Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Germany seeks to arrest 13 CIA agents

AzioAzio Registered User regular
edited February 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
[quote=The International Herald Tribune]FRANKFURT: In the most serious legal challenge yet to the Central Intelligence Agency's secret transfer of terrorism suspects, a German court has issued an arrest warrant for 13 people in the mistaken kidnapping and jailing of a German citizen of Lebanese descent.

Prosecutors in Munich said the suspects, whom they did not identify, were part of a CIA "abduction team," which seized the man, Khaled el-Masri, in Macedonia in late 2003 and flew him to Afghanistan. He was imprisoned there for five months and has said he was shackled, beaten and interrogated about his alleged ties to Al Qaeda before being released without charges.

His ordeal is the best-documented case of the CIA's practice of "extraordinary rendition," in which terrorism suspects were seized and sent for interrogation to countries where torture is practiced.

"This is a very consequential step," August Stern, the deputy prosecutor in Munich, said by telephone. "It is a necessary step before bringing a criminal case against these people."

The CIA has never acknowledged any role in Masri's detention, and an agency spokesman declined to comment Wednesday. The German government said it would not comment on the case, except to affirm the independence of the public prosecutor.[/quote]

This is just the first few paragraphs; hit the link for more.

I wonder if the Americans will cooperate, or quietly pull their guys out before the Germans can catch them.

Azio on
«13

Posts

  • edited January 2007
    Not gonna happen.. but, hey.. worth the effort!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Could we get some Americans' opinions on this? I would really have thought American citizens would be more up in arms about this "extraordinary rendition" practice in which their government apparently engages, but I haven't heard much on the subject.

  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User
    edited January 2007
    We'll pull them out of the country and dismiss charges.

    Although I think they should be charged with something.

    sigeb2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Azio wrote:
    I wonder if the Americans will cooperate, or quietly pull their guys out before the Germans can catch them.

    This happened in 2003? Those guys probably aren't even there anymore. It's as easy as never assigning them to Germany again and telling the prosecutor to take a flying leap.
    rbb wrote:
    Could we get some Americans' opinions on this? I would really have thought American citizens would be more up in arms about this "extraordinary rendition" practice in which their government apparently engages.

    You'd think, you'd be wrong. The average American seems to be more or less okay with it (or is at least willing to look the other way) because they figure it could never happen to them and if it makes them safer it's all good in the 'hood.

    Now, if want this American's opinion on it, I say we should hand them over, along with everybody involved in the incident all the way up to the top. Which may well include our President. We should also hand Bush and Rumsfeld over to anybody inclined to try them for war crimes.

    I'm guessing my opinion is not the norm, though. :wink:

  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2007
    Heh, this is up there with New England towns trying to impeach Bush.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Heh, this is up there with New England towns trying to impeach Bush.
    Except that Germany actually has the authority to arrest and try these guys.

    Assuming they catch them in Germany, or can force extradition, neither of which is likely. The U.S. will refuse extradition, then turn around and expect Germany to extradite whoever the fuck we want, right now goddammit, because other countries have to respect our laws, but we don't have to respect theirs.

  • edited January 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    Azio wrote:
    I wonder if the Americans will cooperate, or quietly pull their guys out before the Germans can catch them.

    This happened in 2003? Those guys probably aren't even there anymore. It's as easy as never assigning them to Germany again and telling the prosecutor to take a flying leap.
    rbb wrote:
    Could we get some Americans' opinions on this? I would really have thought American citizens would be more up in arms about this "extraordinary rendition" practice in which their government apparently engages.

    You'd think, you'd be wrong. The average American seems to be more or less okay with it (or is at least willing to look the other way) because they figure it could never happen to them and if it makes them safer it's all good in the 'hood.

    Now, if want this American's opinion on it, I say we should hand them over, along with everybody involved in the incident all the way up to the top. Which may well include our President. We should also hand Bush and Rumsfeld over to anybody inclined to try them for war crimes.

    I'm guessing my opinion is not the norm, though. :wink:

    I'm right there with you! I think people (especially politicians and policy makers) need to start seeing consequences for their actions.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HaphazardHaphazard Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Yeah, nothings gonna happen.
    It´s more or less a political message.
    I´m pretty sure stuff like that happened a couple of times during the cold war and the then German government simply nodded or even helped.
    The present government couldn´t just hush it up, because the public sentiment is... well, anti-American would be too harsh, but "I do as I want" stuff like this is really frowned upon.

