that's what I figured your line of thinking was. It doesn't make me doubt my line of thinking, however, which is based on reality and the assurances of real experts. wow... so far off the mark... are you sure you're pointing towards the right hemesphere?


OK, here's where the disconnect is happening. Let me clear it up:

I am not basing my argument on "the situation given" because the situation given is bullshit. I am basing my argument on reality. I am doing this because NSG is not a role playing forum, as I pointed out to you earlier. repeat after me... Hypothetical situation.

that's what this is. Hypothetical. sure you will only see this kind of situation in movies and tv shows, yet it's the OP who presented it. if you honestly thought it was bullshit, why post in it? No one is forcing you to post and the OP didn't state that this is a 'real' situation.

Once again, the "given situation" is total bullshit, but torture is a serious real life issue. Therefore, I refuse to debase this serious issue by pretending that this bullshit scenario is anything but an insult to the debate about it. This is life we're talking about. It is not a game.yet you still post in this thread and you think anyone who doesn't say specifically "I won't torture" is a follower of the Marque De Sade.

As I said, the "situation" is bullshit, and I will not entertain it. I made this clear to you at least twice before now. I also clearly stated my refusal to play this idiotic game. So I wonder why you insist on asking me to play it. because you seem to think that replies to this "bullshit situation" is an insight to the poster's soul and personality.

I never said I would torture. but I also did not rule out the possiblity that I would torture. yet you think that means "I will torture the SoB and his Family."

so why am I questioning your method? because YOU narrowed and hampered yourself so much that you practically insured your failure.

I could do illegal/unethical things that won't be considered torture. like say... hold him and his family for over 24 hours and deny him access to a lawyer that would be illegal and something I would take responsiblity for. I stated I would play mind games with him, some pyschologial warfare techniques may cross the line of proper interrogation and could even touch upon torture depending on the lawyer's quibbling (that you so readily dismiss) and I will except the consequences. I could offer and pay him money and relocate his family and drop all charges against him in exchange for the bomb and the deactivation codes or release someone from jail/guantanino, that would definately have me standing before a committee, another consequence of my actions. Most of these suggested methods are Illegal and Unethical yet where's the torture?

I guess you could be right that the answers here are a peek into the poster's soul, like how you automatically think that any answer that doesn't specifically say "I will not torture him/them" means that the poster would torture.

He asked if I would torture. and Honestly, given the situation, I don't know if I would. That doesn't mean I will. but it also doesn't mean I'll stick to Legal and Ethical and that's why I was pushing for specifics. you can be illegal and unethical but still not torture.

ah, but I didn't state I would torture, I stated "I would do what needs to be done." if YOU think that means I will employ torture techniques then that is what you interpreted it as.
This isn't a circus act forum anymore than it is a role playing forum. Your backpedaling skills aren't amazing anyone.

Also the Scenario states an unknown time factor. now since it's assumed that we KNOW he's the bomber, some form of Intelligence/police work and investigation was done. so at this point Bomber was picked up and now all we are missing is the Where and exact When.
We're also missing the number of flying unicorns that will most certainly have a significant effect on the outcome. Indeed, at this point in the story we don't even know if Frodo is alive or dead, so I really don't see how you can proceed at all.

by employing Ethical and Legal procedures you limit yourself even further to your questioning technique and time (you can only hold him for 24 hours without charging him and his lawyer has to be present... else you have to let him go.) that puts more strain on finding out the last two peices of the Puzzle and gives him more power.

nice diversionary tactic. that part you are quoting is actually facts that make legal and ethical interrogation/questioning harder and longer. as long as the bomber knows you cannot hold him longer than 24 hours, he can stall. and he will know because he will have his lawyer present to inform him of his rights.

under normal circumstances where time is on your (the questioners) side, yes, ethical and lawful techniques are more effective (I never stated otherwise) but the situation the OP is putting out doesn't allow for the luxury of time.
Explaining the details of the bullshit doesn't make it stop being bullshit.

Sure the OP situation is fantasy. sure it's his version of the "Kobayashi Maru".
His fantasy version of a fantasy scenario from a Star Trek script, in which the characters decided that the fantasy scenario was unworkable bullshit and the only way to win was to ignore the scenario and all of its limitations.

I've seen that movie several times.

Oh, by the way, we're still not in an RP forum, and torture still is a real life issue.

you chose to say "you will use ethical and lawful means and Never torture". I never said it wouldn't work, I never said torture or any other illegal/unethical means would work better. I just wanted to be sure that given the extraordinary circumstances you realize the pressure that will be on you to find and stop that bomb.
Yes, the pressure brought to bear by all those flying unicorns. I shall brace myself for it.

wow... so far off the mark... are you sure you're pointing towards the right hemesphere?
I'm not sure. What's a "hemesphere"?

Did you mean "hemisphere"? If so, then I'm not pointing at any hemisphere because we are not discussing geography.

repeat after me... Hypothetical situation.

that's what this is. Hypothetical. sure you will only see this kind of situation in movies and tv shows, yet it's the OP who presented it. if you honestly thought it was bullshit, why post in it? No one is forcing you to post and the OP didn't state that this is a 'real' situation.
Repeat after me.... I don't care. I'm not buying into it. I am discussing the issue based in reality because it is important. And I enjoy the way you seem to think I am the only person in this thread not playing the OP's game. You might want to take a look around.

yet you still post in this thread and you think anyone who doesn't say specifically "I won't torture" is a follower of the Marque De Sade.
I never mentioned anyone's sexual fixations, and I will thank you not to bring them up either.

because you seem to think that replies to this "bullshit situation" is an insight to the poster's soul and personality.
When did I say anything about anyone's soul? I am attacking the scenario and I am making the argument that those who use this scenario to debate torture are generally apologists for torture. I make that argument based on observation here and in other threads as well as other media.

I never said I would torture. but I also did not rule out the possiblity that I would torture. yet you think that means "I will torture the SoB and his Family."
If the shoe fits...

so why am I questioning your method? because YOU narrowed and hampered yourself so much that you practically insured your failure.
In reality, you cannot prove that. In the fantasy world of you and the OP, you can make up any rules you like, but they won't mean anything where it counts.

I could do illegal/unethical things that won't be considered torture. like say... hold him and his family for over 24 hours and deny him access to a lawyer that would be illegal and something I would take responsiblity for. I stated I would play mind games with him, some pyschologial warfare techniques may cross the line of proper interrogation and could even touch upon torture depending on the lawyer's quibbling (that you so readily dismiss) and I will except the consequences. I could offer and pay him money and relocate his family and drop all charges against him in exchange for the bomb and the deactivation codes or release someone from jail/guantanino, that would definately have me standing before a committee, another consequence of my actions. Most of these suggested methods are Illegal and Unethical yet where's the torture?
A) If you break the law to any degree, you should stand accountable for it.

B) Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you are willfully ignoring the parts of my statements that would invalidate your statements. I already stated that the definition of torture is clear in the law. So, now you seem to be trying to equate "illegal" and "unethical" with "torture." That is obviously ridiculous. It is both illegal and unethical to pick pockets, but it can hardly be called torture. It is illegal and unethical for a public official to take bribes, but there is no torture there. You are again vainly trying to blur the line of what torture is, but you cannot. Torture = torture. The fact that it is both illegal and unethical are just additional features.

I guess you could be right that the answers here are a peek into the poster's soul, like how you automatically think that any answer that doesn't specifically say "I will not torture him/them" means that the poster would torture.
You can crystal gaze into my soul all you like. You will not find anything there I feel the need to defend, explain or apologize for.

He asked if I would torture. and Honestly, given the situation, I don't know if I would. That doesn't mean I will. but it also doesn't mean I'll stick to Legal and Ethical and that's why I was pushing for specifics. you can be illegal and unethical but still not torture.
Apparently, you can spend most of your day spouting irrelevancies without torturing, as well.

This isn't a circus act forum anymore than it is a role playing forum. Your backpedaling skills aren't amazing anyone. go ahead. prove I'm backpeddling.

We're also missing the number of flying unicorns that will most certainly have a significant effect on the outcome. Indeed, at this point in the story we don't even know if Frodo is alive or dead, so I really don't see how you can proceed at all.

Explaining the details of the bullshit doesn't make it stop being bullshit.

His fantasy version of a fantasy scenario from a Star Trek script, in which the characters decided that the fantasy scenario was unworkable bullshit and the only way to win was to ignore the scenario and all of its limitations.

I've seen that movie several times.

Oh, by the way, we're still not in an RP forum, and torture still is a real life issue.

