Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

*Coughcough* Potato famine

Mr Hyena wrote:

There is no middle ground or room for policy that addresses both points!

I'd love that. But nobody has put up a competent idea like that.

I did. I did two pages ago. The middle ground Idea is hunt down and prosecute terrorists as the international criminals that they are, not treat them and their sympathizers as a foreign military body without state representation that can be interred forever and be treated in any way we want. Capture them, try them, jail them if they're guilty. None of this extraordinary rendition bs. If they're tried and are guilty then kill them if applicable. Kill them with a missile if they escaped or were tried in absentia.

But don't skip the rule of law just because it's inconvenient and you're scared.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

*Coughcough* Potato famine

1. That was Ireland, not the US.
2. It was not food poisoing.
3. IT WAS ANOTHER FREAKING COUNTRY.

Frazzled wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

*Coughcough* Potato famine

1. That was Ireland, not the US.
2. It was food poisoing.
3. IT WAS ANOTHER FREAKING COUNTRY.

Mr Hyena wrote:You mean the idea that would involve dealing with the suspects after they've already blown up the place?

I don't know how it works in the UK, but here, conspiracy to commit acts of violence-- especially great acts of violence-- is also a crime. And I don't know how it works in the UK, but the USA isn't so weak and pathetic that the only way we can possibly catch criminals is through tossing random people in a concrete box without a trial or any civil rights and letting them rot until they admit guilt.

People make jokes about our government, but we still hire some of the best-- if not THE best-- investigative minds in the entirety of the human population, and they find criminals, find plots, fend off terrorists, and put people in jail, without having to resort to indefinite detention without a trial.

There will always be some that slip through the cracks. No amount of security measures will prevent this. There is no such thing as 100% secure.

Ever.

I think some people forget that the Imperium of Man is a fictional world for a wargame, and not an aspirational goalpost.

As for 9/11 causing recession and war, that was something we did to ourselves. Worse, that was what Bin Laden wanted, and we played right into it. That is what makes me the most angry.

Bin Laden basically wanted to tarpit us, and look ten years later... it worked! Terrorists won, because some people hate the American ideals. The problem was the people that hated American ideals happen to live in America and aren't even (knowing) aligned with Al-Qaeda.

Edit: Melissia= exactly right.

People make jokes about our government, but we still hire some of the best-- if not THE best-- investigative minds in the entirety of the human population, and they find criminals, find plots, fend off terrorists, and put people in jail, without having to resort to indefinite detention without a trial.

Want to throw out...Mossad...Scotland Yard...

So where exactly are we at on this rollercoaster? Are we still stuck on Enemy Combatant and Unlawful Combatant? How they fall under UCMJ/Laws of War? Extrodinary Rendition? Enhance Interrogation compare to Actual Torture? Recession of 2001? Of course some people forgot to read the prt that if 9/11 didn't happen we could have curbed it. You all do know UCMJ is federal law to?

Mr. Hyena, Pyriel:

Humane methods are much more effective in the real world. Funny thing, we have, and have had for decades, professional military interrogators who don't use torture and who get results. Let's let one of them explain it:

As I said when there is t i m e humane methods should be taken, lets look at this quote of yours:

One has to "go to school" on each captive. Who is he? Can I communicate with him in his language? What are his core beliefs? His loves? Hates? Fears? Where do his loyalties lie? Does he have a family, an inflated ego, perhaps some other core vulnerability? Does he have a hobby or some passion that might get him talking? What do we know about his activities before he fell into our hands? What about his religion? Sect? Tribe? Culture? Or the history of his movement? What have other captives in our hands said about him? Did he have documents or a computer that were seized with him? What drives this unique individual?

How long time does this require, to learn all about someones psyche in depth to be able to expertly use all those hidden weaknesses?

So again, what about when time is of the essence?

Quotes are good but...they still haven't detailed exactly how they get them to talk. They say they pamper them...somehow that gets them to talk?

That...defies all logic.

