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.

sebster wrote:It's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world.

Living in delusion isn't a very good way either.

sebster wrote:This whole debate is absurd. There are actually people here talking about how it is alright to kidnap people suspected of crimes and then torturing them.

I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.

sebster wrote:Human rights exist to the extent that we value them.

Exactly, which means they have no inherent value. Water doesn't need us to give it value, it has inherent value. A human can exist without the idea, and have, but it can't exist without the water. I'm not against the concept and I think it can do a lot of good but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pretend that it isn't entirely human fabrication. To value something a person needs to understand it (at least that is how I feel) and understanding this truth about these concepts doesn't devalue them, if anything it makes them more important because they need to be nurtured and kept alive. It isn't some eternal concept, it hasn't even been around that long in the big picture of human history. Because they are truly one of the few entirely human creations they are important. Of course, like property rights, it can be abused (ask anyone in South Africa or a Lakota). It is also similiar to property rights in that they mean something different in different places so there isn't some universal definition either.

All value is a human creation though, isn't it?

Water stops you from dying of thirst, but that doesn't make it valuable unless you desire to not die of thirst.

I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.

What does the nature of the crime have to do with the idea of innocent until proven guilty? For the love of god you're posting in a thread specifically about the fallout after the CIA captured, moved, then oversaw the torture of a man who was later released for being innocent? What kind of brain melting cognitive dissonance is going on here?

Orkeosaurus wrote:All value is a human creation though, isn't it?

Sure, you could look at it that way. All in all though, you are just searching for a more practical term.

Water stops you from dying of thirst, but that doesn't make it valuable unless you desire to not die of thirst.

All living things "desire" water, basically being nonexistent without it, we can safely say that it is inherently valuable.

It's not valuable to rocks. It wouldn't necessarily be valuable to a hypothetical being that didn't consume water.

It wouldn't be valuable to a person attempting to die of thirst.

You could consider it inherently valuable to life then... not including "hypothetical" (metaphysical) beings.

Nothing isn't anything to rocks though... and you could argue that the rock simply did not exist previous to your awareness of it. In being known, that thing may be taking part in your experience, through your experience; due to a lack of the potential for individual experience of it's own.

Besides... who listens to rocks anyway?

Inherently valuable to the preservation of life, I would say. But that's value to the success of an action, not value to an individual, which is sort of a different meaning.

I generally consider life to be a group of individual actions, meaning the value is present to the individual that takes the action. If you cannot see the value, or do not understand the value; that does not entail the lack of it in general.

Inherently valuable to life, is loose enough to encompass the full meaning, without splitting too many hairs. The preservation of life, does not conclude the introduction of life. The function of death, involves life, and you could also say, by that line, the function of non-self preservation is very much in the same, rather gray area.

Wrexasaur wrote:I generally consider life to be a group of individual actions, meaning the value is present to the individual that takes the action. If you cannot see the value, or do not understand the value; that does not entail the lack of it in general.

Sure, but that's because others can find value in it, or you can find value in it in the future (which would really be the potential of value more than value per se).

Inherently valuable to life, is loose enough to encompass the full meaning, without splitting too many hairs.

If you define "life" as all living things, you get back to a person who may desire to die of thirst. If you define "life" as living things in general it would be true but sort of unimportant (since it still doesn't have value to all living things). If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree.

The preservation of life, does not conclude the introduction of life. The function of death, involves life, and you could also say, by that line, the function of non-self preservation is very much in the same, rather gray area.

Well, a living person doesn't need water to die, although they did need it to reach the state they're in.



Plus, how about something like oil? Valuable, under the colloquial definition, because many people value it and the energy it produces. However, if no one knew how to get any use out of it, it wouldn't be valued any more.

In that sense the properties of the thing aren't (necessarily) subjective but whether those properties are useful, or can create desirable results, depends on what a person considers useful or desirable.

Orkeo wrote:If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree.

Touche'

Does the winning squirrel go on to fight the winning monkey?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Does the winning squirrel go on to fight the winning monkey?

No... there is no winner in that fight... and it is eternal.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If "life" is being used a verb - "inherently valuable to living" or "inherently valuable to the processes of life" - then I would agree.

So, inherently valuable in the event that a being is both alive, and wishes to remain so?

I don't think you're trying attribute value creation to an ancillary process (though there might be something in that), but I'm not certain of that based on your wording.