Yes, the pressure brought to bear by all those flying unicorns. I shall brace myself for it.

wow... "like a bad marksman you keep missing the target"


I'm not sure. What's a "hemesphere"?
Did you mean "hemisphere"?

If so, then I'm not pointing at any hemisphere because we are not discussing geography.now who's quibbling? oh wait, that's right, harping on spelling/grammar mistakes is the last tactic of a losing debater. :cool:

Repeat after me.... I don't care. I'm not buying into it. I am discussing the issue based in reality because it is important. And I enjoy the way you seem to think I am the only person in this thread not playing the OP's game. You might want to take a look around. I know. people replied with answers along the line of "hell yes I'll torture, but you focused on me with...
You mean you'd take the responsibility for your failure, because you would not get what you need by that means. Why can't people wrap their brains around the "it doesn't work" thing?

and looking at the post you were replying to...
and what a majority of parents go through on those LOOOOOONG car drives. :p

I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

but I would take full responsibility... success or failure, I would take the full responsibility of my actions.
see it? "Most likely |= yes I would."
"I honestly don't know |= yes I would."

and you popped in with the "it doesn't work thing" meaning that I would use torture.

so that's how we got here.

I never mentioned anyone's sexual fixations, and I will thank you not to bring them up either. why not? you keep bringing up points that I didn't mention.

If the shoe fits... yeah, but you're currently wearing it so...

In reality, you cannot prove that. In the fantasy world of you and the OP, you can make up any rules you like, but they won't mean anything where it counts.

A) If you break the law to any degree, you should stand accountable for it. and I said, as you noted, I would take responsiblity for my actions, so is that only a rule in the 'fantasy Word' you think i'm in or will you admit that perhaps i'm a bit more honest about my answers than most everyone else here.

B) Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you are willfully ignoring the parts of my statements that would invalidate your statements. I already stated that the definition of torture is clear in the law.yes it is, feel free to review it.
So, now you seem to be trying to equate "illegal" and "unethical" with "torture." no, YOU are.
That is obviously ridiculous. It is both illegal and unethical to pick pockets, but it can hardly be called torture. It is illegal and unethical for a public official to take bribes, but there is no torture there. You are again vainly trying to blur the line of what torture is, but you cannot. Torture = torture. The fact that it is both illegal and unethical are just additional features. yet you are the one accusing me of supporting torture when I didn't say I would.

you say that you would stay within the bounds of Ethical and Legal and still say I would torture as tho there is NO OTHER OPTIONS besides the two.

Apparently, you can spend most of your day spouting irrelevancies without torturing, as well.as I learned from you. *Bow with respect towards Muravyets.*

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

his family right? well since when i gt pissedoff im really mean i would torture his son, hit on his wife and if the daughter is above 18 her too, then i would castrate him, and i he still doesnt tell me i bring in 2 big dicked rapists and have them rape him repeatdly

Simple solution: You brutally murder all the witnesses.

true

his family right? well since when i gt pissedoff im really mean i would torture his son, hit on his wife and if the daughter is above 18 her too, then i would castrate him, and i he still doesnt tell me i bring in 2 big dicked rapists and have them rape him repeatdly

Oh you're such a man! You treat the ladies right eh? You merely hit on the women, probably in the knowledge that they'd totally fall for your manliness. I'm sure the copious amounts of aftershave you use will intoxicate them.

My my what a hero you are.

I'm sorry, JuNii, but you have so lost the plot of your own BS, it isn't even funny anymore. None of your remarks below make any sense because they are so twisted off the tracks of the discussion. It seems have if you have confused yourself to the point where you can't even keep track of who posted what, when.

go ahead. prove I'm backpeddling.
The proof is in this thread. All people have to do is read it to see the progression from you saying you would torture the guy to get the info to you claiming that you only said you don't know whether you would or wouldn't. I have absolutely no intention of filling up this thread with mere repostings of what is already here. I used to do that in arguments like this, but then I realized how short life can be.

wow... "like a bad marksman you keep missing the target"
I leave that to others to decide. I think I hit it right on the head. Since that would mean you lose the point, I don't expect you to agree.

now who's quibbling? oh wait, that's right, harping on spelling/grammar mistakes is the last tactic of a losing debater. :cool:
I hardly call one little dig "harping." And in any event, what hemisphere did you think I was pointing at? Or have you already forgotten what you were trying to needle me about?

I know. people replied with answers along the line of "hell yes I'll torture, but you focused on me with...

and looking at the post you were replying to...
I stand by my response to your original post. Also, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and a lot more has gone into our argument than those two posts.

It comes down to this: Of all the posters who said they would consider torture, only you tried to make a real argument about it, in which you tried to defend torture as a technique of interrogation. That is why I focused on you.

see it? "Most likely |= yes I would."
"I honestly don't know |= yes I would."
Now put it into the context of the rest of our argument, in which you carried on defending torture and characterizing it as more effective than lawful methods.

and you popped in with the "it doesn't work thing" meaning that I would use torture.
That is your (defensive?) interpretation.

Another way to read it is: That method doesn't work, so for merely pragmatic reasons, why would you even consider it and put yourself through that unnecessary ethical dilemma?

so that's how we got here.
Hahaha, kind of like, "We left our house in New York, turned east and started walking, and that's how we ended up in California." As I said, there is a lot more to our argument than you imply. I invite you to read over it again.

why not? you keep bringing up points that I didn't mention.
So you say. I disagree.

yeah, but you're currently wearing it so...
If you don't know how to use a saying, don't.

and I said, as you noted, I would take responsiblity for my actions, so is that only a rule in the 'fantasy Word' you think i'm in or will you admit that perhaps i'm a bit more honest about my answers than most everyone else here.
I'll give you that. You honestly admit that your choice would be worthy of punishment. Now if we could just get you to admit the rest of your mistakes.

yes it is, feel free to review it.
I have. That's how I know it.

no, YOU are.
Now you're just making yourself sound silly, as well as wrong.

A) Torture IS illegal and unethical.

B) So are other things that are not torture.

C) Torture is defined by features exclusive to it, NOT by its illegality and unethicalness. Those are additional features.

D) Therefore, only things that have the defined features of torture are torture. This obviously does not apply to ALL illegal/unethical actions.

E) Therefore, it was pointless of you to start raising examples of illegal/unethical things interrogators could do that are not torture, because they in no way affect the argument about torture.

yet you are the one accusing me of supporting torture when I didn't say I would.
So you say. I stand by my reading of your posts.

you say that you would stay within the bounds of Ethical and Legal and still say I would torture as tho there is NO OTHER OPTIONS besides the two.
Again, that is your (defensive?) interpretation. I am just refusing to muddy the discussion by arguing points that are not relevant to it.

If you read over all my posts, you will see that my main objections to torture are that it is ineffective ("does not work") and that it is unethical (I prefer that word over "immoral" but it may be read the same way in this context). On those two bases, I would refuse to do it and would prefer other methods which have the benefit of being effective and ethical and which also happen to be lawful.

You, however, chose to frame your argument as a contrast between torture and lawful methods. You argued that torture would be faster and therefore more effective than lawful methods (a completely unsupported assertion undermined by the sources posted by Cat-Tribe). I just followed your lead, so it is your own fault if our argument has focused too heavily the lawfu/unlawful dichotomy to suit you.

By the way, the suggestion that you would also consider non-torture illegal methods doesn't really help your position. You should have let me dismiss it as irrelevant.

as I learned from you. *Bow with respect towards Muravyets.*
Whatever.

It seems to me that the problem with torture is that not that it *never* works, but that it is unreliable. It guarantees that the victim will say something but not whether the something is true.

So, if you simply want an admission of guilt, I'm afraid that torture works fine. I wish it didn't.

If you are looking for information that you can quickly verify, it might have value (assuming that you have the morals of ...well, a torturer). "They say the money isn't in the bag! hit him again!"

If you're looking for information you can't veryify quickly, you're screwed -- not because the victim has 0% chance of telling you the truth, quite the reverse; but because you *can't tell*.

This scenario falls between the last two cases, I think. You can quickly verify the location of the bomb -- but you don't really have enough time to go through many iterations.


I think if it were me, and I'd eliminated all other avenues, and I was 100% sure that the guy we'd caught was guilty -- then I *might* be convinced that torturing him would be worth a shot to save 1000's of lives. Afterwards I'd hand myself over to the police. But the OP says torturing the guy himself won't do it, so that's not really relevant.

The only other thing I can think of is a broadcast message to all citizens telling them what's going on. Surely if we *all* look, and we know the name and face of the guy that planted the bomb? Sure, potential mass panic. But I'm not sure that's really any worse than mass panic AND a city going boom.