    Plus the government had to send out a clear signal that they will not tolerate this stuff, not on our soil and especially not against one of our citizens.

    Why now, you might ask?

    Because there´s another case that involves America and a suspected terrorist very prominent in our media right now.
    In that case the supected terrorist (German/Turkish citizen) was held captive in Guantanamo for a few years and was released IIRC last year.
    Now comes the juicy part:
    The suspected terrorist claims that the US government wanted to release him much earlier, but the German government didn´t want him released.
    He further claims, that the German government kindly asked the US government to find something on him.
    Most prominent figure in this whole scandal is our foreign minister.

    I´ll stop rambling now, but I don´t think the timing for this arrest warrant is a coincidence.

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Germany, if you're able to evoke any legal action on anything Bush-related whatsoever, the majority of America would greatly appreciate it. We'll take any help we can get. There was a poll a few days ago that said 58% of Americans just want the Bush presidency to be over already.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited February 2007
    I would like to see a German secret operation on American soil to arrest these fuckers.

    I don't like our administration at all.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Could we get some Americans' opinions on this? I would really have thought American citizens would be more up in arms about this "extraordinary rendition" practice in which their government apparently engages, but I haven't heard much on the subject.
    I think it's difficult to gauge just how often this sort of extraordinary rendition is taking place, though, and what effects it may be having.

    Imagine you've got 100 people. 99 are innocent, and one knows of a bomb that will go off in a crowded shopping mall at some point in the future. You know there is a bomb, you know it will kill a lot of people, but you don't know where or when. What do you do?

    As a principle, I'd like to say I find torture abhorrent, but I've got to be honest: if they're torturing the right people and getting the right information, I don't really care. Obviously they aren't doing this with a 100% success rate, though.

    If you want to know what really pisses me off as an American, I'll tell you: signing statements. Or more aptly, Bush's flagrant abuse of them.
    RYGAR wrote:
    I would like to see a German secret operation on American soil to arrest these fuckers.

    I don't like our administration at all.
    Who? The people who actually took part in the torture? The kidnappers? Their superiors at the CIA? The people at the DHS that made it possible?

    This is a high-level problem. Putting a handful of CIA guys in a German jail isn't going to change a single thing.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial one wrote:
    Could we get some Americans' opinions on this? I would really have thought American citizens would be more up in arms about this "extraordinary rendition" practice in which their government apparently engages, but I haven't heard much on the subject.
    I think it's difficult to gauge just how often this sort of extraordinary rendition is taking place, though, and what effects it may be having.

    Imagine you've got 100 people. 99 are innocent, and one knows of a bomb that will go off in a crowded shopping mall at some point in the future. You know there is a bomb, you know it will kill a lot of people, but you don't know where or when. What do you do?

    As a principle, I'd like to say I find torture abhorrent, but I've got to be honest: if they're torturing the right people and getting the right information, I don't really care. Obviously they aren't doing this with a 100% success rate, though.

    If you want to know what really pisses me off as an American, I'll tell you: signing statements. Or more aptly, Bush's flagrant abuse of them.
    RYGAR wrote:
    I would like to see a German secret operation on American soil to arrest these fuckers.

    I don't like our administration at all.
    Who? The people who actually took part in the torture? The kidnappers? Their superiors at the CIA? The people at the DHS that made it possible?

    This is a high-level problem. Putting a handful of CIA guys in a German jail isn't going to change a single thing.

    Ok. Now let's say you know there is a guy who is definately going to torture about 100 people, maybe to death.

    Now does it matter whether he or she picks those people out of a mall or do you feel safer if they pick them racially out of the more tan members of society?

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial one wrote:
    Imagine you've got 100 people. 99 are innocent, and one knows of a bomb that will go off in a crowded shopping mall at some point in the future. You know there is a bomb, you know it will kill a lot of people, but you don't know where or when. What do you do?

    As a principle, I'd like to say I find torture abhorrent, but I've got to be honest: if they're torturing the right people and getting the right information, I don't really care. Obviously they aren't doing this with a 100% success rate, though.

    I'd never torture 99 people to get info out of the 1, and I really wish my government wouldn't do it for me. I'm not that scared of death...and I mean really, I have a much better shot of getting killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.