While I´m sure a real psychology pro can use mild methods to break down almost anyone this takes a lot of time, time that might not always be available.

Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.

I take it as a no then, you simply are unable to answer up to your own fluffy indie music gak. All you have is criticism and empty pink-o liberal propaganda. Not surprised but ok gottit.

Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.

Something like that yes, according to indie Shuma here we should start acting all sensitive and cozy and then we can hope that no whackjob out there who hates for his own reasons will choose to do us any harm.
Should he choose to harm us then we better hope enough time is given to have an army of gentle psychologists learning everything there is about him so he can be persuaded with intellectual guile to spill the beans.
If not then we get blown up but hey, its better then being insensitive to someone else or to lose a step on the moral ladder right?

It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up

Yeah god forbid we are to break your inflated sense of superior morality if a lot of our lives are at stake in a little time. As long as someone else then you die I guess you can afford being oh so moral.
I see little difference between you and the Iranian regime, perfectly willing to fight to the last palestinian.

Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.

Heh, at least you lucky bastards are allowed to carry guns. Over here in eurowhussieland we are all being good little socialist neutered mice...and then nobody ever dares mention the Switzerland in fear that we might start to get ideas.

Maybe YOUR society, but here in Texas, society expects to be able to defend itself alongside the defenses carried out by the state...

Wish we had such a healthy view over here as well.

Texas is...well....TEXAS.

Jihadin wrote:Want to throw out...Mossad...Scotland Yard...

Mossad's a bit questionable at times, but Scotland Yard I can see, yes.

I take it as a no then, you simply are unable to answer up to your own fluffy indie music gak. All you have is criticism and empty pink-o liberal propaganda. Not surprised but ok gottit.

Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.

Something like that yes, according to indie Shuma here we should start acting all sensitive and cozy and then we can hope that no whackjob out there who hates for his own reasons will choose to do us any harm.
Should he choose to harm us then we better hope enough time is given to have an army of gentle psychologists learning everything there is about him so he can be persuaded with intellectual guile to spill the beans.
If not then we get blown up but hey, its better then being insensitive to someone else or to lose a step on the moral ladder right?

gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.

Wish we had such a healthy view over here as well.

Which is funny, because in almost every metric from education to productivity they're inferior in texas. Want to be a cowboy that bad?

Jihadin wrote:So where exactly are we at on this rollercoaster?

I am where I've always been at.

Find 'em, charge 'em, investigate 'em (or investigate and charge, if possible-- always good to have the best case as you can early on), convict 'em, slam the hammer of justice on 'em-- or let 'em go as innocent (this does not preclude more investigation of course). It's not only the moral way, it's also the best way.

Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.

I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.
You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.

gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.

I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.
Oh, you cant, well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.

Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.

Pyriel- wrote:

Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.

I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.
You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.

gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.

I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.
Oh, you cant, well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.

Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.

LOL unicorn castle of liberal weakness... CAUSE the only option is death... cake or death?

I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.

Yeah, I'm sure it's tough to handle that crayon drawing of me you've got scrawled on your monitor.

You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.

Then what makes you any better then the terrorists? Certainly not your ideals. Not your compassion. Is it your wallet? How cold it is outside your house? Or is this just some sort of knock down drag out war that will only end when everyone outside you country is dead?

I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.

Take the hit. I've said it a half dozen times. You can't stop every terrorist attack and terrorism is a meaninglessly small contributor to the death statistic in any given western nation. So grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it.

Oh, you cant.

Sure I can. I have repeatedly.

well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.

You can have freedom or safety, not both. the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. When you become unwilling to spill blood, your enemies and your own, in defense of the rights fo your fellow man then you have no right to defend yourself at all. You become no better then those who you think evil.

Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.

At least I don't invent quotes and then attribute them to you in 50% of my posts.

CAUSE the only option is death... cake or death?

-Death...noImeancake!
-Naanaa, you said death.
-But I meant cake.
-Alright then but just because we are the church of England.

