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

[Woobie]

God

Oh yes, ultimately. But there will be others.

 

[Woobie]

I respect you, but not your position. Any problem with that? Shall we continue? Drop it if you like.

"Blah, blah" is disrespectful to the person, not the argument.

 

[ATM]

That is a big mistake. His act of aggression is playing out. In fact, the bomb still ticks. If anything, he has yet to complete his attack. He is the person drawing the gun.

The bomb may quit ticking and nothing explodes. The charge would not be bombing or murder, would it?

Would you feel as justified in torturing him until the timer stopped and everyone realized it was a fraud?

 

[Woobie]

The bomb may quit ticking and nothing explodes. The charge would not be bombing or murder, would it?

Would you feel as justified in torturing him until the timer stopped and everyone realized it was a fraud?

So he says he is going to bomb you, and has shown opportunity, resources and capability to do so, and we're going to hold out to see if it goes bang before we attempt to rescue the kid. Cool.

 

[ATM]

"Blah, blah" is disrespectful to the person, not the argument.

You were just calling me intellectually dishonest. I read it, but honestly considered it blah blah.

It didn't bother me, why did it bother you?

 

[ATM]

So he says he is going to bomb you, and has shown opportunity, resources and capability to do so, and we're going to hold out to see if it goes bang before we attempt to rescue the kid. Cool.

Rescue the kid if you can, of course, but don't go lawless and start torturing people.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

OK, since they are now captives do you believe that there has to be some sort of judicial or quasi-judicial oversight?

I'm only on post #66 in this thread so someone may have already responded to this, but: these folks are not part of a lawful combatant force and so are unlawful combatants by the Laws of War. They can be legally subject to a field court-martial and executed on the spot, if captured in the act (although in practice, we don't do this). They are already getting more breaks than they strictly deserve by being taken prisoner instead of killed on the spot.

I managed to avoid the "resistance" portion of the two "local" SERE courses I attended while on Active Duty, but I read the course syllabus and descriptions of what soldiers and airmen went through in the Air Force and SOCOM SERE interrogations. Those techniques weren't anything like what was inflicted on American POWs in Korea and Vietnam. If they were good enough to use to show our troops a taste of what they could expect as POWs, I don't personally have a problem with using them on terrorists, especially when information is time-critical.

 

[jamil]

Charge him with bombing the house or murdering the kid if that's what happens as a result of his actions. If you torture him, you'll have your own consequences to face because that's also wrong. Might be worth those consequences, but still wrong.

I'm kinda partial to the kid. I'd like to keep him around.

Seriously, this whole scenario you have going is nonsense and of course I'm having some fun with that.

I understand the point you're trying to make. I just disagree that it's a valid point.

 

[Woobie]

Rescue the kid if you can, of course, but don't go lawless and start torturing people.

But what if it were lawful? What if I had my own lawyers determine the legality of my methods, and got written permission with the justice department? What if I had an agreement within the HOA to not torture my neighbors if we got in a fight, but this guy wasn't a part of the HOA. He's from another neighborhood. So given all that I would follow very strict guidelines. Still consider it lawless?

 

[ATM]

I'm kinda partial to the kid. I'd like to keep him around.

Seriously, this whole scenario you have going is nonsense and of course I'm having some fun with that.

I understand the point you're trying to make. I just disagree that it's a valid point.

Then shoot me before I shoot you, because I won't allow you to torture anyone without consequences.

It's a valid hollowpoint.

 

[ATM]

But what if it were lawful? What if I had my own lawyers determine the legality of my methods, and got written permission with the justice department? What if I had an agreement within the HOA to not torture my neighbors if we got in a fight, but this guy wasn't a part of the HOA. He's from another neighborhood. So given all that I would follow very strict guidelines. Still consider it lawless?

If it violates natural law, it hardly matters who passed a bill to make it legal.

 

[jamil]

I made no attempt to compare the two wrongs. Do you now admit that they are both wrong and both deserving of consequences?

No. You don't get to determine what I think is moral. If the dude don't want information extracted from him, he probably shouldn't have aggressed us such that he made that information necessary to extract. By you intervening, you're exacerbating the problem.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm only on post #66 in this thread so someone may have already responded to this, but: these folks are not part of a lawful combatant force and so are unlawful combatants by the Laws of War. They can be legally subject to a field court-martial and executed on the spot, if captured in the act (although in practice, we don't do this). They are already getting more breaks than they strictly deserve by being taken prisoner instead of killed on the spot.

I managed to avoid the "resistance" portion of the two "local" SERE courses I attended while on Active Duty, but I read the course syllabus and descriptions of what soldiers and airmen went through in the Air Force and SOCOM SERE interrogations. Those techniques weren't anything like what was inflicted on American POWs in Korea and Vietnam. If they were good enough to use to show our troops a taste of what they could expect as POWs, I don't personally have a problem with using them on terrorists, especially when information is time-critical.

exactly brother!
you and I know each other and you know what I did in the military and I you. I went through SERE more than once and I wouldn't hesitate to use any of those techniques or worse on our current enemies. Nothing is personal with US professionals just necessary.

 

[Woobie]

You were just calling me intellectually dishonest. I read it, but honestly considered it blah blah.

It didn't bother me, why did it bother you?

I made a statement based upon your noncommital statement while purporting to be principled. You spoke to me as a Jr. High kid would another. I've long since left such childishness behind, and I ask the same of those who speak with me.

 

[ATM]

No. You don't get to determine what I think is moral. If the dude don't want information extracted from him, he probably shouldn't have aggressed us such that he made that information necessary to extract. By you intervening, you're exacerbating the problem.

But, would you be justified defending yourself from me or would you stand down? This should be an easy question, right?

I mean, it's just a hypothetical scenario, go ahead and shoot me anyway...

 

[jamil]

Then shoot me before I shoot you, because I won't allow you to torture anyone without consequences.

It's a valid hollowpoint.

What will your consequences be for murder?

 

[ATM]

exactly brother!
you and I know each other and you know what I did in the military and I you. I went through SERE more than once and I wouldn't hesitate to use any of those techniques or worse on our current enemies. Nothing is personal with US professionals just necessary.

Did you volunteer? Did you waive your right and allow this to be done to you? Your instructors needed no further justification.

 

[Woobie]

If it violates natural law, it hardly matters who passed a bill to make it legal.

I think you know your refusal to be forthright earlier is the only reason you escaped being in the position of answering to earthly authorities on such matters.

But here's some natural law, since we're making it up on the fly: protect the innocent from the aggressor. If he's not alone, he's not done being the aggressor. If he hasn't put a stop to his machinations, he's still the aggressor.

 

[ATM]

What will your consequences be for murder?

Shouldn't be any, as that's not murder. I defended your victim and stopped a threat.

You should have stopped.

 

[Woobie]

Did you volunteer? Did you waive your right and allow this to be done to you? Your instructors needed no further justification.

Which is a great argument. Because the terrorists have been coerced into building bombs and killing other people. It would be different if they had volunteered to be terrorists. Then the things that happened to them would be natural consequences of their own choices.

Please.