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!

Bush Administration Conducted "Experiments" On Detainees

135

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades His love is a prize Rantin' and RavenRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Thank you guys for saying everything I wanted to reply to MM with.

    I was having trouble phrasing it a way that wasn't overly hostile.

    There are very few topics that I feel a derisive reply is appropriate, but justifying torture is one of them.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Thank you guys for saying everything I wanted to reply to MM with.

    I was having trouble phrasing it a way that wasn't overly hostile.

    There are very few topics that I feel a derisive reply is appropriate, but justifying torture is one of them.

    Yes, but including hostility in a counter-argument is a good way to have it ignored completely by the opposition.

    Not that I'm really expecting MM to sit down and think about these points and possibly reconsider his position, but I can hope, right?

    camo_sig2.png
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Sun Tzu said in The Art of War to treat prisoners as you would your own men, but to remind them of their position. Through this, he said, it could convince men that you were not the enemy.

    "Experimental torture" is still torture and violates the laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Their really is no back door or loophole. I cannot say that, under some kind of supervision, that I'm going to beat the shit out of random people to view the psychological effects without having major psychological institutions barreling down on me.

    There is no need to argue morality here. It's against the law and has served little purpose.

    309151-1.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    If it becomes apparent that the information he's giving you is false, then you'll eventually stop talking to that guy because he doesn't have anything to give you.
    So then, according to your reasoning, all a prisoner has to do is keep lying and no more torture. What`s the point then, other than to satisfy sadists like you.
    We're not talking about bamboo under fingernails here. The techniques used are much more sophisticated and involve psychologically breaking down a detainee until he willingly starts giving you info. The people who do this type of thing are well-trained to know when a detainee is cooperating and when he's still resisting.

    Everyone breaks eventually under duress. Once they do, you're able to figure out whether they have useful intelligence, or whether they don't know anything helpful.

    In any event, it's not like these techniques are used as a matter of course against every detainee. We don't have the time and resources to do so, and it would be a waste for probably 90%+ of detainees who are low-level grunts and probably don't know shit, anyway. But, when you catch someone relatively high up in a network, then it's worthwhile to try and squeeze them for intelligence.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • NostregarNostregar Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    We're not talking about bamboo under fingernails here. The techniques used are much more sophisticated and involve psychologically breaking down a detainee until he willingly starts giving you info.

    No no guys, it's ok. We're not inflicting pain, we're just systematically destroying the subject's psyche. It's a lot better and more humane, don't you see?

    /sarcasm

    Spoiler:
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Did this thread just go:
    It kills people
    Sure, so what?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Did this thread just go:
    It kills people
    Sure, so what?

    Modern Man did say that, yes. But since he's kind of completely lacking in empathy, this shouldn't be surprising.

  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hey, you finally topped your woooo my roommates gang raped a girl story for most morally repugnant thing you've posted on these boards!
    I'm curious about this gang-rape post, I can't see it being how you describe it.

    Edit: CORRECTED

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It's torture! Call it torture. Orwell wrote 1984 and "The Politics of the English Language" for a reason.

    At least be intellectually honest in your morally repugnant behavior.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    To avoid torture, you should make sure you are captured in the United States then.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    To avoid torture, you should make sure you are captured in the United States then.
    Of course. People in this country enjoy the protection of the Constitution. I was opposed to the Bush administration's attempts to essentially "disappear" Jose Padilla.

    But, for an illegal combatant captured on the battlefield in some Middle Eastern hellhole, the rules are different, IMO.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    Is there a point where the government should prove that they are torturing a combatant, or are you fine just taking their word for it?
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    Once again, on whose word?
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.
    So, as long as the CIA says it, it must be true? Those WMDs in Iraq don't lend me confidence to their accuracy.




    Basically, you entirely avoided my question. Are you alright torturing possibly innocent people? Having a system where we capture foreigners and then torture them for information with no accountability or system to prove thier possible innocence?

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I like how "not an American citizen" is a requirement. 'Cause everyone outside the US is somehow different?

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Why is it only ok if they aren't American?

    Edit: yeah, me and the guy with the hair are in sync

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Why is it only ok if they aren't American?

    American Exceptionalism, duh.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Bwah!

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    To avoid torture, you should make sure you are captured in the United States then.
    Of course. People in this country enjoy the protection of the Constitution. I was opposed to the Bush administration's attempts to essentially "disappear" Jose Padilla.

    But, for an illegal combatant captured on the battlefield in some Middle Eastern hellhole, the rules are different, IMO.

    Which means that by your rules, if someone from a "middle eastern hellhole" plans to massacre a million people with some dirty bomb in New York, all he needs to do is sneak into the country before he is caught (and presumably yell "Safety").