Yeah, I'm sure it's tough to handle that crayon drawing of me you've got scrawled on your monitor.

As long as you dont eat them crayons in your bible class I´m happy for ya.

Then what makes you any better then the terrorists? Certainly not your ideals. Not your compassion. Is it your wallet? How cold it is outside your house? Or is this just some sort of knock down drag out war that will only end when everyone outside you country is dead?

I want to save more lives then I take, if taking one life in order to save 1000 unless time and other options are available then by all means do save 999 people.
How do people around you react by the way, knowing you would gladly send them of to be blown up as long as it can make your moral values untouched?

Take the hit. I've said it a half dozen times. You can't stop every terrorist attack and terrorism is a meaninglessly small contributor to the death statistic in any given western nation. So grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it.

And yet you sadly fail to see yourself in the exact same reasoning...
You can´t stop every little transgression and unjust thing in a country so what that one person gets hurt if it saves lives. Grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it!
lol
Didnt like the train going both ways huh.

When you become unwilling to spill blood, your enemies and your own, in defense of the rights fo your fellow man then you have no right to defend yourself at all.

Nice quotes.
As long as you spill the blood of your fellow citizens rather then apply pressure to save them its alright with you. Grow a pair was it?

At least I don't invent quotes and then attribute them to you in 50% of my posts.

True, you simply "forget" to mention inconvenient facts.


A question:
Is this moral enough for you? Will you be moving soon to moral pardise?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Islamic-cleric-bans-women-from-touching-bananas/articleshow/11020659.cms

Humor aside, this is more serious, instead of whining like a crybaby in here over some bomb making asshat getting his oh so moral human rights violated why not direct your moral superiority to where it would really matter and where it is really and I mean really needed?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australian-sentenced-500-lashes-saudi-arabia-15101695#.Tt_VRmMgegN

I´m certain your could do much more advocating moral human rights in these s**t holes of countries then whine about someone not getting their halal food properly served in the states.
Or do you only pick your battles where they feel easy for you and where you are supported?

It's not only the moral way, it's also the best way.

So how quick can this be done given that it would be on very limited time?

the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

Mr Hyena wrote:

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?

daedalus wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?

When it comes down to it, people either support our people dying or the enemy.

I don't think theres any room for middle ground.

Mr Hyena wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?

When it comes down to it, people either support our people dying or the enemy.

I don't think theres any room for middle ground.

Then why don't you advocate killing everyone in the middle east? If you don't advocate that then you're advocating the continued deaths of our countrymen at their hands. There is no room for middle ground after all. Lets take your philosophy to it's obvious conclusion.

I rather not have some of you all experience that. You already have some here that's been through that and philosophy goes out the window when the bullets fly from someone that's quite motivated to kill you for what he believes in

Jihadin wrote:I rather not have some of you all experience that. You already have some here that's been through that and philosophy goes out the window when the bullets fly from someone that's quite motivated to kill you for what he believes in

Indeed. Self defense is self defense.

It is more than self defense. A soldier can be called on to be the aggressor and hunt down and kill the enemy. Frankly in an ideal situation the bad guy ends up very dead and never had a chance to fire. Fair fight does not apply.

It's been an.... interesting thread with all the usual positions held by the usual people. I actually agree with Shuma (for once).

A little background I guess is in order. I've been in the Army ten years with four deployments to Iraq and have handled detainees (although my involvement ended when they were turned over to MPs/Interrogators for confinement/interrogation). I have also attended SERE school, and I can tell you for a fact that water boarding is no longer used (if it ever was).

All I'll say about interrogation is that there are literally hundreds of ways to coerce a person into giving you the information you want without resorting to beating, waterboarding, or causing lasting physical harm to them. As Mannahnin already pointed out, there are numerous officers, interrogators, and experts who have come out against torture and some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques that have been employed.

Condoning that behavior by inaction cedes the moral high-ground and creates the perfect propaganda tool for both extremists and anyone who may disagree with our actions with which to bludgeon us.