    And after spending a while in a place where things routinely explode, most Americans seem like a bunch of pansies to me.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2007
    So, the government is somehow going to arrest this guy who's going to be involved in a terrorist attack, but they won't arrest the others working with him, and those guys will keep their plan as is, despite one of them getting arrested? Sounds plausible to me. Finally, a scenario that convinces me that torture is A-Ok!

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    s3rial one wrote:
    Imagine you've got 100 people. 99 are innocent, and one knows of a bomb that will go off in a crowded shopping mall at some point in the future. You know there is a bomb, you know it will kill a lot of people, but you don't know where or when. What do you do?

    As a principle, I'd like to say I find torture abhorrent, but I've got to be honest: if they're torturing the right people and getting the right information, I don't really care. Obviously they aren't doing this with a 100% success rate, though.

    I'd never torture 99 people to get info out of the 1, and I really wish my government wouldn't do it for me. I'm not that scared of death...and I mean really, I have a much better shot of getting killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.

    And after spending a while in a place where things routinely explode, most Americans seem like a bunch of pansies to me.

    Exactly. You know 9/11? About that many people died in car accidents in the US that month.

    Worldwide, about that many people died of malaria that day, just like every other day.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Derrick wrote:
    Ok. Now let's say you know there is a guy who is definately going to torture about 100 people, maybe to death.

    Now does it matter whether they pick those people out of a mall or do you feel safer if they pick them racially out of the more tan members of society?
    The whole point of the scenario is that you just don't know what will actually happen. You may torture a hundred innocent people and get nothing. You may torture one guilty person and save thousands of innocents.

    As for the racial aspect, no, I don't favor racial profiling, but if good detective work leads to a situation where most suspects happen to be of middle-eastern decent, that's not particularly problematic (or even notable) in my eyes.
    mcdermott wrote:
    I'd never torture 99 people to get info out of the 1, and I really wish my government wouldn't do it for me. I'm not that scared of death...and I mean really, I have a much better shot of getting killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.
    The point of the scenario isn't to torture all 100 people, it's that if you randomly start torturing people, you have a very small chance of success.

    Ultimately, it comes down to interrogation techniques that rely on credibility. Any good interrogator will tell you that if he's left with no options but to inflict pain to maintain credibility, he's losing.

    ...and as for death by terrorism, that isn't really the concern. The concern is a terrorist group setting off a dirty bomb in downtown New York or Chicago. It's not loss of life, it's that a fairly simple-to-make weapon that is basically a lot of fertilizer with a couple pounds of powdered, enriched uranium (or plutonium, or any significant alpha/gamma source) will essentially render a major metropolitan city uninhabitable for decades. It's not the death toll that's the problem, it's the economic issue of having a major city essentially just switched off.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    You know you'd have to have a 9/11 everyday for like 3 months to match the number of people who died in the tsunami?

    Seriously it's time to let it go already. it was awful but it's hardly the worst thing to happen ever.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial one wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Ok. Now let's say you know there is a guy who is definately going to torture about 100 people, maybe to death.

    Now does it matter whether they pick those people out of a mall or do you feel safer if they pick them racially out of the more tan members of society?
    The whole point of the scenario is that you just don't know what will actually happen. You may torture a hundred innocent people and get nothing. You may torture one guilty person and save thousands of innocents.

    As for the racial aspect, no, I don't favor racial profiling, but if good detective work leads to a situation where most suspects happen to be of middle-eastern decent, that's not particularly problematic (or even notable) in my eyes.
    mcdermott wrote:
    I'd never torture 99 people to get info out of the 1, and I really wish my government wouldn't do it for me. I'm not that scared of death...and I mean really, I have a much better shot of getting killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.
    The point of the scenario isn't to torture all 100 people, it's that if you randomly start torturing people, you have a very small chance of success.

    Ultimately, it comes down to interrogation techniques that rely on credibility. Any good interrogator will tell you that if he's left with no options but to inflict pain to maintain credibility, he's losing.

    ...and as for death by terrorism, that isn't really the concern. The concern is a terrorist group setting off a dirty bomb in downtown New York or Chicago. It's not loss of life, it's that a fairly simple-to-make weapon that is basically a lot of fertilizer with a couple pounds of powdered, enriched uranium (or plutonium, or any significant alpha/gamma source) will essentially render a major metropolitan city uninhabitable for decades. It's not the death toll that's the problem, it's the economic issue of having a major city essentially just switched off.

