Your "question" is merely an attempt to avoid answering the question put to you. Your "question" creates a strawman which I detailed in previous posts, both here and in the other thread. So, what is it basso? Yea or nay on torture?
It really is amazing that we find ourselves in a place in history where hard core supporters of the President of the United States don't know whether they are for or against torture. What about skinning people alive if we suspect they might possibly have useful information, basso? For or against? Rape? Raping their wives while they're forced to watch? Murdering their children? Eating their eyeballs? All tough questions for you, I'm sure. I mean, you certainly wouldn't want to appear weak in the big, scary ad campaign called the "WOT." I'll go ahead and assume you're for all those things until you correct the record by explaining your position on terror. (It's just a yes or no question - why so scared?) KingCheetah: The answer is I don't care. But this cowardly twerp likes to talk tough so much on this board that when I saw him dodging rimrocker's easy as hell question to him again and again I thought it would be fun to ask him in a dedicated thread and let him go on record not as being for or against (f*cking) TORTURE but as actually refusing to answer or even acknowledge the question. I don't care what the answer is. I fully expect that if he had the guts to state his position he would do it in a typically appalling way. I'm just having a good time pointing out his hypocrisy and his cowardice.
Batman Jones, I'd say you support torture. You're doing it to yourself in this thread. Who cares whether basso does or not? I don't gather from his responses that he does. I don't. Okay, I'm sure you don't... but goodness, making a thread specifically to call out someone on whether or not they endorse torture? That is torturous in and of itself... in a BBS sort of way. Really, why do you care so much as to his "official stance" on torture? What if he's someone that does as the people depicted in the movie Hostel? Maybe he's got other reasons to not answer you. Maybe he's hoping you get worked up enough to get the heave. Is it that worth it? You have thrown out a lot of belittling remarks throughout the thread... I've never hardly ever agreed with any of your non-angry remarks, but you have a right to voice political opinions... This however is some sort of personal vendetta that borders on cyber stalking and makes little to no sense as to the importance or imperative you're placing on it. What gives? So what? Plenty to discuss among the Democratic POTUS candidates is there not? Why get so preoccupied and detained by this? Keep the D&D Civil indeed! Good grief. BTW-This is all rhetorical... no reply to me needed. I'm not trying to pick any fights, just asking for a introspective "why?" is all.
I explained it above, IROC_IT. I'm not "detained" as I don't expect him to answer and I don't care at all frankly what basso's position on torture is. As I said above, I'm sure it's appalling like his positions on everything else. I'm certainly not 'tortured' by not knowing his position. He was asked a simple question by rimrocker and, for whatever weird reason, he chose to dodge it repeatedly -- a question, by the way, on whether or not it was okay for the government to sanction TORTURE. (What's next? Refusing to say whether or not he supports Nazis?) I started the thread for fun. And, to the degree that any D&D thread is fun, it has worked. No offense, but it sounds like you're more worked up than I am. I never expected basso to answer. He's a career coward on this board and he always goes poof when challenged. Sorry, but I never get tired of watching it happen. If you do, move along to the next thread.
That isn't the topic here. It wasn't the topic when you tried to use that to derail the other thread. I gave a shallow answer before. If you want to start a thread about it, then let's discuss it. For right now don't derail the topic.
Have you stopped beating your wife? YES or NO... It's an old joke, I know but this situation reminds me of it. I'd rather just ask for and get the information but there often seems to be a lack of cooperation from the enemy. I'm puzzled by the notion that torture allegedly doesn't work. Why not? Does it steel resolve? Come at me with a red hot poker or a bland prison meal and I'm more likely to spill the beans due to the poker. Can someone explain the notion that torture doesn't work? Is it one of those things where the gain is offset by the loss created or something?
Well, aside from the fact that it severely erodes the moral high ground Americans like to claim..... If you think I know something and I actually don't, and you're coming at me with a red hot poker, I'm pretty sure I'd make up something to tell you. And I'm betting that if you're a part of this administration, you'll let me know exactly what you want to hear, and I'll probably say it to avoid further torture. So what info did you gain in that case?
I wouldn't exactly call it gullible.. oh wait, I didn't. I said they'd be getting the information they want to hear. Which people in this regime seem to have a history of doing. The problem is, when you do this, the information often turns out to be faulty. Which this regime also has some experience with.
Here's what you wrote that I was responding to: "If you think I know something and I actually don't, and you're coming at me with a red hot poker, I'm pretty sure I'd make up something to tell you. And I'm betting that if you're a part of this administration, you'll let me know exactly what you want to hear, and I'll probably say it to avoid further torture. So what info did you gain in that case?" You seem to imply there that we (this administration in particular) just believe whatever is told them. The ones doing the torturing are not part of any administration. They are the ones responsible for intel gathering and they work for whatever administration is in office. Certainly there have been instances where the wool was pulled over our eyes but likewise there must have been instances where valuable intel was acquired and otherwise nothing was gained. I have to chuckle: the scene you created here is right out of 24...