Further more, it is a morale killer. A large part of getting a soldier ready to kill the enemy is to dehumanize him. That is accomplished through very many clever and subtle (or not so subtle) ways. The other part of making a soldier fight is to instill in him the conviction that his cause is just and right while his enemy's cause is cruel and immoral. Soldiers today are better educated, more informed, and more professional (in the technical sense) than in years prior. Telling a soldier that what he is doing is right simply because the president or general said so is no longer effective.

Is torture effective? Debatable. Does it save lives? That is also debatable. Increased hatred and the negative press of gitmo/rendition may create more terrorists who successfully carry out attacks than any info we may have obtained through using those techniques.

I for one have never been in the position of having to choose between breaking the law / carrying out an illegal order and saving a life. I would not envy anyone who has to make that call.

Scruffy, SERE definitely did use Waterboarding. Malcolm Nance is another good guy to read on the subject.

Mr. Hyena, Pyriel, do me a favor and read at least one of the articles. Preferably the Herrington one if you have to choose just one.

Traditional nonviolent interrogation techniques do take time, but they work and they don't have the far-reaching moral and strategic failings of torture.

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is practically nonexistent, except in fiction. It was actually invented in a book, Les Centurions which was set in the French occupation of Algeria, and in the book it was used exactly the way current torture apologists use it. As a theoretical excuse to justify brutality and inhuman treatment of the enemy. In real life you don't just happen to catch a bad guy a few hours or days before some catastrophic event, AND you happen to know that bad guy has the info you need. They're not TV villains who monologue once you've caught them and boast about what they know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

Works of fiction, such as the television series 24, often rely on ticking time bomb scenarios for dramatic effect. According to the Parents Television Council, given that each season represents a 24-hour period, Jack Bauer encounters someone who needs torturing to reveal a ticking bomb on average 12 times per day.[7]

Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Chief under Bush, declared that 24 "reflects real life", John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who produced the torture memos cited Bauer in support while Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went further, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?".[7] One of the shows' creators stated:

“Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week.”[1]

The show uses the same techniques that are used by the US against alleged Al-Qaeda suspects. U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and others, objected to the central theme of the show—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—as it had an adverse effect on the training of actual American soldiers by advocating unethical and illegal behavior. As Finnegan said:

“The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ”

He continued,

“The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”[1]

Joe Navarro, one of the F.B.I.’s top experts in questioning techniques, told The New Yorker,

“Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don’t want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems.”[1][8]

Even if it did work a few times, the cost simply isn't worth it. The extremes to which we've gone out of fear are more damaging than the terrorism. If we kidnap and murder innocent people (watch Taxi to the Dark Side sometime), what the heck are we fighting for? And how many of their family members do we MAKE hate us and want to commit acts of terror and murder against us?

Where were you all when I needed you?

At work?

ShumaGorath wrote:Where were you all when I needed you?

Some of us aren't full time OT denizens, Shuma

Mr Hyena wrote:So...how do we get terrorists to talk?

Use techniques that aren't torture, like those mentioned by Jihadin. To the extent they don't work... then you accept that you don't get the information.

That's kind of the whole point about trying to do the right thing, sometimes it disadvantages you. If doing the right thing was easy and always improved your own situation, everyone would do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyriel- wrote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/
A VERY good movie that you all should see.
It is about this very dilemma and supports both sides of the argument.

Except, of course, there has never been a ticking time bomb situation in any country, no matter how long they've suffered terrorism. Not one, ever.

On the other hand, the ticking time bomb scenario has been used to justify the use of torture in many countries. In the UK, when torture of IRA suspects became an unofficial policy, it was justified on those grounds. I remember a UK policeman commenting on it years later, and he said the move from 'it's okay if there are lives in peril' to 'it's okay if there might be future lives in peril' to torture becoming part of SOP took a matter of days.