    I'm confused. Are you pro- or anti- torturing innocent people?

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.

    that would actually suck more. With terrorism, you'd get sympathy.

    The headline in the Post the next day reads "Man Killed by Acme Product Failure." People chop the article out and hang it up at the office. They laugh over it. They think it's just the funniest thing. And you are forever remembered as the Anvil Man.

    "I knew the Anvil Man and, ironically, he hated coyotes."

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Doc wrote:
    I'm confused. Are you pro- or anti- torturing innocent people?

    Yes.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Doc wrote:
    I'm confused. Are you pro- or anti- torturing innocent people?
    I'm against torturing innocent people. Why would I argue for it?

    My point is, I'm not against torturing those for whom there is no other means of extracting vital information, and recognize that doing so isn't always as precise as I'd like, and innocents may very well be tortured accidentally.

    Where I fall on the scale, then, is a matter of effect. If we're throwing wide-ranging dragnets and torturing tens or hundreds of people to no avail (e.g. what we're doing with Guantanamo), that's utterly inexcusable. If we round up 5 people, 3 of which wind up having information that leads to the prevention of something as potentially destructive (again, economically) as a dirty bomb, well, then I'm more conflicted.

    Two people tortured... devastation of a whole major metropolitan city...

    Not a tough call, to be honest.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Also, can we for the sake of this argument postulate that if we carry out a program involving torture for interrogations, then at some point innocent people will get tortured? Because, that's pretty much how it works. It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

    Any hypothetical "you know this guy is like, totally involved" scenarios are beyond masturbatory.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2007
    Dirty bombs aren't all that dangerous. They're as threatening as good ol' regular terrorist attack.

    Well, I guess they sound scarier.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial one wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    I'm confused. Are you pro- or anti- torturing innocent people?
    I'm against torturing innocent people. Why would I argue for it?

    My point is, I'm not against torturing those for whom there is no other means of extracting vital information, and recognize that doing so isn't always as precise as I'd like, and innocents may very well be tortured accidentally.

    Where I fall on the scale, then, is a matter of effect. If we're throwing wide-ranging dragnets and torturing tens or hundreds of people to no avail (e.g. what we're doing with Guantanamo), that's utterly inexcusable. If we round up 5 people, 3 of which wind up having information that leads to the prevention of something as potentially destructive (again, economically) as a dirty bomb, well, then I'm more conflicted.

    Two people tortured... devastation of a whole major metropolitan city...

    Not a tough call, to be honest.

    So how certain do you need to be that they know something before you should bring out the red hot pokers? You can ballpark it if you'd like. 50% certain? 1% certain?

    What it comes down to is that you think torturing innocents is worth it, as long as we eventually get the info we need, even if it's not from them. So, yeah, you are pro-torture of innocents.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Elkamil wrote:
    Dirty bombs aren't all that dangerous. They're as threatening as good ol' regular terrorist attack.

    Well, I guess they sound scarier.
    s3rial one wrote:
    ...and as for death by terrorism, that isn't really the concern. The concern is a terrorist group setting off a dirty bomb in downtown New York or Chicago. It's not loss of life, it's that a fairly simple-to-make weapon that is basically a lot of fertilizer with a couple pounds of powdered, enriched uranium (or plutonium, or any significant alpha/gamma source) will essentially render a major metropolitan city uninhabitable for decades. It's not the death toll that's the problem, it's the economic issue of having a major city essentially just switched off.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial one wrote:
    Two people tortured... devastation of a whole major metropolitan city...

    Not a tough call, to be honest.

    See, that should be a tough call. Torturing people en masse to save the city should be an easy call (as in, don't). Torturing a few people just to save a plane full of airline passengers should be an easy call (as in, don't). Torturing a couple people to save a city from devastation is about the only call that should be tough, at least in a civilized society. Personally I still fall on the "don't" side there, too.

    Yeah, that means people die and bad shit happens in civilized society sometimes. Oh well.

    And again, this is all assuming that if you torture people you're eventually going to torture innocent ones. Because, you know, real world and all.