I don't watch 24, so i'm not sure, but I guess, by "scene", you mean the interrogator coming at me with a red hot poker? I was actually responding to a "scene" you created: Again, I'm not saying they believe whatever is told to them. They're hearing what they want to hear. There's a difference. As for the people gathering intel, I just don't believe that they (or their superiors) are independent of the administration. No orders are being given here? No one says "find out where the WMDs are", as opposed to "find out if there are any WMDs"? Nobody fears retribution if their findings don't jibe with what people in power want to hear? Nobody wants to get ahead by getting the info that the people in power want? But I thought torture was illegal? And that "We don't torture"? Are you saying we have? That we do? And you can't say that if you got good information from torture, you wouldn't have gotten it by other means. I just think that when you use coercion (esp. torture) you run a great risk of tainting the information you get by applying pressure for the person being interrogated to come up with something, anything to make the torture stop. And if you come in with an agenda, the risk is even greater.
To follow up on Jebus' point the problem with torturing someone for info is that they will say whatever they think will make the torture stop. That in many cases might not be the most accurate information especially if the interrogator is throwing leading questions to the one being tortured. So for instance if you capture somebody who you think is a terrorist but actually isn't and you torture them into giving you the location of their cell they probably will give you the location of a cell but it will be fictitious as they are only saying what they think they will need to stop the torture. You end up wasting your time and resources pursuing false info. As I noted even the Japanese Imperial Army considered torture a poor way of collecting information and they were not shy about torturing people. They considered torture a means of instilling compliance among prisoners rather than gathering information.
I suppose, if nothing else, this thread reveals the complete breakdown in political discourse between different factions... Not sure we needed another illustration, but... Have to say I don't understand basso's question in the slightest. Does he want democratic congressional members to gear up, rambo-style, and fly in secret B2's only to parachute into foreign lands and kill totalitarians? He did say it would be okay if they rolled large rocks onto totalitarians... But seriously, I just don't get the question at all. What are legislators (or state governors, or school council board members, or liberal-minded dogcatchers) supposed to do, if they are not in the top executive branch of the government?
No, I meant the part where you have the interrogator being satisfied upon hearing what he was looking for. The info is ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD UNLESS IT IS ACCURATE I would think that we have. Deathbed confessions are slow in coming. Sometimes time is of the essence. We are not going to let the enemy know what we have learned about their plans so we are faced with a big void here. Is there any proof to this accusation of coming in with an agenda or is that just your notion?
I have to protest the characterization of our military as Keystone Cops... Sixty years have passed since the Japanese Imperial Army ruled the roost. Lots has been learned and lots of new "products" are around.
so what's the alternative? Not being satisfied when they hear what they're looking for? Or being satisfied when they hear what they're not looking for? Or maybe being satisfied when they don't hear what they're not looking for? That's the crux of this discussion. If you can't imagine that torture makes people more likely to say just about anything, I guess we can't really have a discussion about it. I appreciate that you REALLY believe that the information MUST BE ACCURATE since you capitalized it and everything (and I couldn't agree more - the information should be accurate), but how are they supposed to know if the information is or is not accurate? Using valuable time and lives checking it out, that's how. Rocketsjudoka makes this point better than I did. I see you answered him with a creepy, vague intimation that "better" torture = better information. It wasn't that convincing to me. What exactly are "we" trying to say here? And now who's creating 24esque scenarios? Time is of the essence! The terrorists will win if we don't waterboard this guy into telling us where the bomb is! DAMMIT MAN! WE'RE OUT OF TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23:59:58, 23:59:59..... Also I think that maybe the intimation that there are only two types of confessions: deathbed confessions and torture induced confessions is a bit disingenuous. well, I can't say anything about specific instances of going in to torture someone with an agenda of what info they want to hear, since we don't torture. But I think there's been plenty of discussion re: this administration and the gathering and analyzing of intel with a specific agenda in mind. I'm sure you don't think that happened, I respectfully disagree.
This thread has completely departed from reality or anything even remotely grounded in it. You may as well be debating whether or not it was right for the Elites to glass the surrounding areas of Voi near the Ark to prevent a Flood contamination event, regardless ot any survivors. At least that is something that happened.
Look, if they hadn't glassed the area around Voi, they would have had to glass the whole planet. The Flood must be stopped, at all costs. Just ask Johnson and Keyes.
I can't Spoiler for obvious reasons . What really needs discussion is the ethics of the Spartan II program to begin with (or, if we are talking parallel universes here, the Universal Soldier program, featuring Van Damme and Lundgren) and the constituitionality of having Admiral Lord Hood the de facto dictator. He's a Musharaff without the accent.