It seems to me that the problem with torture is that not that it *never* works, but that it is unreliable. It guarantees that the victim will say something but not whether the something is true.

So, if you simply want an admission of guilt, I'm afraid that torture works fine. I wish it didn't.

If you are looking for information that you can quickly verify, it might have value (assuming that you have the morals of ...well, a torturer). "They say the money isn't in the bag! hit him again!"

If you're looking for information you can't veryify quickly, you're screwed -- not because the victim has 0% chance of telling you the truth, quite the reverse; but because you *can't tell*.



Good summary.

I suspect that if the resources, used in torture and verifying the results of it, were used in other ways, the results would be much more useful.

I'm sorry, JuNii, but you have so lost the plot of your own BS, it isn't even funny anymore. None of your remarks below make any sense because they are so twisted off the tracks of the discussion. It seems have if you have confused yourself to the point where you can't even keep track of who posted what, when. read my post Muravyets, you were the one who ASSUMED I would use torture. I only stated that I don't know if I would use torture.

so it's not me who was lost, but you who started on the wrong pont in the first place.

and that proof that it is you who is lost is right here in your next paragraph.

The proof is in this thread. All people have to do is read it to see the progression from you saying you would torture the guy to get the info to you claiming that you only said you don't know whether you would or wouldn't. I have absolutely no intention of filling up this thread with mere repostings of what is already here. I used to do that in arguments like this, but then I realized how short life can be. again, please post where I said I WILL USE torture.

I said I would do what was necessary. your interpretation of that to mean I WILL USE torture means that even with this 'Bullshit' situation you think that torture is the ONLY way to get the information.

again, QUOTE ME where I said I WILL USE Torture. others have posted that they will Torture, so you know what the words look like.

your "I have absolutely no intention of filling up this thread with mere repostings of what is already here" only means that YOU cannot find such postings from me.

I leave that to others to decide. I think I hit it right on the head. Since that would mean you lose the point, I don't expect you to agree. too bad it's the wrong nail.

I hardly call one little dig "harping." And in any event, what hemisphere did you think I was pointing at? Or have you already forgotten what you were trying to needle me about? hey, I'm not the one being the spelling/grammar nazi here.

I stand by my response to your original post. Also, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and a lot more has gone into our argument than those two posts. actually it didn't. You stated that "what I would take responsiblity for was failure because the method I would use doesn't work." too bad I never stated what method I would use. I've stated what I MIGHT use, I've stated what I would MOST LIKELY USE, but I never stated any method, not even the general Torture/legal/ethical classifications. that's why I kept asking YOU what method would YOU use. until you clarified it repeatedly as 'legal and ethical' you only stated that you would not torture. signifying that in your mind there were only two methods. was isn't legal and ethical is torture which is evident in the fact that you kept claming that my "whatever it takes" means torture. feel free to look back on your posts.

It comes down to this: Of all the posters who said they would consider torture, only you tried to make a real argument about it, in which you tried to defend torture as a technique of interrogation. That is why I focused on you. LOL! again show me where I said I would use torture. I kept any arguments confined to the "bullshit" situation. yet the fact that think my blanket statement means torture only shows others that you actually consider torture a viable option even tho you insist that you will use ethical and legal methods.

Now put it into the context of the rest of our argument, in which you carried on defending torture and characterizing it as more effective than lawful methods. go and look again. I never characterized Torture as more effective, I questioned the Effectiveness of 'legal and ethical' in the presented situation. YOU kept assuming I mean torture.

and again Most Likey and I don't know is not "YES I WILL" no matter what the context of the argument is. especially when you assumed from the start that it means YES. go look at your posts.

That is your (defensive?) interpretation.

Another way to read it is: That method doesn't work, so for merely pragmatic reasons, why would you even consider it and put yourself through that unnecessary ethical dilemma? except you didn't state "if you consider torture", no you stated it will always fail because YOU ASSUMED that I would torture from your first post. if you read my posts before the one you quoted you would see that I said I DON'T KNOW what I would do.

So you say. I disagree.fine, show me where I said "I WILL USE TORTURE"

If you don't know how to use a saying, don't. :rolleyes:

I'll give you that. You honestly admit that your choice would be worthy of punishment. Now if we could just get you to admit the rest of your mistakes.and here it is again. "my choice". please tell me what "my choice" was? then quote the post to back it up.

you THINK I said I will torture, but I didn't. I would be punished if methods I used are illegal and/or unethical. but illegal and/or unethical does not mean torture.


I have. That's how I know it. then perhaps it's comprehension of that definition that you're having trouble with. because there is a big difference between unethical and illegal and torture. infact, "I would do whatever it takes" does not mean torture.


Now you're just making yourself sound silly, as well as wrong.

A) Torture IS illegal and unethical.never denied that. but what you are NOT grasping is that Illegal and Unethical is NOT Torture.

B) So are other things that are not torture. yes...

C) Torture is defined by features exclusive to it, NOT by its illegality and unethicalness. Those are additional features. he's getting it folks...

D) Therefore, only things that have the defined features of torture are torture. This obviously does not apply to ALL illegal/unethical actions. YES! he got it. now repeat after me. the Phrase "Whatever it takes" does NOT mean I WILL USE TORTURE. and then you will see that I am not saying I will use torture that you keep insisting.

E) Therefore, it was pointless of you to start raising examples of illegal/unethical things interrogators could do that are not torture, because they in no way affect the argument about torture. except YOU equated anything illegal and unethical to mean Torture pointing to evidence specifically focusing on torture. that's why I kept asking you What methods you would use. there are methods that are illegal and/or unethical and still NOT be considered torture (but will still be illegal and unethical.) yet can be (note, NOT WILL BE) as effective as the Legal and Ethical.

So you say. I stand by my reading of your posts. actually you stand by what you think I'm saying in my post. which is quite the different thing.

Again, that is your (defensive?) interpretation. I am just refusing to muddy the discussion by arguing points that are not relevant to it. ok, here we go once more. and I thought you were learning...

If you read over all my posts, you will see that my main objections to torture are that it is ineffective ("does not work") and you thought that I would use torture, hence your post to me saying "you mean take responsiblity for failure" when I stated that I DON'T KNOW if I WOULD use torture and that Psychologial Torture would MOST LIKELY be used. because YOU thought I said "I WILL TORTURE THE BASTARD AND HIS FAMILY."
and that it is unethical (I prefer that word over "immoral" but it may be read the same way in this context). On those two bases, I would refuse to do it and would prefer other methods which have the benefit of being effective and ethical and which also happen to be lawful. and here it is again. your logic is...
TORTURE = UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL thus UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL = TORTURE.
It's fine that you endevor to stick to legal and ethical means given the situation. but to assume that anything illegal and unethical is torture and thus automatically fails is wrong.

You, however, chose to frame your argument as a contrast between torture and lawful methods. You argued that torture would be faster and therefore more effective than lawful methods (a completely unsupported assertion undermined by the sources posted by Cat-Tribe). WRONG! I argued that Ethical and lawful methods (investigation, legal and lawful questioning etc) is NOT ALWAYS the faster method in the given situation (I never left the bounaries of the situation, YOU did.) I never said that TORTURE was more effective than the Legal and ethical.
I just followed your lead, so it is your own fault if our argument has focused too heavily the lawfu/unlawful dichotomy to suit you. no, you focused and still are focusing on the "Legal and ethical vs everything else is torture". it's all there in your posts.

By the way, the suggestion that you would also consider non-torture illegal methods doesn't really help your position. You should have let me dismiss it as irrelevant. again, the fact that you equate illegal non-torture methods as irrelevant is why you are stuck in the "if it's not legal and not ethical then it's torture" mentality.

Good summary.

I suspect that if the resources, used in torture and verifying the results of it, were used in other ways, the results would be much more useful.

I agree.

<snip for redundancy>
Arguing with you is becoming a waste of time. Here is my response, and it's pretty much all the response you're going to get until some new material comes into the discussion.

1) I SAID that you argued in favor of torture IN CONTRAST TO other, lawful methods by characterizing torture as more effective (despite CT's evidence ot the contrary). Do you deny it? Then I refer readers of this thread back to the thread and your posts in it, to judge for themselves.

2) In other words, you defended torture as a technique. Because of this, I characterized you as an apologist for torture, and I explained in an earlier post why. It's because that is the pattern I see in every other example of people arguing in defense of torture in connection with the scenario used by the OP.