Kanluwen wrote:Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?

No. I didn't.

One report or ten reports, what does it matter? Either way you're still abducting people on the say-so of intel, with no judicial oversight. No matter how scary a guy might be, that's a really dangerous power to give to government.

So are you actually saying that you're alright with grabbing suspected people and having them taken to secret locations to be tortured?

However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.

Where's the middleground there?

You have no idea what you're talking about. These abductions have been done with agreement of other countries, and in many cases they directly supported them. There is absolutely no issue with developed nations being unhelpful, they're helpful to the point where they've also been happy to break the law.

Kanluwen wrote:Sebster--did I say anywhere, whatsoever, that snatching people off the street off of just one report from some goon who gets offered money to be an informant was a good idea?

No. I didn't.

You didn't say that, until now anyway, but you did say that people can have their rights rescinded on the basis of intelligence alone, which is exactly what sebster criticized. I'm not saying his criticism hit home, but it would be best if you stopped dramatizing a conversation which we all have a clear record of.

Either way, seizure on grounds of classified information is often necessary, but it isn't a particularly good idea to set it as public precedent in an environment based on ideological competition. Unless of course you're comfortable with interminable, active, military deployments overseas. Maybe you are, but I doubt very much that the majority of the public is.

Kanluwen wrote:
However, that doesn't change the fact that when there IS intel tying someone to activities, more often than not, we're reduced to pleading with some ridiculous government that won't give them up no matter what--or the person has, by then, been tipped off enough to have fled somewhere and the intel is wasted.

I was unaware that intelligence is more valuable than human life. I mean, I'm just cynical enough to believe exactly that, but again, the public probably isn't. Not a good face to put on our intelligence community at home, or abroad.

Kanluwen wrote:
Where's the middleground there?

Well, the obvious starting point would be the avoidance of major conflicts on the dictation of intelligence which had been countermanded by publicly available information. That would go a long way to establishing public trust with respect to the state security apparatus.

I'm perfectly fine with grabbing suspects, based off of reliable intelligence.

But therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

Terrorist/resistance organizations are notoriously hard to infiltrate. Most intelligence in regards to their activities either comes second hand from other agencies, from vetted informants(who may/may not be acting as doubles and feeding intel right back to the organization you're trying to spy on), and other sources that can't be relied upon 100%.

And why should we have judicial oversight over intelligence operations? It comes, once again, into the grounds of time sensitivity. Judicial oversight on intelligence activities will be a major hindrance. Just look at how often 100% clean law enforcement operations get turned on their ass due to having to wait for some judge, who gets all pissy due to being woken up in the middle of the night, who then turns down a warrant request because of the JUDGE'S political/social views.

And as for the second point:

Gee. I wonder what countries wouldn't be cooperative?
Let's think about this here...
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?

Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.

Ahtman wrote:I like how you say 'crimes' like we are talking about someone swiping a pack of gum, or stealing a car. As if blowing up buildings, weddings, women, and children in a large internationally organized manner is in the same league as standard domestic crime. I'm against torture myself, but I think that is what is absurd.

I didn’t say crimes in any way. It was text, it can’t be said in any particular way. You might have read it a certain way, but I can’t really be held responsible for that.

But yeah, these are very serious crimes and they’ve being plotted by very horrible people. But there have always been very serious crimes, and there have always been very horrible people planning them. None of that means we need to allow government agents to abduct people and torture them without judicial oversight.

Exactly, which means they have no inherent value. Water doesn't need us to give it value, it has inherent value. A human can exist without the idea, and have, but it can't exist without the water.

But the value of that water is the value we give it. To the extent that societies have said that water is a public good and that everyone should access it is the extent to which we’ve given every house running water, and subsidised the cost of water to each household.

I'm not against the concept and I think it can do a lot of good but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pretend that it isn't entirely human fabrication. To value something a person needs to understand it (at least that is how I feel) and understanding this truth about these concepts doesn't devalue them, if anything it makes them more important because they need to be nurtured and kept alive. It isn't some eternal concept, it hasn't even been around that long in the big picture of human history. Because they are truly one of the few entirely human creations they are important. Of course, like property rights, it can be abused (ask anyone in South Africa or a Lakota). It is also similiar to property rights in that they mean something different in different places so there isn't some universal definition either.