    Also, I'm pretty sure Elks is right...from what I've read "dirty bombs" aren't really a doomsday scenario. But even assuming they are, see the above.

    EDIT: Again, from what I've read the kind of dirty bomb you are describing isn't as threatening as you're making it sound. If all they had was a bit of radioactive material and a conventional explosive then the affected area would likely be relatively small, and cleanup possible (though expensive). We're likely not talking about turning NYC into a ghost town for decades, we're talking about an extremely expensive and disruptive cleanup project lasting, at most, years.

  • ToadTheMushroomToadTheMushroom Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Don't fuck with the Germans.

    He seems to project beyond himself, exerting a kind of Reggie Field that dogs and many birds find unpleasant. Hearing a man speak with this much drive and confidence about an imaginary plumber is sort of enthralling.
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    EDIT: Again, from what I've read the kind of dirty bomb you are describing isn't as threatening as you're making it sound. If all they had was a bit of radioactive material and a conventional explosive then the affected area would likely be relatively small, and cleanup possible (though expensive). We're likely not talking about turning NYC into a ghost town for decades, we're talking about an extremely expensive and disruptive cleanup project lasting, at most, years.
    While I'm not in the practice of referencing HBO movies to prove my point, their film Dirty War does a pretty good job of showing just what the problems and potential ramifications of a dirty bomb could be. And before I get jumped on, this film was vetted by my international terrorism professor, who also happens to be a consultant for the MIPT terrorism knowledge base and Center for Defense Information. I'd actually never heard of the movie until he mentioned it in class.
    CDI wrote:
    These conclusions were corroborated by the FAS study, which found that, while a dirty bomb would not inflict deaths on anything like the scale of even a crude nuclear device, widespread contamination exceeding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety guidelines could result. If the risk of cancer deaths could not be curtailed to around 1-in-10,000, the EPA would probably recommend the long-term evacuation of the contaminated area. With urban areas especially difficult to decontaminate after a radiological attack, any abandonment could be permanent, potentially costing trillions of dollars. 10 In addition to this economic damage, a dirty bomb attack could also produce a psychological effect out of all proportion to the actual physical damage it would achieve on its own. The FAS report discusses a scenario wherein an americium source, such as the one used in oil well surveying, is detonated along with one pound of TNT in New York City, requiring the evacuation of 20 city blocks within 30 minutes. The panic such an evacuation would incite could lead to significant injuries in itself, as well as overload medical facilities, with people presenting themselves for treatment of real and imagined radiation sickness. 11 Such panic would be unlikely to remain localized but probably spread nationally, and would easily be fuelled by dirty and conventional bomb alerts - genuine or hoax.
    Source. Furthermore, the FAS study on dirty bombs can be found here if you're interested in further reading.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    There are plenty of problem with pissing off Germany. Let's face it two hotbeds of Islamic radicalization are Germany and England. We need them on our team. We need to maintain a good relationship to share terror intel(you know the best way to stop terrorism). The US acting unilaterally like this just hurts our image and makes other nations less likely to help us in the future.

  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Elkamil wrote:
    So, the government is somehow going to arrest this guy who's going to be involved in a terrorist attack, but they won't arrest the others working with him, and those guys will keep their plan as is, despite one of them getting arrested? Sounds plausible to me. Finally, a scenario that convinces me that torture is A-Ok!
    To be fair, the agents saw it in an episode of 24.

    They failed to realize that Jack Bauer is not bound by the laws of our world.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    So the high cost plus around the relatively low amount of deaths makes it OK to torture someone? I really don't want the thing that makes it OK to torture someone to be the monetary cost.

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    In addition to this economic damage, a dirty bomb attack could also produce a psychological effect out of all proportion to the actual physical damage it would achieve on its own.


    :( so people are stupid, and that is a bigger threat than the bomb itself. How about instead of the scare monger thing, they explain to folks that they are not that dangerious, plans are in place to deal with one, and the key part of those plans is people staying calm, calmly moving out of there area, and taking a shower.

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • aesiraesir __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    torturing one innocent person to save one person's life == ok by me. (assuming such a situation could exist.)


    As far as the current issue the OP posted, I think the CIA agents should be arrested and tried by Americans (Im genuinely hoping that what they did was "somehow" against our laws in some way...)