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    Is there a point where the government should prove that they are torturing a combatant, or are you fine just taking their word for it?
    I'm okay with having a hearing in front of a military tribunal to make sure that the people we're holding are, in fact, combatants.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    Once again, on whose word?
    Military intelligence, the CIA or whoever collects this type of information.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.
    So, as long as the CIA says it, it must be true? Those WMDs in Iraq don't lend me confidence to their accuracy.
    War's a messy business. Again, this isn't a criminal trial in the US.

    Basically, you entirely avoided my question. Are you alright torturing possibly innocent people? Having a system where we capture foreigners and then torture them for information with no accountability or system to prove thier possible innocence?
    I can live with it, because I know the numbers involved are going to be really low. There's only a small number of people who we have any real interest in interrogating, let alone using enhanced techniques on.
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Which means that by your rules, if someone from a "middle eastern hellhole" plans to massacre a million people with some dirty bomb in New York, all he needs to do is sneak into the country before he is caught (and presumably yell "Safety").
    I'd think you'd be happy that I'm in favor of putting restraints on the government here.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    How many innocents are you comfortable with torturing if it leads to finally torturing the right guy to save one American life?

    3? 5? 10? 50?

    camo_sig2.png
  • TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I can live with it, because I know the number of innocent people being tortured will be really low. There's only a small number of people who we have any real interest in torturing, let alone using enhanced torture techniques on.

    Translation from Modern Man to reality above.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Hey modern man, do you think it's ok to torture innocent people, or only people who are guilty of something and know something that could save lives?

    Assuming you don't think it's ok to torture innocent people (although I'm not sure I should assume that...), then how do you prove their guilt/knowledge of something before you torture them? Is there a trial? Do we just take some random intelligence guy's word on it? Is it ok as long as a superior officer ok's it? Is it ok as long as the president ok's it? Should the government be able to torture people without proving to anyone that they aren't innocent?
    I am only okay with enhanced interrogation techniques used in the following circumstances:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    The question of guilt or innocence doesn't come into play here. This is not a criminal trial. Rather, it's a mechanism used for extracting operational intelligence.

    You're not just taking all detainees and torturing them. That would be pointless and stupid. But, if you've captured a guy who you know is the #2 in Al Qaeda in Iraq, it's almost certain that he is going to have useful intelligence. The low-level insurgent is of no interest to interrogators.

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    Is there a point where the government should prove that they are torturing a combatant, or are you fine just taking their word for it?
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    Once again, on whose word?
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.
    So, as long as the CIA says it, it must be true? Those WMDs in Iraq don't lend me confidence to their accuracy.




    Basically, you entirely avoided my question. Are you alright torturing possibly innocent people? Having a system where we capture foreigners and then torture them for information with no accountability or system to prove thier possible innocence?

    Yeah, this basically is what the problem is. Our legal system offers no way to create accountability for this situation, because our courts properly recognize all these interrogation methods as illegal. Incidentally, so do all relevant international authorities.

    So the only way this sort of a setup can work is if we admit that we're just going to trust that the people in charge are always going to do the right thing. Which works fine when the person we're trusting is the protagonist on a TV show, but less so in the real world.

    edit: note that torturing a confession out of someone also renders the evidence unusable in a military trial, which is why the Bush administration wanted to go with the whole contrived "tribunal" setup.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    How many innocents are you comfortable with torturing if it leads to finally torturing the right guy to save one American life?

    3? 5? 10? 50?
    I don't know. It's something that needs to be looked at over time with a program like this to make sure it was as tightly focused as possible. In any event, with the standards I'm suggesting, the chances of picking up an innocent goatherder are very low. We'd be looking for specific guys rather than just picking out random dudes out of our pool of detainees.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It also works if you think the victims are sub-human!

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I can live with it, because I know the numbers involved are going to be really low. There's only a small number of people who we have any real interest in interrogating, let alone using enhanced techniques on.
    Ok. Then we'll go with a sample of one to start with -- your mom.

    Is it still ok?

    Edit: and don't come back with "but she hasn't done anything"

    Because I'll just say, "how do we know?"

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Basically it sounds like you have absolute faith in the government. Why would you be opposed to them torturing americans? Here in Los Angeles alone there are countless sadistic murderous gangs of criminals that we could easily pick up and torture, and get them to rat out their fellow gang members, and undoubtedly save lives. We could have a short tribunal where witnesses were gathered to make sure that they were indeed a member, perhaps even ranking highly in that gang, and then we could torture him for information. Surely this could quickly put an end to our gang problems?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Basically it sounds like you have absolute faith in the government. Why would you be opposed to them torturing americans? Here in Los Angeles alone there are countless sadistic murderous gangs of criminals that we could easily pick up and torture, and get them to rat out their fellow gang members, and undoubtedly save lives. We could have a short tribunal where witnesses were gathered to make sure that they were indeed a member, perhaps even ranking highly in that gang, and then we could torture him for information. Surely this could quickly put an end to our gang problems?