3) Phrases like "the method you would use" etc, are merely following the form of language used in general throughout the discussion. Did you think I was accusing you of some specific crime? Obviously that would be silly of me, as well as highly unlikely.

4) I enjoy the way you stamp and fume in favor of taking the OP's fantasy scenario seriously enough to debate it, but then get all upset when someone you're talking to uses the style of the OP's "what would you do" scenario to argue with you about it. Seems you don't like the hypothetical any more than I do.

5) Finally, you've fallen into a pattern of insisting I said the exact opposite of what I did say. Also, you are ignoring statements I made in response to these same attacks earlier, so you can repeat the earlier attacks as if they were never answered. Answering you point-for-point now would require me to keep restating or reposting everything I've already said to you, and that would be boring. So for all your accusations about what you think I'm doing, I refer you to the answers I have already given you in this thread.

Arguing with you is becoming a waste of time. Here is my response, and it's pretty much all the response you're going to get until some new material comes into the discussion. good, you can use the time to re read the posts.

1) I SAID that you argued in favor of torture IN CONTRAST TO other, lawful methods by characterizing torture as more effective (despite CT's evidence ot the contrary). Do you deny it? Then I refer readers of this thread back to the thread and your posts in it, to judge for themselves. yes I deny it because I never argued in favor that TORTURE was more effective than Lawful methods. I asked if your proof showed that lawful methods were 100% effective which was what YOU were saying.

Please go and refer them by point to the POSTS where that was said. Something I've been asking you to do but for some reason... you claim its a waste of time... or perhaps you can't find it because it's not there.

2) In other words, you defended torture as a technique. Because of this, I characterized you as an apologist for torture, and I explained in an earlier post why. It's because that is the pattern I see in every other example of people arguing in defense of torture in connection with the scenario used by the OP. and because this point is baised on your faulty premise of your previous point, it only compounds your mistake.

3) Phrases like "the method you would use" etc, are merely following the form of language used in general throughout the discussion. Did you think I was accusing you of some specific crime? Obviously that would be silly of me, as well as highly unlikely. except you assumed that the only form I would use was torture hence the "alway fail" statement you made on your first post directed to me. So yes, you did (in accordance with the scenario given) accuse me of a crime. torture.

4) I enjoy the way you stamp and fume in favor of taking the OP's fantasy scenario seriously enough to debate it, but then get all upset when someone you're talking to uses the style of the OP's "what would you do" scenario to argue with you about it. Seems you don't like the hypothetical any more than I do. you're the one calling the scenario "bullshit", you're the one basing your entire argument on your interpretation of my post, and now you say I'M STAMPING AN FUMING? I'm sticking to the hypothetical question and within the confindes of the situation, you however have said you don't care about the situation and you say I don't like hypotheticals?

man, I don't know what world you live in, but please feel free to join us on planet earth in what we call reality.

5) Finally, you've fallen into a pattern of insisting I said the exact opposite of what I did say. Also, you are ignoring statements I made in response to these same attacks earlier, so you can repeat the earlier attacks as if they were never answered. Answering you point-for-point now would require me to keep restating or reposting everything I've already said to you, and that would be boring. So for all your accusations about what you think I'm doing, I refer you to the answers I have already given you in this thread. exact opposite? fine I'll stop when you stop mis comprehending what you read and stop puting words in my mouth/post.

I tell you what. BORE ME. go and quote all my posts that say all you claimed I said. heck, you can even spice it up by color coding all the times I said TORTURE was better than legal methods and Highlight all the times I said I WOULD USE TORTURE.

you keep saying you refer me and others to those posts... yet you don't quote anything, you don't point out anything and you constantly put words in my mouth. I agree with you. I too will wait till you put up new material. tho I will accept past quotes to back up your claims.

good, you can use the time to re read the posts.

yes I deny it because I never argued in favor that TORTURE was more effective than Lawful methods. I asked if your proof showed that lawful methods were 100% effective which was what YOU were saying.
Now you're the one who is putting words in someone else's mouth, as well as lying about your own argument. You go on and on about how you wouldn't try to avoid responsibility for your choices/actions, but you've spent hours trying to squirm out from under your own argument here. I'm done with you.

Please go and refer them by point to the POSTS where that was said. Something I've been asking you to do but for some reason... you claim its a waste of time... or perhaps you can't find it because it's not there.
It's in almost every post you made in response to me. And yes, I am disinclined to do what would amount to reading the whole thread back to you -- possibly because I cynically expect you to just keep denying it no matter what.

Maybe I'll get around to it. Later, after dinner. Or maybe on Monday, if I have nothing better to do than serve your bullheadedness. But not this weekend. I'm booked solid and won't have time to copy links to almost every post you've made here.

EDIT: No, not tonight. I have something else to do after dinner.

<snip the rest of your angry rantings at me>

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...



Stupid premise. How do I know he has knowledge of a dirty bomb? Rather than torture him I'll simply ask whater reliable source informed me this person you describe knows about the dirty bomb - A reliable source must have verified this to me because I have no reason to believe that this prisoner (no demonstrated reliability) has any useful knowledge.

Then I will track his credit card, visa and bank transactions. I will paste his photo on the media and advise the public of everything about him.

I would not inflict pain or risk health, but I would have no difficulty using sleep deprivation, a mole, subterfuge, mind games etc. to get to him. I might even force him to watch "Freddy got Fingered" over and over again...

JuNii, the answer to the question is that we would use legal and effective interrogation techniques, such as those that were long ago approved in the
Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html)(my link is to the 1987 version). Its guidelines cover battlefield capture and screening logistics and the third chapter details the planning, approach, questioning, and termination phases of an interrogation. According to the FM 34-52, the interrogator's goal during the approach phase is to establish rapport with the detainee, which can be done via 17 different methods, including:

"Emotional": taking advantage of a source's strong feelings;

"Fear-up": exploiting a source's fears, real or imagined;

"Pride and ego": flattering a source or attacking his pride, both to serve the purpose of putting him in a frame of mind to reveal information;

"Futility": using facts to prove to the source that his or her current situation is hopeless.

These methods each have several sub-categories, such as "fear-up (harsh)" or "ego-down," and are recommended to be used in combination with each other for the best effect.

The Manual clearly explains, however:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm), emphasis added)

There are time-tested techniques that have been proven to work and are used in compliance with the law. These techniques are not only legal and ethical, but more effective.

Thank you Cat Tribe. Sorry I did not see this earlier, but you just supported my case. within the manual it does state what is legal, what is illegal, and a third catagory of torture.
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor.
The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs
so there is a myrad of things availabe that is both illegal, unethical but still NOT torture.

hence "doing what needs to be done" does NOT mean torture as Muravyets insists that it does.

people would have to be within the blast range of the bomb, which would be less than a city block, in order to sustain injury or death.

the radiation health risks (i.e. increased probability of developing cancer later in life due to radiation exposure) are small and comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes or eating ice cream on a daily basis.

the real danger is from panic, most people will be injured and killed from people acting irrationally.

oh yeah, and torture is unethical. just put yourself in the position of the one being tortured and think to yourself how pleasant that must be.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

my suggestion is that "a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area" can never be other then an assumptions. one that is both absurd and dangerous to make. far more so then any so called terrorist.

all you know that you've captured is a human being, or some life form that appears to be one.

how you subsiquently treat them gets back, as always, to what kind of world would you prefer to live in. to which is the greater risk to yourself and others. a POSSIBLE "dirty bomb" or an ever escalatingly brutal world to have to live in?

=^^=
.../\...

Oops! You were a bit too zealous with your torture, so the one guy who knows where the bomb is is dead. Now how are you going to find it?

Oops! You were a bit too zealous with your torture, so the one guy who knows where the bomb is is dead. Now how are you going to find it?

Tarot card reading.

Torture does work. That's just propaganda. It's extremely effective.

The arguments about false information are ridiculous, you get the same thing in any kind of interrogation.
you remind me of that douchebag from FOX who claimed torture's okay 'cause it made McCain say whatever his guards told him to say after days of torture

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

Surely the better solution, both practically and morally, is to use a lie detector and ask them questions about where they might have placed the bomb?

The UK in Exile;13246735']i would place him under the stress of conventional techniques of sleep deprivation etc. in a room where the clock is programmed to count every 2 seconds as one, that way the clock will tell him the bomb will have already gone off whereas i will know that it hasn't.

then i go into his cell, tearful, oscar worthy, and explain that he's facing the death penalty for his actions and his family is going to gitmo, i can spare his family the trauma and all he has to do is talk me through his plan, how he smuggled it etc.

the location of the bomb that has not yet detonated would probably come up.