Yeah, human rights haven’t been around forever. And they will disappear tomorrow if we don’t care about them.

Which is all the more reason to say that abducting people without trial and torturing them is absolutely unacceptable.

Also:

We also have to deal with the fact that while terrorist/resistance/"freedom fighter" organizations are hard to infiltrate and gather intelligence on--the opposite is true for major agencies due to the Freedom of Information Act and its equivalents. There's also the fact that local/federal law enforcement aren't as well-versed in dealing with the signs of the organizations as they should be, no matter how much training is given to them. It becomes something that has to be decided upon by the officers on the ground.

Take the 9/11 hijackers and Timothy McVeigh for example.

What do both of these have in common?
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.

sebster wrote:But the determined value of that water is the determined value we give it. To the extent that societies have said that water is a public good and that everyone should access it is the extent to which we’ve given every house running water, and subsidised the cost of water to each household.

Something can have inherent value, without having specific value.

Kanluwen wrote: who then turns down a warrant request because of the JUDGE'S political/social views.

Or, you know, he might deny the warrant on the basis of law.

Kanluwen wrote:
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?

With the exception of Somalia, Al-Qaeda has never operated in sub-Saharan Africa. They have no incentive to do so, as there is little coreligionist support.

Kanluwen wrote:
Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.

Why are you concerned with terrorist groups that have no history of, or ideological plans to, target America (excepting the GSPC, but we'll get to that in the next sentence)? Moreover, why are you concerned with Algerian terrorist groups when the Algerian government is both sympathetic to the United States, and the specific target of the majority of those organizations?

Go read a book.

Specifically:
"Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis and Investigations". by Michael R. Ronczkowski.

Go on, I'll wait.

Kanluwen wrote:
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.

Why would they go to the federal level? Unless you intend to process all vehicle rentals, falsified documents, and traffic violations at the federal level?

Kanluwen wrote:Gee. I wonder what countries wouldn't be cooperative?
Let's think about this here...
What countries are known to be fantastic hiding spots for al-Qaeda and its children?
Could Somalia be on that list? Any number of sub-Saharan Africa nations that aren't "developed"?

Or hey, let's give Abu-Sayyaf Group a shout-out here. Or the GIA, GSPC, or any number of groups that can seek(and receive) shelter from Pacific island nations, middle Asia, etc.

What are you talking about? They abducted a dude in Italy. With help from Italian government agents.

Kanluwen wrote:Go read a book.

Specifically:
"Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis and Investigations". by Michael R. Ronczkowski.

Go on, I'll wait.

First, I've read the book. Its interesting, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the big strategic questions that you're attempting to address when you bring up large, regional categories. Indeed, by blindly asserting that sub-Saharan Africa is a breeding ground for Islamist terrorism you're ignoring much of its advice.

Second, don't be a child. You can very easily address what I've presented without attempting to claim some higher level of knowledge on the basis of disagreement.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Rental vehicles, falsified driver's documentation, and stopped for traffic violations. And NONE of those incidents raised red flags that should have been going to a federal level.

Why would they go to the federal level? Unless you intend to process all vehicle rentals, falsified documents, and traffic violations at the federal level?

You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.

You've read the book. You tell me. Chapter Five/Six.

Well this conversation has taken a turn for the ludicrously pedantic. If you specify a page, line and word next I'm going to give you a medal.

Great.. Another whine and moan tread. Well back on topic, I have no particulary opnion on this save for that kiddnaping is bad anyways, and there may have been some form of hush hush going on, But then again I dont have all the facts either

No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.

And also:

It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.

It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.

Anshal wrote:Great.. Another whine and moan tread. Well back on topic, I have no particulary opnion on this save for that kiddnaping is bad anyways, and there may have been some form of hush hush going on, But then again I dont have all the facts either

So it's a whine and moan thread that you can't be bothered to give any sort of opinion on beyond "Well kidnapping is bad, but I don't know all the facts"?

Tsk Tsk



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:No, you don't. Neither do I, Dogma, Sebster or anyone on this board. None of us are privy to CIA operations.

And also:

It's not "kidnapping" when a government agency picks you up in relation to an investigation.

It's called "arrest". At the very most, the agents could be tried for false imprisonment.

Extrajudicial arrest and incarceration is kidnapping isn't it? Just because they are officers of the law doesn't mean that it's called something different when they break it.

bloody cia they deserved it