    Which is hilarious if you've ever read his philosophy on regulation.

    It's mostly he has absolute faith in Republicans.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I like how "not an American citizen" is a requirement. 'Cause everyone outside the US is somehow different?

    The American people have been pacified with popular media. And we're all okay with that.

    *goes back to watching cable TV dramas from the Netflix queue*

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Can we torture that Van Der Sloot guy? He's an admitted murderer. There may be other women out there. Let's put the screws to him and see what he tells us. He's not even an American. Is that ok?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    1) It can work, since you can verify what the detainee says. If he tells you that "in location x, you'll find a bomb factory" and you do, then the interrogation is working. If it becomes apparent that the information he's giving you is false, then you'll eventually stop talking to that guy because he doesn't have anything to give you.

    If you hurt someone saying "I will continue to hurt you until you tell me things" then the person will probably tell you things, yes. The question is whether or not those things have any relation, at all, to reality.

    If by "torture works" you simply mean "torture will result in the person tortured making linguistic statements" then, ok, but that's not what most people mean by "works".

    If by "torture works" you mean "torture will necessarily result in the person tortured giving true statements pertaining to the information sought" then you are incorrect.


    What do you mean by "torture works"?

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Basically it sounds like you have absolute faith in the government. Why would you be opposed to them torturing americans? Here in Los Angeles alone there are countless sadistic murderous gangs of criminals that we could easily pick up and torture, and get them to rat out their fellow gang members, and undoubtedly save lives. We could have a short tribunal where witnesses were gathered to make sure that they were indeed a member, perhaps even ranking highly in that gang, and then we could torture him for information. Surely this could quickly put an end to our gang problems?


    Actually having an all power 1984 style government does put an end to gangs. Any kind of organized violence then becomes strictly something the government does

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Can we torture that Van Der Sloot guy? He's an admitted murderer. There may be other women out there. Let's put the screws to him and see what he tells us. He's not even an American. Is that ok?

    We even think he killed an American citizen!

    As previously mentioned, we send thousands of volts of electricity through all kinds of people for the most minor of things like... not obeying a police officer no matter what they request.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    By the way, if there aren't criminal trials, exactly what authority are we holding them forever under? They're obviously not POWs in your world view as then we couldn't torture them. So they're the special completely fabricated class of people that the government gets to disappear because the President said so?

  • ShivahnShivahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    They are Schrödinger's prisoners.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    We're not talking about bamboo under fingernails here. The techniques used are much more sophisticated and involve psychologically breaking down a detainee until he willingly starts giving you info. The people who do this type of thing are well-trained to know when a detainee is cooperating and when he's still resisting.

    Everyone breaks eventually under duress. Once they do, you're able to figure out whether they have useful intelligence, or whether they don't know anything helpful.
    I don't think you have much of an understanding of psychology. People under stressful circumstances aren't the reliability machines you think of them. People would say anything, not neccesarily the truth, to get the torture to stop.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I can live with it, because I know the numbers involved are going to be really low. There's only a small number of people who we have any real interest in interrogating, let alone using enhanced techniques on.
    Ok. Then we'll go with a sample of one to start with -- your mom.

    Is it still ok?

    Edit: and don't come back with "but she hasn't done anything"

    Because I'll just say, "how do we know?"

    Well, if my mom met the following criteria:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    I'd be in favor if waterboarding her. She doesn't meet any of these three requirements. Unless she has a secret life no one knows about.

    But, I doubt there are many 60 year-old grandmothers from Florida on any terrorist list.

    NotYou wrote: »
    Basically it sounds like you have absolute faith in the government. Why would you be opposed to them torturing americans? Here in Los Angeles alone there are countless sadistic murderous gangs of criminals that we could easily pick up and torture, and get them to rat out their fellow gang members, and undoubtedly save lives. We could have a short tribunal where witnesses were gathered to make sure that they were indeed a member, perhaps even ranking highly in that gang, and then we could torture him for information. Surely this could quickly put an end to our gang problems?
    Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    "Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already."

    Well, duh!

    But we adjusted the laws to allow for advanced interrogations, so I'm asking if you'd like to adjust the laws to allow it for Americans as well. The Americans who rape women, and murder children. Not the innocent ones of course.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already.
    So, you'd torture a non-american terrorist with the ticking bomb but not an american terrorist with the ticking bomb? Why? What makes the american so special?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.

    Thanks for the sig.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
Sign In or Register to comment.