YOU WATCHED THAT TV SHOW TOO!!!! YOU WATCHED......um......i kinda forget its name.....but its a really good crime drama.....and I think in the show they just changed the clock 5 hours back while he was sleeping

Surely the better solution, both practically and morally, is to use a lie detector and ask them questions about where they might have placed the bomb?

Lie detectors are fallible too. Not as fallible as torture, but still fallible.

situation:
you have captured a known terrorist who has knoledge of the location of a dirty bomb, that you know is somewhere in a highly populated area. This person will not tell you the location, and you have no way of knowing when the bomb will go off. you know that your nation does not approve of torture, but this is clearly the only option. because thousands of innocent people may die, as well as thousands more from long-term radiation poisoning, you have to result to torture without you nation's consent.


the only problem is, the terrorist will not crack under torture. however, you do have his family captured as well. you could try to torture him, possibly wasting too much time and killing those innocent people within the city. or, you could torture his son in front of him. you know that he will tell you very shortly after that, but his info may not be completely true.


any sugestions?
choose quickly, innocent lives are at stake...

How do you know that he has knowledge of a dirty bomb? Where did you get that information?

Torture someone for information about a thing that might not even exist? Sounds like fail.

But - evn if the device does exist, people lie under torture. People say anything under torture...

Lie detectors are fallible too. Not as fallible as torture, but still fallible.

Actually, I think they are quite a bit more fallable, considering how they arent even allowed to be counted as evidence in many states and there are numerous and proven ways to beat them

Actually, I think they are quite a bit more fallable, considering how they arent even allowed to be counted as evidence in many states and there are numerous and proven ways to beat them
Testimony/confession/information gotten by torture are not admissible in court as evidence, either, partially for the exact same reason. That does not just apply to many states (US), but to all of them. As for ways to "beat" (resist) torture, the US military, for one example, has an entire program to train personnel to do just that.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13247336']Do they really? The CIA seems to have forgotten the "Torture doesn't work" rule, with waterboarding in Guantanamo and all those black sites they run in other countries where detainess have no legal rights whatsoever.

Well, torture has proven to be effective at extracting "confessions", true or not.

Sadly, I'm fairly sure that I would resort to some sort of torture. =\

Actually, I think they are quite a bit more fallable, considering how they arent even allowed to be counted as evidence in many states and there are numerous and proven ways to beat them

I'd say torture is more fallible. You can torture someone into admitting guilt, you can't lie detector them into admitting guilt.



Well, unless you torture them with a lie detector.

Lie detectors are fallible too. Not as fallible as torture, but still fallible.

Even more fallible, arguably -- there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that they are easy to fool by someone who is trained to fool them (http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)) worse yet, the idea that changes in skin conductivity, etc can detect lies as at all is questionable (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369).

Not that I want to start another argument or anything. :rolleyes:

Even more fallible, arguably -- there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that they are easy to fool by someone who is trained to fool them (http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)) worse yet, the idea that changes in skin conductivity, etc can detect lies as at all is questionable (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369).

Not that I want to start another argument or anything. :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone is going to argue that they are reliable. Short of big advances in the field of neurology and biology, lie detectors won't really be much more than a party game.

OK, I was going to ignore JuNii and his little side fight with me from now on, but his latest post is just so annoying, I feel I have to do what he's been demanding so pointlessly from me.

Our story so far: JuNii posted a response to the OP in which he presented what I consider to be a disingenuous and, frankly, weasely position.

First, he stated that he didn't know what he would do but he would do "whatever it takes." Then he started trying to fuzzy the line about what constitutes torture and where the line gets drawn by splitting hairs between one kind of torture and another kind of torture and one kind of illegal action and other kinds of illegal actions, and making vague references to which ones he MIGHT feel more or less comfortable with. Then he started talking about how he wouldn't try to deny responsibility if, in the end, he did choose to torture the guy.

Now, to me, this sounded almost exactly like the weaseling and maneuvering of the Bush adminstration trying to do exactly what JuNii says he wouldn't do -- avoid responsibility for committing torture, first by trying to redefine torture so that whatever they chose to do doesn't have that label put on it, and then by trying to use only carefully selected words and define them so narrowly that, no matter what they say, they can try to deny that they ever claimed it would be okay to torture.

So I challenged JuNii, and I chose one detail to begin my challenges: The part where he said what he would do IF HE CHOSE TO TORTURE THE GUY.

Accepting the "what would you do" set-up of the whole argument, I approached it thusly: In this part of his scenario, JuNii acknowledges that there is a possibility that he would choose to torture someone, so let's look at that choice and argue it. So, I said, "So you would accept responsibility for your failure, because the method you would choose doesn't work."

JuNii's response was interesting. First, he spent several days arguing that torture is more effective than lawful methods of police work and intelligence gathering and, thus, I would the one failing while he would be the one using the best method. Then he spent another few days trying to claim that he never said he would choose to torture the guy, and that I had just made that up. Lately, even in talking to someone else, he has continued to twist and misrepresent my arguments. And through it all, he has challenged me to show him where he said any of this.

Well, I'll be honest, I do not believe I can show JuNii anything because you can't show people things they don't want to see (like the proverbial horse you can lead to water, but can't make drink). I am fairly confident that, no matter what I show JuNii, he will continue to deny it. But for the sake of representing myself clearly, I wll do it, and let others decide for themselves whether JuNii has been arguing in support of torture as a technique or not. I will also not refer to this argument again. JuNii can have as many last words on this as he likes.

So, following are the highlighted phrases from JuNii that led me to believe he was arguing in favor of torture as a technique of interrogating prisoners. <Snips> represent things that are off my point or were repetitions of his points. within quotes are my comments:

His initial statement:
<snip>

I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

<snip>

In response to my asking why torture apologists cannot get their brain wrapped around the "it doesn't work" thing:
The same way you and others got your brain wrapped around the "it always fails" thing.

me, I believe the success or failure of any interrogation technique depends on alot of things.

[u][The above is JuNii suggesting that torture can be an effective method -- M]

<snip>

as I said, I don't know if I would physically torture people, but playing mind games with him I would do.

he would know we have his family. but whether or not we are torturing his family will be his speculation.

I would mess with his perceptions of things. I would disorent him.

any information he gives will be checked and investigated, but he and his family won't be released... as far a the other knows anyway...

[The above is him listing legal, non-torture methods he would use. On this basis he later claimed he never argued in favor of torture. -- M]

Funny how alot of people say "Torture is wrong" yet they don't say what they would do to get that information. So what techniques would YOU employ to get that information?

I guess they would let the bomb go off and kill millions of people for the mental and physical comfort of the bomber.

[The above is him suggesting that torture is more effective than legal methods and that those who would not torture are only interested in coddling terrorists. -- M]

<snip>

and these experts do say that it doesn't work 100% of the time? or that it doesn't work for the majority of the time?

[JuNii challenging my assertion that "torture doesn't work", as if a low chance of effectiveness makes it a viable method. I say this is an argument in favor of torture. --M]

<snip>
and it takes time to gather that info. time you may or may not have.

and remember, you have the terrorist in custody, so you know he planted the bomb, how do you get the information out of him?

so you are saying that you will take the responsibility of failing to stop the bomb because you were still 'gathering information' while you had the bomber in your custody.

[Here JuNii again suggests that torture is more effective than lawful methods. --M]

The next two quotes illustrate another example of JuNii arguing that torture is more effective than lawful methods for getting information fast, while ignoring the simple fact that getting wrong information fast doesn't solve the problem fast, and that this contradicts his earlier statement about how he would verify all his information via (slow) investigation anyway, so that there is really no time advantage to torture over lawful methods, even by his own arguments. Also, in these exchanges, he denies that he is arguing in support of torture, even as he does so.
Considering that torture takes MORE time (we're talking DAYS here, people don't crack in 30 minutes. Read the fuck up about it.) than most decent techniques, yeah, I'd say you have no point. Either drop the support for torture or admit your real reasons for wanting it.

ok, so how would you get the information out of the terrorist that's been already arrested?

and my position isn't FOR torture, nor is it AGAINST torture it's trying to find out the methods those adamantly against torture would use?

sure you would investigate, but there will be a point where the Where and When won't be answered by investigation. Especially when someone else fucks up and arrests the terrorist (like the OP states) so what would you do to get the where and when?

Oh and Investigation also takes DAYS, not 30 mins like those cop shows on T.V.