Besides, if the movie situation really did happen, and we needed to really know within an hour where the bomb was planted, and the interrogator tortured the prisoner, we would understand. The point is that situation has never happened, we just like pretending it might, to justify torturing people.

Except these guys then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Well, yeah. What's your point? How does the fact that we gave some Japanese soldiers politically motivated exemptions mean anything in relation to the fact that we hung Japanese soldiers for doing something we pretend isn't torture today?

To bad we are exposing our own soldiers to "torture" today then.

We torture them in order to build up their resistance to torture by other forces. Which we would only bother doing if it really was torture. Which it obviously fething is.

But he *gasp* gave up *gasp*

The fact that torture worked is a pretty strong piece of evidence that it's torture.

My personal stance on these things is that IF there is enough time then use humane methods but IF time is of an essence and lives are at stake and the prisoner is known to have information that will help but refuses to talk then bring out the thumb screws to break him down, it´s his own choice.

Given there's never been an instance of time pressure... then you have never supported any instance of torture ever committed. Good to see you're on our side.

One application often killed and the other way doesnt kill but yeah, very trivial differences indeed.

Both are intended to give the individual the sensation of drowning, by drowning him. No amount of internet nonsense is going to change that.

But we let japanese who rutinely performed live biopsies on prisoners deliberately affected with anthrax go with no punishement what so ever.

We let political motivations affect the administration of justice! Apparently this is an argument in favour of us torturing people!

It must be true because one guy says so and got a PTSD.
According to this logic every single SF operator we have must be going around with PTSDs directly after training then.
Interesting.

That's a stupid conclusion. That one person got PTSD from a situation does not mean everyone in that situation will. Particularly when other people have had preparatory work to help them resist the torture.

But the fact that it can give PTSD is a very clear sign that it's torture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:So...die basically?

Umm, yeah. The idea that terrorism is such an immense threat that only torture will protect us is just about single worst understanding of scope I've ever seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:I would rather have less torture, but I don't see workable, realistic alternatives given that the enemy is indoctrinated from birth.

We're better organised. We're better educated. We've got much higher levels of technology. We've got more people and we've got more money. And very few people, even in countries with homegrown terror problems, do not approve of terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.

But they are. They're invested crazy amount of money in it, and doing all kinds of stuff to prevent terrorism.

There's just a question over whether that should include inflicting pain on a captive person in order to get him to talk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?

Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.

I would be able to tell them straight up 'no suggested action of terror would have prevented what happened', because it's just plain fething true.

That's kind of the big deal with torture, the situation in which it is justifiable is entirely theoretical, yet we do it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.

You have to understand the scope of what terrorism is. It will not, can not, wipe out all of humanity. It's a car bomb that causes horrible grief for a small number of people. That's horrible, and we should do what can to prevent it, but we need to reality check what we're talking about, and know that terrorism will kill everyone.

Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

I agree however that it is important to provide evidence once the incident is solved.

The brother of a close friend of mine was honoured for his actions in the wake of the Bali Bombing. I would dearly love for you to tell me who we should have tortured to stop that from happening.

No? No-one? Wasn't someone in captivity who could have told us about the bombing seconds before, if only we'd been willing to torture them?

Then shut up with that guilt trip nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.

And who were we supposed to have tortured to stop that happening? Name one person in captivity, who could have clued us in, if only we'd been willing to torture them.

Come on, if you're so sure torture can stop terrorism, then you must have one name of one person that we should have been torturing just before 9/11.

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.

And who were we supposed to have tortured to stop that happening? Name one person in captivity, who could have clued us in, if only we'd been willing to torture them.

Come on, if you're so sure torture can stop terrorism, then you must have one name of one person that we should have been torturing just before 9/11.

Boy, you are the king of out of context. My quote above was in response to the idea that acts of terrorism are insignificant. I assume you read the whole exchange and cherry picked what you wanted.

Does doing this make you feel superior in some way? If not, why do you do it? You don't make a valid point by using quotes out of context.