Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[Woobie]

WTF? Pointing guns at each other? That's ****ing crazy **** right there.

Yeah, I don't let my kids joke like that, and I'm not going to go down that road either.

 

[Alpo]

WTF? Pointing guns at each other? That's ****ing crazy **** right there.

I think it was a movie. Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington.

The Siege.


....and now that I think about it, it's a pretty good case study, Hollywood or no.

 

[foszoe]

Doesn't that imply a sort of false equivalence though? When there are wide variances of what you might want to classify as "torture", it seems there's room for different terms. Certainly amputating body parts is torture. Subjecting people to Britney Spears music 24/7, as horrible as it is, isn't in the same class as losing body parts. Things that cause physical harm; cutting, bruising, beating, amputations, and whatnot, there's no better word to use than torture.

It's my understanding that the so called "enhanced interrogations" aren't in the same class. Interrogators aren't drilling into their heads. Not lopping off toes. I'd like to see a way to differentiate that. Calling it enhanced interrogations sounds milder than torture, and appropriately so.

I'm late to the game here, but we continually deal with the consequences of mental illness or breakdowns so I wouldn’t separate the 2.

 

[actaeon277]

You guys are stuck in a loop.

Anything new, or are we just going to rehash for the next 20 pages?

 

[ATM]

Yeah, I don't let my kids joke like that, and I'm not going to go down that road either.

Not a joke, a scenario involving you and me. It's different when government agents are the rough men standing ready to do violence on your behalf.

Which of us would be justified? You or me?

Pick an easier topic if this one tangles you up.

 

[jamil]

I'm late to the game here, but we continually deal with the consequences of mental illness or breakdowns so I wouldn’t separate the 2.

I think there's a difference. Let's say we can agree on what interrogation techniques are okay and what are not okay. Okay techniques are on the can-do list. We'll call everything else torture. Maybe the can-do list is pretty sparse, and it only includes dietary manipulation. Annoying music. Stuff like that. What do you call those? Is it appropriate to call those torture? Or is it okay to call them something else. Maybe torture-lite. But there is a category that does not belong with barbaric treatment like breaking bones.

 

[ATM]

You guys are stuck in a loop.

Anything new, or are we just going to rehash for the next 20 pages?

Everything's subjective and avoidable until you make a simple scenario and pose a decision which needs explained.

 

[jamil]

You guys are stuck in a loop.

Anything new, or are we just going to rehash for the next 20 pages?

It seems Woobie and ATM are past the "you didn't answer my question/no you didn't answer mine" stage. We're on to pointing guns. So that kinda got exciting.

 

[jamil]

Everything's subjective and avoidable until you make a simple scenario and pose a decision which needs explained.

Okay. I'll play. I got some time to kill.

So why are you pointing a gun at me?

 

[ATM]

Okay. I'll play. I got some time to kill.

So why are you pointing a gun at me?

I'm stopping a threat, you, violating someone for information. It escalates because we both think we're justified, I suppose.

You end up shooting me in self defense or standing down and stopping your attack.

Just a scenario, but who is justified in their actions?

 

[Woobie]

Not a joke, a scenario involving you and me. It's different when government agents are the rough men standing ready to do violence on your behalf.

Which of us would be justified? You or me?

Pick an easier topic if this one tangles you up.

I'll play your game on one condition. Since you said you would torture someone to save a member of your family, then submit to the consequences of your actions, then you must explain to me what gives those imposing the consequences their authority, and by what standards those people will judge you.

 

[actaeon277]

You're stopping a threat.

the same argument is made about torture.


Pick again.

 

[Tombs]

I think there's a difference. Let's say we can agree on what interrogation techniques are okay and what are not okay. Okay techniques are on the can-do list. We'll call everything else torture. Maybe the can-do list is pretty sparse, and it only includes dietary manipulation. Annoying music. Stuff like that. What do you call those? Is it appropriate to call those torture? Or is it okay to call them something else. Maybe torture-lite. But there is a category that does not belong with barbaric treatment like breaking bones.

We break the bones of our soldiers in training.

I don't see the harm in interrogating with an equal level of violence as we use on our own troops when dealing with FOREIGN THREATS ON FOREIGN SOIL.

 

[Woobie]

We break the bones of our soldiers in training.

I don't see the harm in interrogating with an equal level of violence as we use on our own troops when dealing with FOREIGN THREATS ON FOREIGN SOIL.

Hush, you! We haven't gotten to that part yet.

ETA: I just realized that could be read as a serious remark. I didn't mean it. But I was kinda holding that one back for when some intellectual honesty showed up amongst either the current opposition, or in the form of someone else.

 

[jamil]

I'm stopping a threat, you, violating someone for information. It escalates because we both think we're justified, I suppose.

You end up shooting me in self defense or standing down and stopping your attack.

Just a scenario, but who is justified in their actions?

Ah. A scenario. Okay. So, since you think it's up to you to stop me, I assume we're living in the province of Anarchtopia. Okay. So how am I a threat to you? If I'm interrogating someone, it's because they've initiated force against me or my family or someone I care about. So if you're all about stopping threats, how about helping me out here. This mother****er says he's gonna blow up my house. I want to know when. But he wont' tell me. So I dug up my old 8-track, found an tape of some 80s music, and put some headphones on him. He was about to talk when you came up here pointing your gun at me. Now put that thing down before you break the 4 rules.

I dunno man. Maybe this anarcho-capitalist **** ain't workin'. We got people running around threatening people. Saying they're gonna blow **** up. It just seems like there's no justice. Maybe Anarchtopia needs to have some kind of...oh, I dunno. Maybe some kind of justice system.

 

[jamil]

***dammit. My son was peeking over my shoulder and saw the 80s music reference. So he played Pop Muzik by M just to **** me off. *******.

 

[ATM]

I'll play your game on one condition. Since you said you would torture someone to save a member of your family, then submit to the consequences of your actions, then you must explain to me what gives those imposing the consequences their authority, and by what standards those people will judge you.

I didn't say I would torture anyone, but would submit to the consequences of any acts. All authority comes from God.

 

[ATM]

You're stopping a threat.

the same argument is made about torture.


Pick again.

If you are able to torture the person, they don't seem like they are much of a threat. They are in custody, right?

 

[ATM]

We break the bones of our soldiers in training.

I don't see the harm in interrogating with an equal level of violence as we use on our own troops when dealing with FOREIGN THREATS ON FOREIGN SOIL.

So as long as you label them foreign threats, or terrorists, or extremists, or whatever ...and you take them outside of the U.S. to torture them, it's justified?

 

[jamil]

If you are able to torture the person, they don't seem like they are much of a threat. They are in custody, right?

He hid a bomb. It's a big house.