Next, JuNii again challenges the effectiveness of lawful methods as opposed to torture. He also claims that I have not said what I would do, evne though I did say what I would do in general terms and used the detailed posts of Cat-Tribe and Heikoku, et al., to describe precisely what I would do. Note: I prefer not to argue in a vacuum as if no one else is posting information that I can use because I think lots of people all posting the same info amounts to spam. At one point in the thread, Cat-Tribe specifically answered a "what would you do if not torture" question that JuNii had addressed to me, and gave my answer better than I could have, so I let that response stand for me as a bolster to what I had already said to JuNii about it.
I would do what I thought was needed. but I would also not use the "it had to be done so I'm blameless" excuse IF I did resort to torture.

please show proof that these legal and ethical "interrogation methods" are more effective and faster.

<snip>

and again, what method would you use to get accurate and timely information while at the same time being totally legal and ethical?

<snip>

funny, you and those who are admantly against torture still haven't said what you would do.

so what, in detail, would your Method B entail that won't fall under Mental, physical or emotional harm yet get the information you need? or will you constantly answer "torture is wrong"?

[The above paragraph is the first of JuNii's attempts to characterize any kind of coercive or insistent method of questioning as akin to torture, despite the clear definitions of torture that exist in law. My opinion about this is that he is trying to make it so he can characterize his pro-torture remarks as not really being about torture, despite his use of the word. Or he may simply be trying again to imply that the only way to get useful information is via torture, which of course, is false. --M]

<snip>

now this is the clostest you came to stating a method. Prolong? how long would you question him. remember, you only have 24 hours to legally hold him, any longer and it's not legal. and if he doesn't have a laywer present, it's not legal interrogation.

and yet Lawyers play the hair-splitting game at trial. it can be argued that Waterboarding leave no PHYSICAL harm (scars and whatnot) and thus is not torture, yet it does leave mental ones which is torture. it's that hair-splitting that you hate so much that is involved in each court trial... both on the defense and prosecution.

[Above, JuNii tries to imply that the only difference between torture and lawful methods is whatever lawyers can make a judge or jury think at trial, another attempt to blur the distinction between torture and non-torture acts. --M]

so you would release the bomber after 24 hours when he gives nothing up and continue the investigation. hope that is enough when you are called up by the comittee on why you failed to stop the bomb even tho you had the bomber.

[Another suggestion that lawful methods are not as effective as unlawful ones. After this point, JuNii tried to insist that the unlawful methods he was advocating did not include torture, but I maintain that he was defending torture all along. --M]

<snip>

<snip>

[Responding to me asking him what he didn't understand about following the law and using only lawful methods -- M:]

that a short, lawyer present session of questioning without harrasement will be successful in producing the information in a short period of time.

[In other words, in JuNii's opinion, the law is useless and lawful methods never work when time is an issue. I think that sums up JuNii's position nicely. --M]

yet it's the squirmings of lawyers that would decide how the law was interpreted and if it was followed.

[Another attempt to claim that the definition of torture is relative or flexible, in total disregard for existing law. --M]

the success part givin the limitations of the situation given.

[Yet again, he claims lawful methods will never work. Also, as of this point, JuNii tries to argue that none of this argument applies to anything outside of the fantasy scenario of the OP, but as I told him and as I said earlier in this post, I do not debate in a vacuum. Torture is a real issue, and I was discussing it in real terms. --M]

no, no fantasy. I never said Torture was more successful. nor did I say it was better than legal and ethical interrigation. I only was asking how can you say that, outside of legal and ethical being the reason, non-torture techniques would work within the constraints of the given situation. Sure the situation practically screams 'use torture'. but given that situation, how can one say they won't. especially if the location of the bomb is also unknown.

[And here he tries to deny his own argument, and change the focus and scope of the argument, and still expresses belief in the viability of the torture option, all at the same time. --M]


And it just kept going downhill from there. For the rest of his posts in response to me, JuNii continued to do what he did in that last quoted paragraph -- deny his own words, claim he was talking about something else all along, and still claim that lawful methods would not be as effective as torture.

I made my opinion of his arguments clear to him. He demanded that I show him the basis for my opinion, and so I have done so. Here it is. As long as JuNii's argument remains the same, I have nothing further to say to him about it, so I hope he will be satisfied kicking this around.

I will only add to this by repeating what I said to JuNii during our argument: I characterize his entire argument as that of a torture apologist because it is identical to the arguments of torture apologists we have seen time and again since 9/11 in the US media. I'm sticking to my statement.

--M

Kwel, I was waiting for this.
my comments in red
First, he stated that he didn't know what he would do but he would do "whatever it takes." this is true. Then he started trying to fuzzy the line about what constitutes torture and where the line gets drawn by splitting hairs between one kind of torture and another kind of torture and one kind of illegal action and other kinds of illegal actions, and making vague references to which ones he MIGHT feel more or less comfortable with. this is false. why? simple. if you re-read the posts, M's thinking is only two sided. what is legal/ethical and then there's torture. Then he started talking about how he wouldn't try to deny responsibility if, in the end, he did choose to torture the guy. again, false, I always claimed I would take responsibility for my actions. and as for "he did choose to torture the guy" let's see if he can do what I've always asked him to do when he made this claim, back it up.

Now, to me, this sounded almost exactly like the weaseling and maneuvering of the Bush adminstration trying to do exactly what JuNii says he wouldn't do -- avoid responsibility for committing torture, man, all these false accusations. where did I say I wouldn't take responsibilty? can he back this up? let's find out first by trying to redefine torture so that whatever they chose to do doesn't have that label put on it, and then by trying to use only carefully selected words and define them so narrowly that, no matter what they say, they can try to deny that they ever claimed it would be okay to torture. hmmm. whatever it takes to M seems to be torture. yet there are a myrad of techniques which are also illegal and unelthical yet not torture. as M said, Torture is specifically defined. now this paragraph claims I choose to torture the guy. so let's see if M can back it up.

So I challenged JuNii, and I chose one detail to begin my challenges: The part where he said what he would do IF HE CHOSE TO TORTURE THE GUY. oh really? Lets see if he did focus his challange on "If I chose to torture him."

Accepting the "what would you do" set-up of the whole argument, I approached it thusly: In this part of his scenario, JuNii acknowledges that there is a possibility that he would choose to torture someone, so let's look at that choice and argue it. So, I said, "So you would accept responsibility for your failure, because the method you would choose doesn't work." and while he doesn't produce that quote now, I'll put it up while all his points are fresh in the post.
I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

but I would take full responsibility... success or failure, I would take the full responsibility of my actions.
Ok, here I stated in general my answer to the OP's question. Do you see any mention of me saying I will use torture or am I saying that torture is a possibility?
I don't say I will use torture, of course, I don't say I won't either.
"most likely." again, not will use torture, not won't, but a high probability that IF I do, it will be mental or psychological.
And finally, my statement that I would take responsibility for my actions despite what the results are. A concession that the outcome does not excuse any method use. note that I never said I will use torture, only that it's a possiblity and no matter what, I will take resonsibility.

ok, now every conversation has at least two participants. so let's have M's response. NOW remember, he said he challanged "The part where he said what he would do IF HE CHOSE TO TORTURE THE GUY."

You mean you'd take the responsibility for your failure, because you would not get what you need by that means. Why can't people wrap their brains around the "it doesn't work" thing? now look. at his post. "that means" whatever it takes is a broad scope of methods. yet he said he challanged me if I choose to torture the guy. did he say "Torture doesn't work" or "it doesn't work?" so this is actually a challange on the fact that I would use methods legal and not.

JuNii's response was interesting. First, he spent several days arguing that torture is more effective than lawful methods of police work and intelligence gathering and, thus, I would the one failing while he would be the one using the best method. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! many times M pulls out this card, I ask him to back it up. and has he? well let's find out shall we? Then he spent another few days trying to claim that he never said he would choose to torture the guy, and that I had just made that up. and this I will prove to you. Lately, even in talking to someone else, he has continued to twist and misrepresent my arguments. And through it all, he has challenged me to show him where he said any of this. and now he has.

So, following are the highlighted phrases from JuNii that led me to believe he was arguing in favor of torture as a technique of interrogating prisoners. <Snips> represent things that are off my point or were repetitions of his points. within quotes are my comments: and my comments will be in red.

His initial statement:
I would do whatever it takes to get that information and to stop that bomb and I would take full responsibility for my actions.

Would I employ physical torture on anyone? I honestly don't know.