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote:

    I'd never torture 99 people to get info out of the 1, and I really wish my government wouldn't do it for me. I'm not that scared of death...and I mean really, I have a much better shot of getting killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, terrorism is only a couple notches above "anvil falling from the sky" on the list of things I worry about killing me.

    And after spending a while in a place where things routinely explode, most Americans seem like a bunch of pansies to me.

    Ex-fucking-actly

    If ceasing all torture we are engaging in lessens my safety somewhat, then I am very OK with that. I am infinetly more OK with that then whatever fucking horrible karma I may garner from having this shit done on my behalf by my government.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    aesir wrote:
    torturing one innocent person to save one person's life == ok by me. (assuming such a situation could exist.)

    What if the tortured person was your mom, dad, sister, or brother?

    That's not how it works at all though. Torturing innocent people doesn't do anything. Hell, there have been studies that say that torture is less effective than other interrogation techniques.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    aesir wrote:
    torturing one innocent person to save one person's life == ok by me. (assuming such a situation could exist.)

    So easy to say when that innocent is some fucking sand ****** in Afghanistan and not your son.

    I would weep at your ignorance if I weren't overcome with hatred at your stupidity.

  • GiganticusGiganticus Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Elkamil wrote:
    Dirty bombs aren't all that dangerous. They're as threatening as good ol' regular terrorist attack.

    Well, I guess they sound scarier.

    Their only power is in the fear generated. Which the US government (amongst others) loves to promote.

    Plus the fact that people will try and set one off in a wide open and well ventilated area, the actual explosive wont be that good, so very few - if any - people will die from a dirty bomb explosion, except possibly the bomber.

  • DeathmongerDeathmonger Registered User
    edited February 2007
    All of Europe has been complacent over the issue of extraordinary renditions. Did you guys hear about Condi Rice's visit and dinner party? Portugal hounded her, asking "Have planes bound for clandestine torture centers flown through our airspace?"

    While much of Europe may be angsty over the issue their leaders are consenting to US policy through silence. That this German court demands the arrest of America's august guard of national security proves we should have made the erstwhile sod-fest into another American state, along with Mexico and Cuba. Japan is alright so long as the tentacle porn keeps coming.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Giganticus wrote:
    Elkamil wrote:
    Dirty bombs aren't all that dangerous. They're as threatening as good ol' regular terrorist attack.

    Well, I guess they sound scarier.

    Their only power is in the fear generated. Which the US government (amongst others) loves to promote.

    Plus the fact that people will try and set one off in a wide open and well ventilated area, the actual explosive wont be that good, so very few - if any - people will die from a dirty bomb explosion, except possibly the bomber.
    Again: It's not about the body count. See my previous post.
    jeepguy wrote:
    So easy to say when that innocent is some fucking sand ****** in Afghanistan and not your son.
    And what if your son's the one getting killed up in a terrorist attack that could've been prevented if a detainee was tortured?

    Something doesn't add up... people aren't afraid of dying in a terrorist attack because the odds are so slim, but they're afraid of being tortured, or that someone they know may be? What do you suppose the odds of that, are, given that we have a lot more terrorists than people being tortured?
    Titmouse wrote:
    So the high cost plus around the relatively low amount of deaths makes it OK to torture someone? I really don't want the thing that makes it OK to torture someone to be the monetary cost.
    Think of the monetary aspect in quality of life terms: how many people need to lose their jobs, their homes, their businesses, or anything (possibly everything) else they own before it becomes worthwhile?

    Again, I've got to reiterate, I only favor torture as a means to maintain credibility for interrogators in situations of great importance. There are far more effective means of extracting information from an individual that do not involve actual torture; physically injuring someone is a last resort.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    s3rial, you do realize the massive problems with Torture, right?

    I mean, aside from the ethical and moral problems, there are the facts that:

    1) a person is tortured because it's assumed they must know something, leading to a person who may actually know nothing being tortured on end for who knows how long until it's shown they don't know anything.

    2) A person may give false information to stop the torturing. This comes if they know something or if they don't. In both cases, they're just trying to get the torture to fucking end, although in the first they're protecting the real information and may be fooling the investigators, and in the second? well, god help the poor soul when they find out he/she lied about the information they gave just to get a reprieve.

    Torture is by no means an effective means of extracting information and to claim it could be is naive at best, and moronic at worst

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.