Would I employ Psycological or mental torture on anyone? Most likely.

but I would take full responsibility... success or failure, I would take the full responsibility of my actions.
Ok, here I stated in general my answer to the OP's question. Do you see any mention of me saying I will use torture or am I saying that torture is a possibility?
I don't say I will use torture, of course, I don't say I won't either.
"most likely." again, not will use torture, not won't, but a high probability that IF I do, it will be mental or psychological.
And finally, my statement that I would take responsibility for my actions despite what the results are. A concession that the outcome does not excuse any method use. note that I never said I will use torture, only that it's a possiblity. Lets see if that also changes.

In response to my asking why torture apologists cannot get their brain wrapped around the "it doesn't work" thing:
and since he failed to provide his quote... here it is.
You mean you'd take the responsibility for your failure, because you would not get what you need by that means. Why can't people wrap their brains around the "it doesn't work" thing? now, do you see M focusing on any particular method that my blanket statement covers? or is he commenting on my choice of 'using whatever it takes'. Now if he said "IF you resort to torture, it won't work" then the rest of the conversation would've been null and void. but he never specified what method M claims he's focusing on. so he's also focusing on my broad "using whatever it takes" statement and NOT "IF I CHOSE TO TORTURE THE GUY" like he just backpeddaled and claimed.

The same way you and others got your brain wrapped around the "it always fails" thing.

me, I believe the success or failure of any interrogation technique depends on alot of things.
[The above is JuNii suggesting that torture can be an effective method -- M]and look for me saying torture is an effective method. in fact, I do say "any interrorgation technique" (in green). so M just proved to you that in his mind there is only legal and Torture, nothing else.

the OP has given us some info.

1) it's a known terrorist who has knowledge. so there is no chance that it's someone who doesn't know about the bomb.
2) Torturing him won't work, but torturing his son/family infront of him will work. (tho the info may not be accurate.)
3) you are on a time schedule.

as I said, I don't know if I would physically torture people, but playing mind games with him I would do.

he would know we have his family. but whether or not we are torturing his family will be his speculation.

I would mess with his perceptions of things. I would disorent him
any information he gives will be checked and investigated, but he and his family won't be released... as far a the other knows anyway...
[The above is him listing legal, non-torture methods he would use. On this basis he later claimed he never argued in favor of torture. -- M]
yet will M prove I argued in favor of torture?

so what would you do to get that information? first time I'm asking for what method Muravyets (or anyone actually) would use.

Funny how alot of people say "Torture is wrong" yet they don't say what they would do to get that information. So what techniques would YOU employ to get that information?

I guess they would let the bomb go off and kill millions of people for the mental and physical comfort of the bomber.
[The above is him suggesting that torture is more effective than legal methods and that those who would not torture are only interested in coddling terrorists. -- M] did I say I will torture? Did I ask for what torture technicques one would use? no, this is a question to see what would one do that is not torture. and notice that to M, me asking what the "torture is wrong" crowd would do is arguing for torture. RIGHT... black and white thinking. remember that.

so let's now look at m's next post.

And this is just the usual bunch of nonsense we hear all the time from torture apologists and supporters. the start of Muravyets calling me a torture Apologist or supporter. can he back it up? nope.

1) I say torture never works because the experts say it never works. By "experts" I mean the intelligence officials and interrogators whose job it is to get information out of people, and who have studied the matter extensively, studied the history of it, and in many cases actually tried torture themselves and seen its results. Now I invite you to trot out the parade of competent experts who say it does work, and then we can argue about whose view is more realistic.

2) The OP gives us information? The OP gives us a plot summary of a 24 episode. It's bullshit, from start to finish. It has no bearing on reality whatsoever. I am sick and tired of this fantasy being tossed around as if it has any meaning, while people are facing real threats of torture for no reason whatsoever, in real life, right now.

3) People who oppose torture most certainly do say what they would do to get the information. It's called intelligence work. Emphasis on the "work." It's called questioning and investigation. It's also called legal. And finally, it's also called effective and productive.

4) And as for that bull about coddling terrorists while letting bombs go off willy-nilly, you know what else real intelligence work is called? It's called "not wasting precious time fucking around with some unproductive horsecrap while letting a bomb go off and killing loads of folks because you were too busy playing gotcha with your prisoner." ok, great points. but notice that of the myrad of techniques that are there, he only focuses on torture and Legal. Nothing else. and remember his 2nd point.

The next two quotes illustrate another example of JuNii arguing that torture is more effective than lawful methods for getting information fast, see it again? either Torture or Lawful. while ignoring the simple fact that getting wrong information fast doesn't solve the problem fast, and that this contradicts his earlier statement about how he would verify all his information via (slow) all these new accusations. well, lets see him back it up investigation anyway, so that there is really no time advantage to torture over lawful methods, even by his own arguments. did I say torture was faster? or did I say his lawful methods may not succeed in the time constraints given in the situation? Also, in these exchanges, he denies that he is arguing in support of torture, even as he does so. and I'm not. but again, let's see if M can back it up.

ok, so how would you get the information out of the terrorist that's been already arrested?

and my position isn't FOR torture, nor is it AGAINST torture it's trying to find out the methods those adamantly against torture would use?

sure you would investigate, but there will be a point where the Where and When won't be answered by investigation. Especially when someone else fucks up and arrests the terrorist (like the OP states) so what would you do to get the where and when?

Oh and Investigation also takes DAYS, not 30 mins like those cop shows on T.V. hmm... saying I'm not arging for or against torture = agruing for torture? and M is arguing real issues? and stating there is a point where investigation will not go any further = arguing that torture is better? you know M, you're sounding more and more like Bush than I ever could.

Now M skips alot of posts. guess he couldn't find his support there, but I'll post it because it's very important.

and I am not a torture supporter nor apologist, but I do recognize that people will do things under extreme circumstances. and I also never said that it does excuse their actions. hence the "taking full responsibility of my actions".because I was not sure whether or not Muravyets was calling me a supporter or apologist of torture, I started with this. a statement that indicates that people do get carried away due to extreme circumstances and that there is no excuse for using torture. So is this in support of torture? Is this in anyway saying using torture techniques is ok?

and these experts do say that it doesn't work 100% of the time? or that it doesn't work for the majority of the time? Now, Is this an argument for torture? or is this an argument about his claim that torture NEVER works. read it again if you want.

His thread, His scenario.

and you complain about a fantasy setting while posting on a forum built around the concept of running a fantasy nation?

and it takes time to gather that info. time you may or may not have.and it does. the OP hinted that time is a factor. is this what he thinks is an argument saying torture is better and faster? Please point how saying that a legal investigation will take time means that Torture would be faster? oh that's right. To M, it's either Legal or Torture. and I can back this claim up, unlike M's claims.

and remember, you have the terrorist in custody, so you know he planted the bomb, how do you get the information out of him? here I stated that you have most of the information and again pose the question to M who has not answered the first time except with a blanket statement of investigation (which I said takes time and was actually done)

so you are saying that you will take the responsibility of failing to stop the bomb because you were still 'gathering information' while you had the bomber in your custody. this is a response to his comment about playing "Gotcha" with the terrorist. Remember, I've already stated I would take full responsibility of my actions M probably forgot about that. but will he take responsibility should he fail? let's see if he answer it shall we?

Next, JuNii again challenges the effectiveness of lawful methods as opposed to torture. oh, let's see this... He also claims that I have not said what I would do, evne though I did say what I would do in general terms and used the detailed posts of Cat-Tribe and Heikoku, et al., to describe precisely what I would do. in other words, he let's other people talk for him. that's fine, but remember this when he claims "He listed it many times" Note: I prefer not to argue in a vacuum as if no one else is posting information that I can use because I think lots of people all posting the same info amounts to spam. At one point in the thread, Cat-Tribe specifically answered a "what would you do if not torture" question that JuNii had addressed to me, and gave my answer better than I could have, so I let that response stand for me as a bolster to what I had already said to JuNii about it. so he didn'... I already listed the methods I would use, several times over. but instead relied on other's definition...

now he jumps to post 128, and skips alot of posts that lead up to his 'proof'. fine. let's go. the parts he snipped out as well as his comments i put back in Green.

So, you would resort to torture even though you know it's wrong. I'll bet you'd call that being a realist, wouldn't you? People who believe it is ever okay to torture people always claim they are just being realistic. I do not consider it realistic to choose to use a method that does not work.I would do what I thought was needed. but I would also not use the "it had to be done so I'm blameless" excuse IF I did resort to torture.

So you would be happy wasting your time with an illegal and unethical method that only has an extremely low likelihood of working, and you would choose that over methods that have very high likelihoods of working and are both legal and ethical?
please show proof that these legal and ethical "interrogation methods" are more effective and faster. note, fater than what? Notice I never stated. this is done on purpose. and also note, while torture is Illegal and unethical, he phrases his question to equate all illegal and unethical methods to be torture. makes his 'proof' somewhat dubiuos that I am supporting torture to be faster and more effective/efficent than legal methods.

<snip>
nah, why snip? because you wanna hide the biggest flaw in your argument? remember my claim about M focusing only on two catagories of torture? legal and torture? well, here's the proof.
Both methods take days.

Method A has a high likelihood of producing either wrong information or no information at all. Method B has a high likelihood of producing useful information.

Method A is illegal. Method B is legal.

Method A is unethical. Method B is ethical.

Method A creates harm to society at large by making people fear authorities and antagonizing members of the groups who feel most targeted. Method B can bring a society together by uniting people behind the authorities and making non-criminal members of the target group trust the authorities by fair-dealing.

And as I said, both take days, so there is a chance that neither one will be able to stop this mythical bomb from blowing up.

But in everything that the two methods can do, B is clearly preferable to A, both for its nature and its results. In case you haven't guessed, Method A is torture, and Method B is intelligence gathering, spying, investigations, and police work.
and this is what the following response is to. and note, if it's not legal it's torture. either one or the other.

and again, what method would you use to get accurate and timely information while at the same time being totally legal and ethical?

now the focus is accurate and timely information. everything M's mentioned under b all takes time. how is this a support that torture is better? especially when M ignores the third catagory.

<snip>

funny, you and those who are admantly against torture still haven't said what you would do.

so what, in detail, would your Method B entail that won't fall under Mental, physical or emotional harm yet get the information you need? or will you constantly answer "torture is wrong"?

[The above paragraph is the first of JuNii's attempts to characterize any kind of coercive or insistent method of questioning as akin to torture, despite the clear definitions of torture that exist in law. My opinion about this is that he is trying to make it so he can characterize his pro-torture remarks as not really being about torture, despite his use of the word. Or he may simply be trying again to imply that the only way to get useful information is via torture, which of course, is false. --M] no, it was trying to get you to see that there are methods that are illegal but not torture, something YOU STILL DON'T SEE.

now this is the clostest you came to stating a method. Prolong? how long would you question him. remember, you only have 24 hours to legally hold him, any longer and it's not legal. and if he doesn't have a laywer present, it's not legal interrogation.

and yet Lawyers play the hair-splitting game at trial. it can be argued that Waterboarding leave no PHYSICAL harm (scars and whatnot) and thus is not torture, yet it does leave mental ones which is torture. it's that hair-splitting that you hate so much that is involved in each court trial... both on the defense and prosecution.

[Above, JuNii tries to imply that the only difference between torture and lawful methods is whatever lawyers can make a judge or jury think at trial, another attempt to blur the distinction between torture and non-torture acts. --M]LOL... yet M posts this... I disagree. The law is clear, and the law is what I follow. The squirmings of lawyers (apologies to CT) do not change that. when it's the squirmings of those laywers that's a part of our legal system. and note, difference bewteen torture and lawful. as if in M's mind there is no other choice.

so you would release the bomber after 24 hours when he gives nothing up and continue the investigation. hope that is enough when you are called up by the comittee on why you failed to stop the bomb even tho you had the bomber.

[Another suggestion that lawful methods are not as effective as unlawful ones. After this point, JuNii tried to insist that the unlawful methods he was advocating did not include torture, but I maintain that he was defending torture all along. --M] Oh, see that? now he switches to "unlawful" methods when all this time he's specifically mentioning torture. as if M is... backpeddaling.

Keep reading his 'reasons' and note that he's the one trying to equate all illegal and unethical techniques as Torture.

[U][Responding to me asking him what he didn't understand about following the law and using only lawful methods -- M:]after all, there is only legal and torture right?

that a short, lawyer present session of questioning without harrasement will be successful in producing the information in a short period of time.

[In other words, in JuNii's opinion, the law is useless and lawful methods never work when time is an issue. I think that sums up JuNii's position nicely. --M] yet who is ignoring the squirimg of lawyers?

yet it's the squirmings of lawyers that would decide how the law was interpreted and if it was followed.

[Another attempt to claim that the definition of torture is relative or flexible, in total disregard for existing law. --M] please look at his quoted line. where does it state or where did I ever state that torture is relative or flexable?

the success part givin the limitations of the situation given.

[Yet again, he claims lawful methods will never work. Also, as of this point, JuNii tries to argue that none of this argument applies to anything outside of the fantasy scenario of the OP, but as I told him and as I said earlier in this post, I do not debate in a vacuum. Torture is a real issue, and I was discussing it in real terms. --M] yet another attempt to cloud the issue. M still thinks in two terms. Torture and Legal. both in a fantasy setting or real life. If I claim that Legal methods are hampering and time consuming, according to M, that must mean that I would put the thumbscrews on or start the waterboarding... meanwhile ignoring all the illegal and yet non-torture methods out there.

no, no fantasy. I never said Torture was more successful. nor did I say it was better than legal and ethical interrigation. I only was asking how can you say that, outside of legal and ethical being the reason, non-torture techniques would work within the constraints of the given situation. Sure the situation practically screams 'use torture'. but given that situation, how can one say they won't. especially if the location of the bomb is also unknown.

[And here he tries to deny his own argument, and change the focus and scope of the argument, and still expresses belief in the viability of the torture option, all at the same time. --M]
and yet he still fails to show where I support torture or even say that torture is better than legal methods.

he didn't prove it because he keeps thinking that if it's not legal, then it's torture.

And it just kept going downhill from there. For the rest of his posts in response to me, JuNii continued to do what he did in that last quoted paragraph -- deny his own words, claim he was talking about something else all along, and still claim that lawful methods would not be as effective as torture.

I made my opinion of his arguments clear to him. He demanded that I show him the basis for my opinion, and so I have done so. Here it is. As long as JuNii's argument remains the same, I have nothing further to say to him about it, so I hope he will be satisfied kicking this around.note, opinions, not facts that he was saying in his earlier posts. "[Junii] said" now is "M"'s opinion of... and remember when he accuses ME of backpeddaling?

I will only add to this by repeating what I said to JuNii during our argument: I characterize his entire argument as that of a torture apologist because it is identical to the arguments of torture apologists we have seen time and again since 9/11 in the US media. I'm sticking to my statement.
--M

so he said he could prove where I said torture is better. he failed that account. He said he could prove where I supported torture, he failed at that. He said I was trying to blur the lines of what is or isn't torture. yet he is the one whos arguing anything not legal is torture. he claims I'm backpeddaling, yet he's the one trying to redefine his points and arguments. He said I had a high disrequard for the law and yet who (between the two of us) is ignoring what the lawyers say. and finally, he said he can prove where I would be shirking my statement of taking responsiblity of my actions, he failed to prove even that. all those underlined points he strove to prove and failed in a scale grander than President Bush, to do so.

so M, nice long post, but it still fails to back up your claims.

<snip>

so he said he could prove where I said torture is better. he failed that account. He said he could prove where I supported torture, he failed at that. He said I was trying to blur the lines of what is or isn't torture. yet he is the one whos arguing anything not legal is torture. he claims I'm backpeddaling, yet he's the one trying to redefine his points and arguments. He said I had a high disrequard for the law and yet who (between the two of us) is ignoring what the lawyers say. and finally, he said he can prove where I would be shirking my statement of taking responsiblity of my actions, he failed to prove even that. all those underlined points he strove to prove and failed in a scale grander than President Bush, to do so.

so M, nice long post, but it still fails to back up your claims.
A) Some of what you say I said, I never said. As for the rest, I absolutely stand by the quotes of you I made in support of my assertions. I say I demonstrated the basis of my points. Naturally, you will disagree.

B) I know I said I wouldn't respond further, but you are so annoying about this, I just couldn't resist. So I make this post to use for all further responses on this particular side topic.

C) She, fyi.

A) Some of what you say I said, I never said. As for the rest, I absolutely stand by the quotes of you I made in support of my assertions. I say I demonstrated the basis of my points. Naturally, you will disagree. well, technically, we are arguing interpretations of what was posted. so yes, we can disagree. I'm just glad that we kept it civil. :cool:

C) She, fyi. Apologies. :cool:

Douchebag.

Douchebag.

Which one(s)?

There are different kinds of torture, it doesn't have to be physical. Personally, I would let my daughter talk to him. and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk. She can go on for hours on almost any subject in the world, in detail, incessantly. After being in room with her for an hour or two, I'll agree to anything, just to get her to shut up. Everyone who knows her says the same thing. She'll have the information out of him in short order.